But what about their Gametes?
Children change why from unchanging Gametes?
Mitchell Raemsch
On 5/29/22 6:34 PM, Mitch Raemsch wrote:
But what about their Gametes?
Children change why from unchanging Gametes?
Mitchell RaemschI hope you realize that this is sci.bio.paleontology. No DNA to see
here. And you seem to believe you are replying to something, though
there's no indication what that would be.
But to answer your question: whaaa??
On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 9:36:23 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 5/29/22 6:34 PM, Mitch Raemsch wrote:
But what about their Gametes?I hope you realize that this is sci.bio.paleontology. No DNA to see
Children change why from unchanging Gametes?
Mitchell Raemsch
here. And you seem to believe you are replying to something, though
there's no indication what that would be.
But to answer your question: whaaa??
Yes. It is a problem from the DNA side.
Adult DNA is supposed to stay the same even for their Gametes
that make children. Science needs to address the obvious
contradiction.
On Mon, 30 May 2022 15:37:30 -0700 (PDT), Mitch Raemsch
<mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 9:36:23 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 5/29/22 6:34 PM, Mitch Raemsch wrote:
But what about their Gametes?I hope you realize that this is sci.bio.paleontology. No DNA to see
Children change why from unchanging Gametes?
Mitchell Raemsch
here. And you seem to believe you are replying to something, though
there's no indication what that would be.
But to answer your question: whaaa??
Yes. It is a problem from the DNA side.I don't know why you say DNA is "supposed to stay the same", but it's well-known that it doesn't.
Adult DNA is supposed to stay the same even for their Gametes
that make children. Science needs to address the obvious
contradiction.
On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 1:01:51 AM UTC-7, 69jp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2022 15:37:30 -0700 (PDT), Mitch Raemsch
<mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 9:36:23 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:I don't know why you say DNA is "supposed to stay the same", but it's
On 5/29/22 6:34 PM, Mitch Raemsch wrote:
But what about their Gametes?I hope you realize that this is sci.bio.paleontology. No DNA to see
Children change why from unchanging Gametes?
Mitchell Raemsch
here. And you seem to believe you are replying to something, though
there's no indication what that would be.
But to answer your question: whaaa??
Yes. It is a problem from the DNA side.
Adult DNA is supposed to stay the same even for their Gametes
that make children. Science needs to address the obvious
contradiction.
well-known that it doesn't.
Adult's DNA stays the same. What does mutation change?
Adult's DNA stays the same. What does mutation change?
Mitchell Raemsch
On 6/1/22 6:27 PM, Mitch Raemsch wrote:
On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 1:01:51 AM UTC-7, 69jp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2022 15:37:30 -0700 (PDT), Mitch Raemsch
<mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 9:36:23 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:I don't know why you say DNA is "supposed to stay the same", but it's
On 5/29/22 6:34 PM, Mitch Raemsch wrote:
But what about their Gametes?I hope you realize that this is sci.bio.paleontology. No DNA to see
Children change why from unchanging Gametes?
Mitchell Raemsch
here. And you seem to believe you are replying to something, though
there's no indication what that would be.
But to answer your question: whaaa??
Yes. It is a problem from the DNA side.
Adult DNA is supposed to stay the same even for their Gametes
that make children. Science needs to address the obvious
contradiction.
well-known that it doesn't.
Adult's DNA stays the same. What does mutation change?
I don't think you understand this.
There are in fact somatic and
germline mutations. Every time a human cell replicates, there are a few >mutations. It's true for liver cells as much as for gametes, except that >gametes also undergo recombination, another source of variation. Those >mutations are the source of the differences between parental and child >genomes.
On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 21:11:14 -0700, John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
On 6/1/22 6:27 PM, Mitch Raemsch wrote:
On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 1:01:51 AM UTC-7, 69jp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2022 15:37:30 -0700 (PDT), Mitch Raemsch
<mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 9:36:23 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:I don't know why you say DNA is "supposed to stay the same", but it's
On 5/29/22 6:34 PM, Mitch Raemsch wrote:
But what about their Gametes?I hope you realize that this is sci.bio.paleontology. No DNA to see >>>>> here. And you seem to believe you are replying to something, though >>>>> there's no indication what that would be.
Children change why from unchanging Gametes?
Mitchell Raemsch
But to answer your question: whaaa??
Yes. It is a problem from the DNA side.
Adult DNA is supposed to stay the same even for their Gametes
that make children. Science needs to address the obvious
contradiction.
well-known that it doesn't.
Adult's DNA stays the same. What does mutation change?
I don't think you understand this.So far Mitchell has been more interested in parroting off-topic
comments than in understanding anything.
There are in fact somatic and
germline mutations. Every time a human cell replicates, there are a few >mutations. It's true for liver cells as much as for gametes, except that >gametes also undergo recombination, another source of variation. Those >mutations are the source of the differences between parental and child >genomes.
On 5/29/22 6:34 PM, Mitch Raemsch wrote:snip
I hope you realize that this is sci.bio.paleontology. No DNA to see
here.
On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 9:36:23 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 5/29/22 6:34 PM, Mitch Raemsch wrote:snip
I hope you realize that this is sci.bio.paleontology. No DNA to see
here.
What does that mean, John?
"Phylogenetic systematics is the dominant form of taxonomy for most biologists, vertebrate paleontologists and to a lesser degree invertebrate paleontologists."
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-paleontological-society-papers/article/abs/viewing-paleobiology-through-the-lens-of-phylogeny/E151220B75A4294FEF135819ED93225E
You didn't say that because of this, did you?
[Convergence] "can create species which are only distinguishable by analysing their genetics."
"Convergent evolution... is rife in nature"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_examples_of_convergent_evolution
Do you realize that you can't analyze the genetics of things that are dead?
On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 1:05:58 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/12/22 12:25 PM, Glenn wrote:
On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 9:36:23 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:ask is just not clear. I also can't see the source of that first quote,
On 5/29/22 6:34 PM, Mitch Raemsch wrote:snip
I hope you realize that this is sci.bio.paleontology. No DNA to see
here.
What does that mean, John?
"Phylogenetic systematics is the dominant form of taxonomy for most biologists, vertebrate paleontologists and to a lesser degree invertebrate paleontologists."
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-paleontological-society-papers/article/abs/viewing-paleobiology-through-the-lens-of-phylogeny/E151220B75A4294FEF135819ED93225E
You didn't say that because of this, did you?
[Convergence] "can create species which are only distinguishable by analysing their genetics."
"Convergent evolution... is rife in nature"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_examples_of_convergent_evolution
Do you realize that you can't analyze the genetics of things that are dead? >> Sorry, I can't easily respond because whatever you're trying to say or
so I have no idea of the context.
Did you have a point to make? What might it be?
What's the point?
On 8/12/22 12:25 PM, Glenn wrote:
On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 9:36:23 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 5/29/22 6:34 PM, Mitch Raemsch wrote:snip
I hope you realize that this is sci.bio.paleontology. No DNA to see
here.
What does that mean, John?
"Phylogenetic systematics is the dominant form of taxonomy for most biologists, vertebrate paleontologists and to a lesser degree invertebrate paleontologists."
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-paleontological-society-papers/article/abs/viewing-paleobiology-through-the-lens-of-phylogeny/E151220B75A4294FEF135819ED93225E
You didn't say that because of this, did you?
[Convergence] "can create species which are only distinguishable by analysing their genetics."
"Convergent evolution... is rife in nature"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_examples_of_convergent_evolution
Do you realize that you can't analyze the genetics of things that are dead?Sorry, I can't easily respond because whatever you're trying to say or
ask is just not clear. I also can't see the source of that first quote,
so I have no idea of the context.
Did you have a point to make? What might it be?
On 8/12/22 1:49 PM, Glenn wrote:
On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 1:05:58 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/12/22 12:25 PM, Glenn wrote:
On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 9:36:23 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:Sorry, I can't easily respond because whatever you're trying to say or
On 5/29/22 6:34 PM, Mitch Raemsch wrote:snip
I hope you realize that this is sci.bio.paleontology. No DNA to see
here.
What does that mean, John?
"Phylogenetic systematics is the dominant form of taxonomy for most biologists, vertebrate paleontologists and to a lesser degree invertebrate paleontologists."
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-paleontological-society-papers/article/abs/viewing-paleobiology-through-the-lens-of-phylogeny/E151220B75A4294FEF135819ED93225E
You didn't say that because of this, did you?
[Convergence] "can create species which are only distinguishable by analysing their genetics."
"Convergent evolution... is rife in nature"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_examples_of_convergent_evolution >>>
Do you realize that you can't analyze the genetics of things that are dead?
ask is just not clear. I also can't see the source of that first quote,
so I have no idea of the context.
Did you have a point to make? What might it be?
What's the point?I'm guessing that there isn't one. Am I right?
On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 1:56:16 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/12/22 1:49 PM, Glenn wrote:
On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 1:05:58 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:I'm guessing that there isn't one. Am I right?
On 8/12/22 12:25 PM, Glenn wrote:
On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 9:36:23 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:Sorry, I can't easily respond because whatever you're trying to say or >>>> ask is just not clear. I also can't see the source of that first quote, >>>> so I have no idea of the context.
On 5/29/22 6:34 PM, Mitch Raemsch wrote:snip
I hope you realize that this is sci.bio.paleontology. No DNA to see >>>>>> here.
What does that mean, John?
"Phylogenetic systematics is the dominant form of taxonomy for most biologists, vertebrate paleontologists and to a lesser degree invertebrate paleontologists."
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-paleontological-society-papers/article/abs/viewing-paleobiology-through-the-lens-of-phylogeny/E151220B75A4294FEF135819ED93225E
You didn't say that because of this, did you?
[Convergence] "can create species which are only distinguishable by analysing their genetics."
"Convergent evolution... is rife in nature"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_examples_of_convergent_evolution >>>>>
Do you realize that you can't analyze the genetics of things that are dead?
Did you have a point to make? What might it be?
What's the point?
You don't have a point?
On 8/12/22 2:11 PM, Glenn wrote:What is your point?
On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 1:56:16 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/12/22 1:49 PM, Glenn wrote:
On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 1:05:58 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:I'm guessing that there isn't one. Am I right?
On 8/12/22 12:25 PM, Glenn wrote:
On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 9:36:23 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>> On 5/29/22 6:34 PM, Mitch Raemsch wrote:Sorry, I can't easily respond because whatever you're trying to say or >>>> ask is just not clear. I also can't see the source of that first quote, >>>> so I have no idea of the context.
snip
I hope you realize that this is sci.bio.paleontology. No DNA to see >>>>>> here.
What does that mean, John?
"Phylogenetic systematics is the dominant form of taxonomy for most biologists, vertebrate paleontologists and to a lesser degree invertebrate paleontologists."
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-paleontological-society-papers/article/abs/viewing-paleobiology-through-the-lens-of-phylogeny/E151220B75A4294FEF135819ED93225E
You didn't say that because of this, did you?
[Convergence] "can create species which are only distinguishable by analysing their genetics."
"Convergent evolution... is rife in nature"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_examples_of_convergent_evolution >>>>>
Do you realize that you can't analyze the genetics of things that are dead?
Did you have a point to make? What might it be?
What's the point?
You don't have a point?I have arrived at one: there is no point in trying to talk to you. Would
you agree?
On 8/13/22 12:15 AM, Glenn wrote:
On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 3:44:37 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:I'll take that as a "yes".
On 8/12/22 2:11 PM, Glenn wrote:What is your point?
On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 1:56:16 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:I have arrived at one: there is no point in trying to talk to you. Would >> you agree?
On 8/12/22 1:49 PM, Glenn wrote:
On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 1:05:58 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>> On 8/12/22 12:25 PM, Glenn wrote:I'm guessing that there isn't one. Am I right?
On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 9:36:23 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/29/22 6:34 PM, Mitch Raemsch wrote:Sorry, I can't easily respond because whatever you're trying to say or >>>>>> ask is just not clear. I also can't see the source of that first quote,
snip
I hope you realize that this is sci.bio.paleontology. No DNA to see >>>>>>>> here.
What does that mean, John?
"Phylogenetic systematics is the dominant form of taxonomy for most biologists, vertebrate paleontologists and to a lesser degree invertebrate paleontologists."
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-paleontological-society-papers/article/abs/viewing-paleobiology-through-the-lens-of-phylogeny/E151220B75A4294FEF135819ED93225E
You didn't say that because of this, did you?
[Convergence] "can create species which are only distinguishable by analysing their genetics."
"Convergent evolution... is rife in nature"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_examples_of_convergent_evolution
Do you realize that you can't analyze the genetics of things that are dead?
so I have no idea of the context.
Did you have a point to make? What might it be?
What's the point?
You don't have a point?
On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 3:44:37 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/12/22 2:11 PM, Glenn wrote:What is your point?
On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 1:56:16 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:I have arrived at one: there is no point in trying to talk to you. Would
On 8/12/22 1:49 PM, Glenn wrote:
On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 1:05:58 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>> On 8/12/22 12:25 PM, Glenn wrote:I'm guessing that there isn't one. Am I right?
On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 9:36:23 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/29/22 6:34 PM, Mitch Raemsch wrote:Sorry, I can't easily respond because whatever you're trying to say or >>>>>> ask is just not clear. I also can't see the source of that first quote, >>>>>> so I have no idea of the context.
snip
I hope you realize that this is sci.bio.paleontology. No DNA to see >>>>>>>> here.
What does that mean, John?
"Phylogenetic systematics is the dominant form of taxonomy for most biologists, vertebrate paleontologists and to a lesser degree invertebrate paleontologists."
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-paleontological-society-papers/article/abs/viewing-paleobiology-through-the-lens-of-phylogeny/E151220B75A4294FEF135819ED93225E
You didn't say that because of this, did you?
[Convergence] "can create species which are only distinguishable by analysing their genetics."
"Convergent evolution... is rife in nature"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_examples_of_convergent_evolution >>>>>>>
Do you realize that you can't analyze the genetics of things that are dead?
Did you have a point to make? What might it be?
What's the point?
You don't have a point?
you agree?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 302 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 100:51:37 |
| Calls: | 6,767 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 12,295 |
| Messages: | 5,376,432 |
| Posted today: | 1 |