Doubting Didymus

Vanderzyden, we still haven't heard your response to scigirl adressing the actual evidence. I thought you had run away, but if you are still here, what are you waiting for?

I realize that genetics is a bit difficult, but I know that scigirl will be happy to further explain her explanation.

Ignore the rest of us, we are just being jerks. Address the evidence, or admit that you can't.

lpetrich

I've removed the "img" tag in order to make the URL clearer -- Tripod apparently does not like inline linking.

Also, Vanderzyden, you have refused to answer my comments that the concept of evolution is useful for:

* Selecting model systems

* Genomics

What's the reason???

[ August 22, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

Vanderzyden

lpetrich:

I have three issues:

1. Please explain in more detail why you took it upon yourself to DELETE the picture. The picture worked fine. What is meant by "Tripod apparently does not like inline linking"--did you contact them? Furthermore, how are you able to edit my post--you aren't designated as an administrator or moderator.

2. I don't think your examples directly result from evolutionary hypothesis. Genetic engineering isn't yet dependent on Darwinism, classical or otherwise. I will eventually address the responses collectively (e.g. since yours are similar to others).

3. My response to this challenge is forthcoming. A draft is already written. Thanks for your patience!

Doubting Didymus

I for one couldn't see you picture in the first place. Maybe you could, but the rest of us couldn't, which is why we now have a link. Also, It doesn't look to me like anyone has edited your post.

If you can't see why the fact that chimpanzees, gorillas and humans share chromosomes that are damn near 100% alike supports the evolution theory, then I don't hold out much hope for your master opus reply.

Albion

I can't see it now, for that matter; the link shows the same Tripod message as the post did. Could someone tel me what it is?

Richiyaado

You're barking up the wrong tree, Vanderzyden. I've seen this before. Tripod has some sort of 'blocking' going on when people try to post an image that links back to one of their sites. The block intercepts the link and displays the Tripod thingy instead. I don't know what lpetrich tried to do, but I'm still seeing the Tripod thingy. I've never successfully linked to a Tripod image, though I've tried.

A perfect illustration of why one should never leap to conclusions, isn't it?

[ August 22, 2002: Message edited by: Richiyaado ]</p>

trunks2k

I think the only way you can get a linked picture to tripod to show up is for the person viewing it to check the addy of the image itself, go to it (so the comp loads it in it's cache), and then refresh the page with the linked image. So your comp will then load the cached image, since the linked image pointing to an addy at which comp already knows what is there, it doesn't need to load the image from that site.

eddited to add:

I tested it out and what I stated above doesn't seem to work on these boards. I know I have done it on other boards. Or maybe it was off of a different server other than tripod.... oh well.

[ August 22, 2002: Message edited by: trunks2k ]</p>

Albion

Glad it wasn't just me. Sometimes things don't work for Mac users that do work in the PC world, but this one doesn't seem to work anywhere.

lpetrich

VZ, get some serious clues.

I simply changed the nature of the link from an inline image to a generic non-inline link.

And I included your posting's text by selecting "reply with quotes" (the quotes icon next to the message). I did NOT edit the original.

VZ, your stumbling over the operation of this bboard ought to give you some serious humility; you ought to be less dogmatically certain of your position on evolution.

I had explained in another posting why model-system choice and genomics are dependent on evolution.

Model-system choice would be unmotivated if species were separate creations -- there would be no reason to expect any patterns of similarity to exist. However, with evolution, one can predict which species will be the most similar with which other species in their unexplored features -- and such predictions have usually been very successful.

So if one wants to choose a stand-in for our species, one ought to select some species that is a reasonable compromise between closeness in the family tree and convenience in experimenting on. Chimps are the closest, but they are big and slow-reproducing, making them awkward to experiment on; rhesus monkeys are farther but smaller and faster-reproducing, and mice and rats even farther but even smaller and fast-reproducing.

And that strategy has been very successful.

As to genomics, many genes have been identified by comparing the genome of different species. This is justified by abundant experience with gene-sequence comparisons -- genes evolve slower than one would expect from random drift, and the more constrained parts evolve more slowly than the less constrained parts. If genomes were separate creations, however, there would be no motive for this pattern of similarities.

Real artists ship -- Steve Jobs

Camaban

It's a picture of Bevis and Butthead wearing VR goggles.

*twirls finger*