Joined: Sep. 2006
|Quote (incorygible @ Dec. 04 2006,16:12)|
|Quote (Mike PSS @ Dec. 04 2006,14:44)|
|Quote (incorygible @ Dec. 04 2006,14:46)|
|Meanwhile, my question to you about why we should see the phylogenies we see (i.e., far more (CH)G trees than the other two possibilites, and fewer but equal proportions of (CG)H and (GH)C trees), when your (tee hee) CGH tells us that humans are one kind and chimps/gorillas are another, went unanswered.|
Dave did answer this....
A LOUSY ONE AND ONE-HALF PERCENT?!?!?!?!?!
Nope, that was actually a different one. It was Dave's "lousy one-and-a-half percent" Portuguese moment regarding overall genetic difference that made me try a different tactic by showing him the distribtuion of distance trees for specific genes/regions. In that case, 60% show (CH)G, 20% (CG)H and 20% (GH)C -- so there was no getting off with the 1% bluster. I showed Davey, point by point, why this could have actually been predicted (and how/why) from what was known prior to detailed genetic work, but certainly not by his CGH, which would obviously predict a much higher proportion of...well...(CG)H.
How anyone can spend 8 years in school and get a PhD in biology nowadays and not recognize that similarities in genes and sequences between animals is evidence for common design is beyond me. I mean... really... get your head examined or something.
IT'S SO OBVIOUS!!!!!
Is that better?