Mike PSS
Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
| Quote (afdave @ Dec. 26 2006,12:13) | Mike-- You seem like a decent guy, so I'll be easy on you. But you might want to keep track of what you say. You wouldn't want people laughing at you when you say this ... | Quote | Mike PSS Oct. 19 2006,21:20
So, what do you think, Dave? 500 alleles due to mutation in 200 generations? How plausible does that sound? |
Which I totally refuted.
And now you say this ... | Quote | | DAVE. IT LOOKS LIKE YOU WANT TO START THIS SCRAP AGAIN. I WOULD POST PERMALINKS BUT YOU HAVE A PROVEN TRACK RECORD OF NOT NOTICING THIS. ANSWER THE CHALLANGE ABOUT 61 HLA-B GENES APPEARING IN ONLY 250 YEARS. CHAMP. |
You were way, way off on the 500 thing, which you now admit. And I explained the 61 thing to you already. I'm not going through it again. Buy the book, please.
This thread is not "Educate the Skeptics."
It's "AFDave Educates Himself About the Skeptics." |
Geez Dave. In my long post above I admit that you found out that only "61 alleles" were indicated in the one source I used. You parsed the data to come up with the correct number and I applauded you on that fact.
I also stated that other sources are available but you never asked for any of them.
Now you only have to explain how 61 HLA-B alleles showed up in the population in less than 250 years (the time between the end of the flood and the end of the ice age in the UCGH timeline).
YOU HAVEN'T GONE THROUGH THIS AT ALL. YOU'VE JUST PROVEN YOU CAN USE MS EXCELL TO COUNT COLUMNS AND ROWS.
And which book would explain this type of allelic appearance in the population?
Enlighten me please. Because nowhere in your past posts have you explained anything related to the question. Read my summary above if you have forgotten the details of this discussion.
You wouldn't want to misrepresent the facts about this subject to anyone else. Would you?
Mike PSS
|
