My Goosenecks challenge.

[Subduction Zone]

Could this reply be considered a composition/division fallacy?

You assumed that one part of something has to be applied to all, or other, parts of it; or that the whole must apply to its parts?

No.

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

No.

How so?

You implied that because cheetahs were near extinct and can accept grafts universally than this must apply to humans.

Can u tell me why you have not commited a fallacy?

Cheers

 

[Subduction Zone]

How so?

You implied that because cheetahs were near extinct and can accept grafts universally than this must apply to humans.

Can u tell me why you have not commited a fallacy?

Cheers

There was no fallacy. You misapplied it. You also demonstrated your ignorance. Instead of jumping to a false conclusion you should have asked questions when you did not understand.

Try again.

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

There was no fallacy. You misapplied it. You also demonstrated your ignorance. Instead of jumping to a false conclusion you should have asked questions when you did not understand.

Try again.

I need to be corrected then.

Show me how you did not commit the fallacy?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I need to be corrected then.

Show me how you did not commit the fallacy?

First off it was gibberish. That alone is good enough. Second what happened to the cheetah is called a population bottleneck. If a population goes extinct its genetic diversity will be greatly reduced. Human's have had their own population bottleneck, but even then the population was over a thousand people. That occurred over 50,000 years ago. But that is nowhere near what happened to the cheetah:

How Human Beings Almost Vanished From Earth In 70,000 B.C.

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

First off it was gibberish. That alone is good enough. Second what happened to the cheetah is called a population bottleneck. If a population goes extinct its genetic diversity will be greatly reduced. Human's have had their own population bottleneck, but even then the population was over a thousand people. That occurred over 50,000 years ago. But that is nowhere near what happened to the cheetah:

How Human Beings Almost Vanished From Earth In 70,000 B.C.

Cheers.

First off it was gibberish
.

Yet you seemed to understand what i said and are still here.

Please dont insinuate that im dumb. I dont know you so i will hold my opinions of you to myself.

Robert wulwich is no authority to me. Are bottleneck populations in relation to humans proven or theory?

How do scientists today know that 50 000 ago there may have been only 1000 ppl on earth?

 

[AV1611VET]

I need to be corrected then.

The argument goes like this:

Cheetah's DNA is so close to each other, that you can graft their skin and switch their organs around without any danger of their bodies rejecting it.

The flip side of the coin is humans, whose DNA is so unique that no two humans have the same DNA; but because of this, organ transplants run the risk of rejection, since the DNA of the new organ doesn't match the DNA of the person receiving it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Cheers.



Yet you seemed to understand what i said and are still here.

Please dont insinuate that im dumb. I dont know you so i will hold my opinions of you to myself.

Robert wulwich is no authority to me. Are bottleneck populations in relation to humans proven or theory?

How do scientists today know that 50 000 ago there may have been only 1000 ppl on earth?

Why don't you ever do any research yourself? But it is easy to explain. Rates of genetic change can be and has been measured. The diversity of the human genome has been measured. There are other factors as well, but one can tell how long it takes to add diversity to the genome. For example we are less genetically diverse than chimps, though not anywhere near as non-diverse as cheetahs. That was due to events where our population dropped, but again, not anywhere close to cheetah levels.

 

[pat34lee]

Question to the OP.

What raised the water up to the top of the Grand Canyon at the origin? That will answer the OP.
Could be a great post-flood lake, or post-ice age glacier melting.

 

[pat34lee]

Why don't you ever do any research yourself? But it is easy to explain. Rates of genetic change can be and has been measured. The diversity of the human genome has been measured.

Problem: the rates of mutations are at least twice as fast as those they used to determine how long ago humans split from the nearest ancestor. Like every other supposed change, there was never enough time, and time is irrelevant in any case, because evolution is a downward path to extinction, not a creative one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Question to the OP.

What raised the water up to the top of the Grand Canyon at the origin? That will answer the OP.
Could be a great post-flood lake, or post-ice age glacier melting.

The water was not "raised up". The land was at a different elevation. Have you not heard of geological uplift?

Tectonic uplift - Wikipedia

By the way, why did you ask about the Grand Canyon?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Problem: the rates of mutations are at least twice as fast as those they used to determine how long ago humans split from the nearest ancestor. Like every other supposed change, there was never enough time, and time is irrelevant in any case, because evolution is a downward path to extinction, not a creative one.

Do you have a valid source for this claim?

 

[Queller]

Question to the OP.

What raised the water up to the top of the Grand Canyon at the origin?

You're presuming the Grand Canyon existed "at the beginning". Why do you presume that?

 

[pat34lee]

You're presuming the Grand Canyon existed "at the beginning". Why do you presume that?

Origin, not beginning. Where is the river as high as the top level of the canyon it supposedly cut out?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Origin, not beginning. Where is the river as high as the top level of the canyon it supposedly cut out?

Once again, why are you asking about the Grand Canyon? If you are referring to the fact that the top of the Grand Canyon is higher than the river's source you ignored the answer I gave you.

 

[pat34lee]

Once again, why are you asking about the Grand Canyon? If you are referring to the fact that the top of the Grand Canyon is higher than the river's source you ignored the answer I gave you.

Mostly, a misreading of the first few posts.
Second post got my mind stuck on the GC.

As for uplift: any proof it happened there?
Did it lower again after the canyon formed?

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

That was due to events where our population dropped, but again, not anywhere close to cheetah levels.

This diversity in human genes suggests there may be no bottle neck.

Toba catastrophe theory is the only major bottleneck i have encountered so far.

However, subsequent research, especially in the 2010s, appeared to refute both the climate argument and the genetic argument. Recent research shows the extent of climate change was much smaller than believed by proponents of the theory.[11] In addition,coalescence times for Y-chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA have been revised to well above 100,000 years since 2011.

Finally, such coalescence would not, in itself, indicate a population bottleneck, because mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome DNA are only a small part of the entire genome, and are atypical in that they are inherited exclusively through the mother or through the father, respectively.


What u think?

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

The argument goes like this:

Cheetah's DNA is so close to each other, that you can graft their skin and switch their organs around without any danger of their bodies rejecting it.

The flip side of the coin is humans, whose DNA is so unique that no two humans have the same DNA; but because of this, organ transplants run the risk of rejection, since the DNA of the new organ doesn't match the DNA of the person receiving it.

Thanks for reply and God bless you richly

 

[Queller]

Origin, not beginning. Where is the river as high as the top level of the canyon it supposedly cut out?

It's running along the bottom of the canyon right now.

 

[Queller]

This diversity in human genes suggests there may be no bottle neck.

Which is exactly the problem. If the human population had been reduced to eight people 4,000 years ago, the genetic bottleneck would be glaringly obvious.