Re: "Ancient Astronauts" in SF

On Aug 17, 3:15 am, Stewart Robert Hinsley
<{$new...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In message
<3e9680e7-aae2-4bf1-95e9-fafc154d8...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
veritas <khogan...@xxxxxxxxx> writes





On Aug 16, 10:16 pm, "John F. Eldredge" <j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 15:39:54 -0700, veritas wrote:
On Aug 16, 1:48 am, thro...@xxxxxxxxx (Wayne Throop) wrote:
: veritas <khogan...@xxxxxxxxx>
: But everybody but you seems to have come to the conclusion that we :
are no kin to Neaderthal.

Quite the reverse.  Everyone has long come to the conclusion that we
are close kin to the neanderthal, as such things go between species.. We
share a common ancestor several hundred thousand years ago. That's not
really very long, as such things go.

You keep claiming otherwise.  You're still wrong.  You're also still
the only one that claims we have no relation to neanderthal; the
sources you quote don't even remotely support what you claim they do.

: Every creature on the planet share the same genes that make up the :
DNA, but 7-8 markers away is really a max,

A "max" for what, exactly?

: Neanderthal is 26-28 markers away from us.  They were never us, and
we : were never them.

Now you go from "we aren't related" to "we were never them". Thse are
NOT the same claim.  And by now you should *know* they are not the same
claim, since this has been pointed out to you several times, and less
ambiguous terminology has been introduced to you. We share a common
ancestor several hundred thousand years ago. That's "related", but not
"they were us, or we them".

If you don't understand this, then stop pretending you have a clue,
when you give yourself away with ever posting.

Also, this metric if "markers away from us" seems to be something of
your own conflation.  At least, none of the references you give really
involve such a simplisitic linear measure of relatedness.

Wayne Throop   thro...@xxxxxxxxx  http://sheol.org/throopw

Markers are the starting and ending of sequences
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/164/3/1129

The above will explain it to you, and how we know we are no relation to
Neanderthals. If you are one gene off, you MAY be related 4 to 6
generations back.
More than 7-9 markers means you MAY be related 50 generations back, I'm
not sure about the number of generations on that. 26-28 markers means
you are not related at all.  Ken Hogan

No, "not related at all" would require that there be no genes in common.  
The term you are looking for is "distantly related".

--
John F. Eldredge -- j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP key available fromhttp://pgp.mit.edu
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better
than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thank you so much, John, I appreiciate your correction, but we all,
every living animal have genes in common.  It is the sequenes in which
the genes are put in order, and marked that make the difference.  Even
mice have about 90% of our genes, mice also have.  If you look at the
sequence for making a bladder in a human, and a mouse, the sequence is
the same, only the mouse has a much smaller one.  But the sequence
will be close.  That is why they get a lot of experiments done on
them.  As well as fast breeding.  If you want a laugh, see my post to
Wayne below as I was looking for something, I found apparently
everybody knows we are from another planet and I just didn't know it.
Regards,  Ken Hogan

You've expressed yourself badly. You give the appearance of thinking
that there's a gene which corresponds to a bladder, and that gene is
much smaller in mice than in humans. That makes you look ignorant about
biology.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I must. I swear to God, if there is one. There is a sequence of the
DNA of a mouse that tells it how the bladder is built, where it goes,
and what it does. Just like us, only smaller. I express myself badly
oftern it appears, my apologies. Regards, Ken Hogan
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Spin - John Part 3.
    ... are talking about - you have vomited up conserved gene sequences. ... Sequence #118083777 - hypothetical protein, ... That Gallus HYPOTHETICAL protein only matches ribosomal RNA sequences ... More of spintwitty proudly displaying his absolute stupidity: ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Human Endogenous Retroviruses in the Primate Lineage
    ... I believe you mean "DNA barcoding". ... more matches are sister species in one clade and the new sample is ... this explains why a mitochondrial gene is used ... Plants have too little mitochondrial sequence diversity, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • For Sean Pitman: Some real nested hierarchies
    ... The sequence is 1002 bases long, but is highly conserved; only 40 of them vary among species here, and only 10 are relevant to a nested hierarchy. ... These 10 sites are enough to uniquely determine a tree, ... Semenogelin is quite a bit more variable than tas in amino acid sequence: of 22 differences, half are amino acid changes, 10 of which are compatible with the tree and 1 of which is not. ... Different forms of the same gene can arise within a species, and these differences can be retained through a speciation event, even through two if the time between them is short enough. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Hamiltons Nonsense
    ... >> Does IBD actually measure relatedness ... >> is only peripherally indicative of relatedness? ... There is no one gene for altruism. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Speciation Hurdle
    ... Imagine the DNA of Humans & Chimps below, ... There is a gene, that determines the sites for each species, ... expressing, is that the sequence recognized by PRDM9 is one particular, ... "That has nothing to do with the sequence in the 'target gene' that ...
    (talk.origins)