|
Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
09-02-2002, 06:28 AM
|
#1 | |
|
Contributor
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino
Posts: 12,591
|
Human DNA nearer to kangaroo than cow?
Over on the BBC boards, I've just been told that:
Quote:
Cheers, Oolon |
|
|
|
09-02-2002, 06:35 AM
|
#2 |
|
Beloved Deceased
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Carrboro, NC
Posts: 1,539
|
Hate to bother you, but can I have the link to that topic? That's basically about the most ignorant thing I've read since Eternal's "all bulls are male" and would come in funny for my webpage of stupid quotes
 First off, they misunderstood that a marsupial is a mammal...  Even if true, wouldn't it just mean our common ancestor with marsupials was closer than our common ancestor with ungulates? |
|
|
|
09-02-2002, 06:50 AM
|
#3 | |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Silver City, New Mexico
Posts: 1,872
|
Quote:
And thanks, I needed a good laugh! [ September 02, 2002: Message edited by: wadew ]</p> |
|
|
|
|
09-02-2002, 07:03 AM
|
#4 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 717
|
To make them squirm, ask for the peer-reviewed journal article reference they got this from.
 They are almost certainly lying.
|
|
|
|
09-02-2002, 07:30 AM
|
#5 |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,261
|
Hey Auto, you stole my line! That's what I was going to ask!!
scigirl |
|
|
|
09-02-2002, 08:08 AM
|
#6 |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: St. John's, Nfld. Canada
Posts: 1,652
|
Bring up Gish's bullfrog proteins and ask if this is another example of incompetance and dishonesty.
|
|
|
|
09-02-2002, 08:28 AM
|
#7 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 717
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
09-02-2002, 09:14 AM
|
#8 | |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Alaska, USA
Posts: 1,535
|
Quote:
What you're suggesting (based on this write-up), is that ungulates split from marsupials *before* marsupials split from primates. That is, the marsupial+mammal line first split into ungulates, with the remainder continuing until marsupials and primates split. It's not clear if, under this scenario, ungulates or primates represent the bulk of mammalian types, while the other is an outgroup. How is that possible, when both are placental? I doubt the placental mode arose twice, bracketing marsupials (who, for all I know, are the later refinement anyway). Then again, there are placental sharks, so perhaps it's not such an unusual reproductive mode after all. *Wait - this wasn't a Nature or Science article; it was a BB posting. Which means it's probably bunk -- but still interesting food for thought. [ September 02, 2002: Message edited by: Grumpy ]</p> |
|
|
|
|
09-02-2002, 09:31 AM
|
#9 | |
|
Contributor
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino
Posts: 12,591
|
Quote:
here</a> (I hope, the url is rather odd...) The BBC boards are fairly awful to use, by there's some premier-league creationist idiots, and several rather good normal folks (eg our own Albion). Come on in... Cheers, Oolon [ September 02, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ] [ September 02, 2002: Message edited by: pz (trying to fix that $%#%# url) ] [ September 02, 2002: Message edited by: pz ]</p> |
|
|
|
|
09-02-2002, 10:09 AM
|
#10 |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com
Posts: 2,829
|
Thank you, Oolon! That board has livened up a lot since you started up over there! Haven't come across the kangaroo thingy yet (just getting started reading the boards this morning); at least it's kangaroos this time, I think last time this came up it was sunflowers or tulips or something. That was based on some creationist's misunderstanding of the details of one particular protein.
|
|
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
