The Seahorse Connection

[Ricardo Rademacher]

INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF THAT HUMANS EVOLVED FROM SEAHORSES

A 60-slide, 40-minute video:

A 60-page PDF of the slides:
https://1drv.ms/b/s!ApL4eAFes69nvAcvf3x6yoFSpsvR

 

[Jimmy D]

A 60-slide, 40-minute video:

A 60-page PDF of the slides:
https://1drv.ms/b/s!ApL4eAFes69nvAcvf3x6yoFSpsvR

You might get more responses if you sum up whatever you're saying in your own words or with a few bullet points.

 

[Ricardo Rademacher]

Humans came from seahorses and I present incontrovertable evidence for this at the end of the video

 

[Larniavc]

Humans came from seahorses and I present incontrovertable evidence for this at the end of the video

Modern sea horses or an ancestoral sea horse?

 

[Ricardo Rademacher]

Thanks; I've added a single line that should sum up the content of the video

Humans came from seahorses and I present incontrovertable evidence for this at the end of the video

 

[Ricardo Rademacher]

Modern sea horses or an ancestoral sea horse?

Hard to say without direct genetic comparison what with the hippocampus genome just being sequenced in the last few years.... but the fact that the seahorse has a karyotype of 48 just like humans is very telling.

 

[Papias]

Erm, You really need to get a basic education in biology before proposing overarching explanations like this. This video and supporting work obviously took a lot of time - time that you could have spent in a basic biology class at a community college, where you would have learned many basic facts that make your seahorse idea not work. As it is now, that time has been wasted - along with the time of the other people reading this thread, including my time in writing this post.

You are clearly smart and organized enough to understand biology, because you made a well put together video. Your talents could be put to actual use - you'll benefit too.

direct genetic comparison what with the hippocampus genome....

Here are examples where you lack a basic understanding of the words you use. Even me - who has no background in biology - I know enough biology for these statements to make me want to stick a pencil in my eye.

For instance - the hippocampus doesn't have a separate genome. Your sentence makes no sense, just like "I drove the car 100 pounds because wombat yellow the jump happiness like potato. "

but the fact that the seahorse has a karyotype of 48 just like humans is very telling.

And this sentence is just as nonsensical. A karyotype is a picture. You mean the chromosome count. And even then you are wrong, since a human has 46 chromosomes (23 pairs), not 48. This is about as basic as one could get.

Look, just go to school. There are dozens of people there who actually know this stuff, and would love to help you learn it.

Have a good day-

Papias

 

[Ricardo Rademacher]

Your quote:
""Even me - who has no background in biology ""

This is like a person who's never played football telling a football player they are doing it wrong.

Your quote:
"And this sentence is just as nonsensical. A karyotype is a picture. You mean the chromosome count"

Wikipedia's quote
"A karyotype (from Greek κάρυον karyon, "kernel", "seed", or "nucleus", and τύπος typos, "general form") is the number and appearance of chromosomes in the nucleus of aeukaryotic cell. The term is also used for the complete set of chromosomes in a species, or an individual organism.[1][2][3]"

 

[Papias]

Your quote:
""Even me - who has no background in biology ""

This is like a person who's never played football telling a football player they are doing it wrong.

No, it's like a person who's watched some football telling a 4 year old some of the basic ideas of football.

Your quote:
"And this sentence is just as nonsensical. A karyotype is a picture. You mean the chromosome count"

Wikipedia's quote
"A karyotype (from Greek κάρυον karyon, "kernel", "seed", or "nucleus", and τύπος typos, "general form") is the number and appearance of chromosomes in the nucleus of aeukaryotic cell. The term is also used for the complete set of chromosomes in a species, or an individual organism.[1][2][3]"

The wiki quote is correct. It's a picture (the appearance) of the chromosomes. Yes, you can get the chromosome count from looking at a karyotype, but the phrase "a karyotype of 48" still is simply nonsensical. You mean chromosome count.

Or just fix your sentence to say: "the seahorse has a karyotype showing a chromosome count of 48 just like a human karyotype shows is very telling.

More to the point - your lack of a basic understanding is painfully obvious. You agree with me now, right, such as about the hippocampus genome and the 48 vs. 46? You could do well in this or other fields by starting by getting a relevant degree.

Working for days to produce a bunch of nonsense, then posting it on an internet chat board, will get you nowhere and just waste your time. Fighting back when someone is kind enough to try to point you in a direction with a brighter future is just biting the hand that feeds you.

In fact, this looked Poeish from the start. I'm not sure it's worth any more of my time.

-Papias

 

[Ricardo Rademacher]

" I'm not sure it's worth any more of my time."

It's not.
Good-day, God-Bless, and I Love You.

 

[sfs]

Major revisions to the phylogenetic tree are not published on YouTube.

 

[Ricardo Rademacher]

"Major revisions to the phylogenetic tree are not published on YouTube."

Why not?
If it's major revision, why shouldn't it be free to the public instead of enslaved by academic journal paywalls?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

"Major revisions to the phylogenetic tree are not published on YouTube."

Why not?
If it's major revision, why shouldn't it be free to the public instead of enslaved by academic journal paywalls?

Because what if you're wrong? If you show it to everyone, then someone comes along and shows you that you are in fact wrong, then you'll look silly without any hope of salvaging any form of respect if you go back and revise it.
But if you give it up for scientific analysis via peer review and academic journals, then if you're shown to be wrong, then you'll be able to revise it without any seriously negative backlash.

Although your use of the term 'enslaved' really seems off to me, but I can't place why.

 

[Dave-W]

""Even me - who has no background in biology ""
This is like a person who's never played football telling a football player they are doing it wrong.

Anyone can see if a football player tries to dribble the ball that he is playing the wrong game ...

Ya don't need to be in the NFL to see that one.

 

[Ricardo Rademacher]

I don't matter but the information I carry does.

I'm an ethically ammoral agnostic: I don't base my identity or decisions on issues of right or wrong, good or bad, or whether there is or isn't a god; I solely base my identity around issues of ethical consistency or inconsistency. Hence, I welcome, I encourage, I want someone to show me that some or all of these arguments are inconsistent because then I can achieve better consistency within my theory and my life.


"Although your use of the term 'enslaved' really seems off to me, but I can't place why."

Because I don't have access to the paid journals and thus my research, as well as those of others not affiliated with universities, is constantly stymied by the presence of paywalls... even articles that would have normally gone into public domain!!!! They enslave knowledge... that's how I meant that.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't matter but the information I carry does.

I'm an ethically ammoral agnostic: I don't base my identity or decisions on issues of right or wrong, good or bad, or whether there is or isn't a god; I solely base my identity around issues of ethical consistency or inconsistency. Hence, I welcome, I encourage, I want someone to show me that some or all of these arguments are inconsistent because then I can achieve better consistency within my theory and my life.


"Although your use of the term 'enslaved' really seems off to me, but I can't place why."

Because I don't have access to the paid journals and thus my research, as well as those of others not affiliated with universities, is constantly stymied by the presence of paywalls... even articles that would have normally gone into public domain!!!! They enslave knowledge... that's how I meant that.

Mate, you're new, so word of advice: the quote function and replies are your friends.

And your claim of scientific journals being enslaved, just because you have to pay for them? That's just ridiculous. By that logic, if food enslaved because you have to pay for it? Are bus drivers enslaved because you have to pay for their services? Nonsense.

 

[Ricardo Rademacher]

"Anyone can see if a football player tries to dribble the ball that he is playing the wrong game ...

Ya don't need to be in the NFL to see that one."

You'd need to know what football AND basketball are to make that distinction though....

 

[Ricardo Rademacher]

Mate, you're new, so word of advice: the quote function and replies are your friends.

And your claim of scientific journals being enslaved, just because you have to pay for them? That's just ridiculous. By that logic, if food enslaved because you have to pay for it? Are bus drivers enslaved because you have to pay for their services? Nonsense.

Thanks for the tip.

Consider that in all the examples you mentioned, the money goes to the person who provided the service.
If it where the same here, where I'm paying the AUTHOR(S) of the work instead of the PUBLISHER or IP HOLDER, then I would have no issue.

But paying 30 USD (30 dollars!!!!) to see "if" a single paper is even relevant to my research and NONE of that money goes to the author, that is "enslaving knowledge" IMO.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Thanks for the tip.

Consider that in all the examples you mentioned, the money goes to the person who provided the service.
If it where the same here, where I'm paying the AUTHOR(S) of the work instead of the PUBLISHER or IP HOLDER, then I would have no issue.

But in a capitalistic society, only a portion of that money goes to the person. The rest goes to the people they work for (although I will admit that since I didn't include that part in the original it can be considered a bit moot, but the point still stands).

But paying 30 USD (30 dollars!!!!) to see "if" a single paper is even relevant to my research and NONE of that money goes to the author, that is "enslaving knowledge" IMO.

I'll have to check it, but I am certain that a portion of the money does go to the author.
And 30 dollars is really a small price to pay for greater scientific knowledge. Although: libraries do exist for a reason.

 

[Ricardo Rademacher]

But in a capitalistic society, only a portion of that money goes to the person. The rest goes to the people they work for (although I will admit that since I didn't include that part in the original it can be considered a bit moot, but the point still stands).



I'll have to check it, but I am certain that a portion of the money does go to the author.
And 30 dollars is really a small price to pay for greater scientific knowledge. Although: libraries do exist for a reason.

I've have publications across many scientific disciples and I am not entitled to royalties from any of them.
And would you pay 30 dollars to watch a movie based only on the title and a 100 word summary?
And if so, would you do that 10 or 20 times a day? Because that is how often I hit a paywall.