Re: tiger shark

On Oct 1, 2:42 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Great Dayne wrote:
On Oct 1, 12:20 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Great Dayne wrote:
On Sep 30, 3:32 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Tapestry wrote:
On Sep 30, 2:44 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Great Dayne wrote:
On Sep 30, 2:28 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Great Dayne wrote:
On Sep 30, 2:09 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Great Dayne wrote:
On Sep 29, 3:28 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Great Dayne wrote:
On Sep 29, 12:15 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
snipping
..
First problem: you misunderstand the common understanding of
phylogeny. Everyone agrees that teleosts are more closely related to
humans than to sharks. That is, "fish" is not a real group..
In the nested hierarchy, the evolutionary tree, the teleost is closer
to theshark.
No, they are not.  See:
http://tolweb.org/Gnathostomata/14843
Yes they are:
http://whozoo.org/fish/fishtaxa.htm
That's the same tree. Both trees, the one Dana linked and the one you
linked, showed teleosts as closer to humans than to sharks.
Are you totally braindead?
No.
here is the url I gave:
http://whozoo.org/fish/fishtaxa.htm
You see thesharkand teleost listed, right?
Yes. Notice how thesharkis outside the group (Osteichthyes) that
contains both mammals and teleosts.
Sorry sir, mammals aren't listed on that tree.
You are seeing things that aren't there.
Sorry. You have to know that mammals are tetrapods. Do you know that
mammals are tetrapods?
Do you know not all tetrapods are mammals?
Yes. But what does that have to do with the claim you were supposedly
supporting?
Here is the mammal tree
http://whozoo.org/mammals/mammalianphylo.htm
And here is the primate tree:
http://whozoo.org/mammals/Primates/primatephylogeny.htm
ARE YOU FUCKING STOOOOOPID, SIR?:
Possibly. I'm too stupid to understand what I said that was wrong, or
why the mammal and primate trees are relevant. Could you explain?
Sure.
HUMANS ARE PRIMATES.
Yes, and...?
If you can keep the overall context from falling out of your cough
syrup addled brain ...
That wasn't a sentence.
I know English quite well and can assure you it is.
You can assure me all you want, but it was a subordinate clause, no more.

Allow me to retort.

IF you can keep the overall context of the topic at hand from falling
out of your cough syrup addled
brain, THEN <insert above sentence here>.

Your response: 'which above sentence?'

This one: Allow me to retort.

So now you agree that wasn't a sentence.

I will never agree with you about anything.
Now the worst part is, you will act like you accomplished something.

.

Quantcast