1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. SCI.BIO.PALEONTOLOGY

  • Adult DNA stays the same

    From Mitch Raemsch@21:1/5 to All on Sun May 29 18:34:43 2022
    But what about their Gametes?
    Children change why from unchanging Gametes?

    Mitchell Raemsch

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Harshman@21:1/5 to Mitch Raemsch on Sun May 29 21:36:16 2022
    On 5/29/22 6:34 PM, Mitch Raemsch wrote:
    But what about their Gametes?
    Children change why from unchanging Gametes?

    Mitchell Raemsch

    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.

    But to answer your question: whaaa??

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mitch Raemsch@21:1/5 to John Harshman on Mon May 30 15:37:30 2022
    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?
    Children change why from unchanging Gametes?

    Mitchell Raemsch
    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.

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jillery@21:1/5 to mitchrae3323@gmail.com on Tue May 31 04:01:48 2022
    On Mon, 30 May 2022 15:37:30 -0700 (PDT), Mitch Raemsch <mitchrae3323@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?
    Children change why from unchanging Gametes?

    Mitchell Raemsch
    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.

    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.


    I don't know why you say DNA is "supposed to stay the same", but it's well-known that it doesn't. Both germ cell and somatic cell DNA
    change over the course of organisms' lifespan. DNA mutations are one
    cause of cancer and birth defects.

    Harshman's comments are appropriate. Instead of posting off-topic
    here, try searching the Web. Here's a start:

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mitch Raemsch@21:1/5 to 69jp...@gmail.com on Wed Jun 1 18:27:31 2022
    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:
    On 5/29/22 6:34 PM, Mitch Raemsch wrote:
    But what about their Gametes?
    Children change why from unchanging Gametes?

    Mitchell Raemsch
    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.

    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.
    I don't know why you say DNA is "supposed to stay the same", but it's well-known that it doesn't.

    Adult's DNA stays the same. What does mutation change?

    Mitchell Raemsch

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Harshman@21:1/5 to Mitch Raemsch on Wed Jun 1 21:11:14 2022
    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:
    On 5/29/22 6:34 PM, Mitch Raemsch wrote:
    But what about their Gametes?
    Children change why from unchanging Gametes?

    Mitchell Raemsch
    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.

    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.
    I don't know why you say DNA is "supposed to stay the same", but it's
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jillery@21:1/5 to mitchrae3323@gmail.com on Wed Jun 1 23:38:20 2022
    On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 18:27:31 -0700 (PDT), Mitch Raemsch
    <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> wrote:


    Adult's DNA stays the same. What does mutation change?

    Mitchell Raemsch


    What's your evidence for this assertion?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jillery@21:1/5 to jharshman@pacbell.net on Thu Jun 2 04:19:42 2022
    On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 21:11:14 -0700, John Harshman
    <jharshman@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:
    On 5/29/22 6:34 PM, Mitch Raemsch wrote:
    But what about their Gametes?
    Children change why from unchanging Gametes?

    Mitchell Raemsch
    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.

    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.
    I don't know why you say DNA is "supposed to stay the same", but it's
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From erik simpson@21:1/5 to 69jp...@gmail.com on Thu Jun 2 11:00:09 2022
    On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 1:19:44 AM UTC-7, 69jp...@gmail.com wrote:
    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:
    On 5/29/22 6:34 PM, Mitch Raemsch wrote:
    But what about their Gametes?
    Children change why from unchanging Gametes?

    Mitchell Raemsch
    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.

    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.
    I don't know why you say DNA is "supposed to stay the same", but it's
    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.

    I knew I'd seen that name before. He makes similar odd remarks in physics and math groups (relativity in particular).
    He and Dale could probably have some fruitful discussions.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Glenn@21:1/5 to John Harshman on Fri Aug 12 12:25:45 2022
    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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Harshman@21:1/5 to Glenn on Fri Aug 12 13:05:53 2022
    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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Harshman@21:1/5 to Glenn on Fri Aug 12 13:56:11 2022
    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:
    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?

    What's the point?

    I'm guessing that there isn't one. Am I right?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Glenn@21:1/5 to John Harshman on Fri Aug 12 13:49:07 2022
    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:
    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?

    What's the point?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Glenn@21:1/5 to John Harshman on Fri Aug 12 14:11:09 2022
    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:
    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?

    What's the point?
    I'm guessing that there isn't one. Am I right?

    You don't have a point?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Harshman@21:1/5 to Glenn on Fri Aug 12 15:44:32 2022
    On 8/12/22 2:11 PM, Glenn wrote:
    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:
    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?

    What's the point?
    I'm guessing that there isn't one. Am I right?

    You don't have a point?

    I have arrived at one: there is no point in trying to talk to you. Would
    you agree?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Glenn@21:1/5 to John Harshman on Sat Aug 13 00:15:25 2022
    On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 3:44:37 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
    On 8/12/22 2:11 PM, Glenn wrote:
    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:
    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?

    What's the point?
    I'm guessing that there isn't one. Am I right?

    You don't have a point?
    I have arrived at one: there is no point in trying to talk to you. Would
    you agree?
    What is your point?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Glenn@21:1/5 to John Harshman on Sat Aug 13 13:45:33 2022
    On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 1:22:59 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
    On 8/13/22 12:15 AM, Glenn wrote:
    On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 3:44:37 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
    On 8/12/22 2:11 PM, Glenn wrote:
    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: >>>>>> 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?

    What's the point?
    I'm guessing that there isn't one. Am I right?

    You don't have a point?
    I have arrived at one: there is no point in trying to talk to you. Would >> you agree?
    What is your point?
    I'll take that as a "yes".

    Maybe you should learn how to read.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Harshman@21:1/5 to Glenn on Sat Aug 13 13:22:52 2022
    On 8/13/22 12:15 AM, Glenn wrote:
    On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 3:44:37 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
    On 8/12/22 2:11 PM, Glenn wrote:
    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: >>>>>> 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?

    What's the point?
    I'm guessing that there isn't one. Am I right?

    You don't have a point?
    I have arrived at one: there is no point in trying to talk to you. Would
    you agree?
    What is your point?

    I'll take that as a "yes".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)