Re: More proof you boons don't know what your on about.

On Jun 27, 7:42 am, spintronic <spintro...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Prof Weird wrote:
On Jun 26, 6:48 am, spintronic <spintro...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Your only defense of your gibbering idiocy is to snip out everything
the other person says,

After snipping insults & gibberish there is little left of your post
to reply to.

spintwitty lexicon : gibberish, n : anything that shows that
spintwitty is full of dung and hot air; any fact that shows he is
wrong.

But anyway, i'm right, your'e wrong. Again.

How many times have you said that spintwitty ?

Lost count of how many times youv'e been proven wrong.

You can't count ABOVE ZERO ?! Now THAT is some weapons' grade 'tard !

But, then again, you ARE the 'tard that told someone that has
programmed in the ICL 1900 TABN language that the ICL 1900 TABN
language does not exist ...

Who FIRST claimed that AFGPs 'proved' that genes could teleport, then
later changed to 'they are cryptic species !!1!!' ignoring the FACT
that Antarctic cod and notothenioids aren't even in the same order or
family)

That CLAIMED that (after rummaging through GenBank's EST database) a
sequence found in many different organisms supported your silly
'teleporting chromosomes' delusion - only to find out it was vector
sequence.

That CLAIMED there was a fruit fly gene in a sea urchin - easily shown
to be a contaminant in the cDNA library.

That CLAIMED there was a firefly gene in mouse - easily shown to be a
contaminating plasmid (the luciferase was from a COMMERCIALLY
AVAILABLE reporter plasmid, and not what is found in actual
fireflies).

--------1,1
|
|
-----------1
| |
| |
| --------1,0
|
-------------0
|
| ----0,1,1
| |
| |
|-----------0,1
| |
| |----0,1,0
|
|------0,0

So what is the 'tree' above supposed to be ? You have different
numbers of traits for each branch (some are just a single binary
digit, others have 3 binary digits).

So fucking what?

Demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about for one.

O.K lets form a nested hierarchy on chromosome number.
Or the amount of genes a life form has.

Too bad no one would do that, given that chromosomes can split and
fuse WITHOUT altering 'information' content.

And chromosome number is not particularly informative of relationships
(domestic horses and one species of wild horse have different
chromosome numbers, yet can interbreed). Things are not as simple as
you 'think'.

How many organisms had zero genes ?

Your an idiot, a loser, and a fin retard.

Screamed spintwitty at the face in the mirror.

Not a nested hierarchy AFAIK

Because you wouldn't know one if it was shuved up your ass.

Screamed spintwitty at the face in the mirror.

A nested hierarchy is 'groups within groups'; your inexplained 'tree'
does not possess that property.

What is your point - that because a drooling simpleton like you can
draw trees, there are no real phylogenies in nature ?

because the '0 in the second place' group and the '1 in the second
place' groups are SPLIT between two branches - would not have that for
an actual nested hierarchy.

Uh? What drugs are you on boy? Speak "English" someone may understand.

Translation : 'sH*t !!! Prof Weird wasn't fooled by my simpering
bluster !! Must Posture More Frantically !!!!111!!'

Hierarchies are based on traits - so (I'm guessing here, since you
REFUSE to state what your 'tree' is supposed to be) what digit is in
the second position is a trait YOU ARE USING TO MAKE THE TREE.

For a NESTED HIERARCHY, groups are either contained entirely within
other groups, contain the entirety of other groups, or are seperate
groups. Your 'tree' does not show that property; so it is most likely
not an actual nested hierarchy (no matter how pathologically you want
it to be).

Another equally valid grouping scheme : number of digits.

(0,1), (00, 01, 10, 11), (011, 010)

No, No, No.

Yes, yes, yes. Can you give a REASON why that is not a valid grouping
scheme (except the FACT that it shows you are full of manure ?)

BTW - care to give an 'example' of DNA or RNA producing different
hierarchies in the same set of living things..

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wro...
bioinfo.mbi.ucla.edu/courses/m298/Doolittle%20wf.pdf

Oh joy - more of your simple-minded idiocy and willful confusions
about EASILY DETECTED and ACCOUNTED FOR horizontal transfers. (there
are only problems is you think inheritance was exclusively vertical;
but since horizontal transfers are easily detected and accounted for,
they are not as big a problem as you desperately want them to be).

The default position is vertical inheritance, abandoned only when
there are sufficient reasons to think otherwise.
Your flatulence whining and hysterical screamining are NOT sufficient
reasons to think otherwise.

The vast majority of inheritance for the last few hundred million
years for metazoans is vertical, with the rare HGT.

Or how you 'determined' that morphology, DNA and RNA are
'subjective' ? (other than your pathological need to believe so)
What morphological, DNA or RNA trait would, for example, place humans
closer to fish than to chimpanzees ?

"Facial morphologically" this fish

http://chattahbox.com/images/2009/03/fish.jpg

Is closer to humans than this cow.

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00440/cow_682_440047a.jpg

Wow - you'd have to be pretty STUPID to 'think' those pictures
supported your point - that cow possesses a developmental abnormality.
No sane or rational person would use it to support his position.

How many people would use so plastic a trait as facial morphology in
so idiotic a manner as you have to build a phylogeny ?

You are "ALWAYS" wrong.

Get used to it.

Screamed spintwitty at the face in the mirror (who could only sneer in
agreement).

.

Quantcast