Re: "a question of where you put Grandma"

"Ken Shackleton" <ken.shackle...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Let's list some of your non-subjective views then:

Let's.

1. The DNA-centric view is wrong...

Sure is! Because you're only looking at the populations
that survived, that passed along their DNA. If you want
to understand evolution, the populations that failed are
AT LEAST as important.

If you want an example, and don't mind a as I subtly
mock one of your fellows, take the Mammoth.

apparently meaning that DNA evidence cannot be trusted.

That would be a conclusion, or, as is usual in your case,
the result of a knee-jerk. What I did point out is that
people have often -- including in here -- misrepresented
DNA evidence, and in particular mtDNA evidence. They have.
Get used to it.

2. It would be impossible for Archaeopteryx to climb a
tree.

And it was. Even the imaginary study of its claws that
your fellow kept drooling about disputed the notion of
it climbing trees. Plain & simple: It has the body of
a distinctly ground-dwelling dinosaur. In fact, without
the feathers, there would be absolutely no argument here,
no question.

Oh. The above isn't speculation. There were archaeopteryx
fossils discovered, sans feathers, and nobody ever so
much as hinted at anything approaching an arboreal
lifestyle. Nope. Not one human being on the face of the
planet saw anything that would place it in a tree.

Fancy that.

3. You never state conclusions, just facts.

I didn't say I never state conclusions, just facts. What
I did say was that I began this thread as a means of
exposing assumptions. And, yeah, it worked pretty good.
Problem is, mental cases can't tell the difference between
there assumptions (or "conclusions") and established
facts.

Anyone else care to chime in?

Are you kidding? This is talk.origins. If I said that
water is wet at least a half dozen people would whine
on & on about steam and ice.




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Part 1 (of 3): What are major aspects of evolutionary theory?
    ... >> but that works only for very recent duplications where we have the DNA ... Suppose we have an unrooted tree with three terminal nodes whose genome ... A before the inner node M, and both descendents K and L inherited ... So how do you ever know that X is a clade? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Native Americans (was: Out of Africa, Not Once But Twice)
    ... modern Siberian populations relative to modern New World populations ... DNA can be used to understand the evolution of modern humans, ... Africa and migrated from there recently, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Ancient Etruscans, and their cattle, were immigrants from Anatolia,
    ... found in populations in Turkey. ... mitochondrial DNA in order to analyse female lineages. ... European Society of Human Genetics ... Ancient Etruscans were immigrants from Anatolia, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Part 1 (of 3): What are major aspects of evolutionary theory?
    ... >>>but that works only for very recent duplications where we have the DNA ... >>>(Which is a circular argument if you're trying to root the tree in the ... > So how do you ever know that X is a clade? ... > species of eukaryotes whatsoever, the unrooted tree looks like this: ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Junk DNA: A hypothesis
    ... >> regions of DNA more frequently than others. ... > enhanced deleterious mutations on the remote chance ... > selection for some future possibility. ... are millions of populations in existence. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)