Ron O wrote:

There is a new estimate for the time that the chromosomal fusion
occurred to create human chr 2 by combining two ape chromosomes. The
fusion obviously occurred after the human lineage separated from the
chimp lineage, but the time range is in the millions of years.
Researchers have been trying to figure out ways to make some reasonable estimate as to when it occurred. Neanderthals have this fusion, so the
fusion likely occurred before the separation of the Neanderthal lineage 500,000 to 800,000 years ago.

https://www.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/48-46

There's a lot out there that says this could have been more than one event.

That, a mutation where an individual had 47 -- an unmatched pair -- could
have existed. If this gets propagated within a group then you can have
members with the mutation breeding with members who also have the
mutation, until it's no longer a mutation. Doesn't seem likely though, absent
a "Founder Affect," as it would probably be a slight disadvantage, at least
at first. Alternatively, Group-A carrying the mutation meets up with Group-B also carrying the mutation.

I like that idea better, because it gives "Humans" twice the starting point...

Of course if something like this is true then molecular dating sucks rocks.
The fusion could have gone back millions of years before finally cornering
a population, breaking it off from all the other populations... even if we could date it, we'd just be dating the version from the dominate population, not the oldest.

I *Hate* DNA. Everyone treats it as if it were gospels, but nobody actually knows how to read it. It's excellent at showing us differences, and terrible
at trying to work out HOW those differences arose.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/704349243109949440

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

On 12/22/22 6:39 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:

Ron O wrote:

There is a new estimate for the time that the chromosomal fusion
occurred to create human chr 2 by combining two ape chromosomes. The
fusion obviously occurred after the human lineage separated from the
chimp lineage, but the time range is in the millions of years.
Researchers have been trying to figure out ways to make some reasonable
estimate as to when it occurred. Neanderthals have this fusion, so the
fusion likely occurred before the separation of the Neanderthal lineage
500,000 to 800,000 years ago.

https://www.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/48-46

There's a lot out there that says this could have been more than one event.

That, a mutation where an individual had 47 -- an unmatched pair -- could have existed. If this gets propagated within a group then you can have members with the mutation breeding with members who also have the
mutation, until it's no longer a mutation. Doesn't seem likely though, absent a "Founder Affect," as it would probably be a slight disadvantage, at least at first. Alternatively, Group-A carrying the mutation meets up with Group-B also carrying the mutation.

I like that idea better, because it gives "Humans" twice the starting point...

Of course if something like this is true then molecular dating sucks rocks. The fusion could have gone back millions of years before finally cornering
a population, breaking it off from all the other populations... even if we could date it, we'd just be dating the version from the dominate population, not the oldest.

I *Hate* DNA. Everyone treats it as if it were gospels, but nobody actually knows how to read it. It's excellent at showing us differences, and terrible at trying to work out HOW those differences arose.

There's a point to something JTEM said there: the fusion could have
happened before separation of the chimp and human lineages, just not
having attained a high frequency in the population until later.

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

John Harshman wrote:

There's a point to something JTEM said there: the fusion could have
happened before separation of the chimp and human lineages, just not
having attained a high frequency in the population until later.

It's more than that, my honey bunches of oats. It's excessively unlikely
that it happened all at once. In all probability it began as 47
chromosomes and only later became 46. The belief is that it's *Oodles*
easier to move from 48 to 47 and then 46, instead of from 48 to 46.

Going from 48 to 47 isn't much of a barrier to breeding with all the 48 chromosome members of the group, for example. There's no reason why
you can't have both members carrying 47 and 48 chromosomes in the
same population.







-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/704349243109949440

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

On Thu, 22 Dec 2022 21:30:27 -0800 (PST), JTEM is my hero
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

There's a point to something JTEM said there: the fusion could have
happened before separation of the chimp and human lineages, just not
having attained a high frequency in the population until later.

It's more than that, my honey bunches of oats. It's excessively unlikely
that it happened all at once. In all probability it began as 47
chromosomes and only later became 46. The belief is that it's *Oodles*
easier to move from 48 to 47 and then 46, instead of from 48 to 46.

Going from 48 to 47 isn't much of a barrier to breeding with all the 48 >chromosome members of the group, for example. There's no reason why
you can't have both members carrying 47 and 48 chromosomes in the
same population.

What you write above is factually correct. However, those facts don't
inform when the chromosome 2 translocation happened. Using your
words, it's excessively unlikely to have happened after LCA between
H.sapiens and H.neanderthalensis, or before the LCA between chimpanzee
and humans. It's remotely possible there were 46-chromosome
neanderthals and chimpanzee ancestors, but those lineages must have
gone extinct.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

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

On 12/22/2022 10:45 PM, John Harshman wrote:

On 12/22/22 6:39 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:

  Ron O wrote:

There is a new estimate for the time that the chromosomal fusion
occurred to create human chr 2 by combining two ape chromosomes. The
fusion obviously occurred after the human lineage separated from the
chimp lineage, but the time range is in the millions of years.
Researchers have been trying to figure out ways to make some reasonable
estimate as to when it occurred. Neanderthals have this fusion, so the
fusion likely occurred before the separation of the Neanderthal lineage
500,000 to 800,000 years ago.

https://www.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/48-46

There's a lot out there that says this could have been more than one
event.

That, a mutation where an individual had 47 -- an unmatched pair -- could
have existed. If this gets propagated within a group then you can have
members with the mutation breeding with members who also have the
mutation, until it's no longer a mutation. Doesn't seem likely though,
absent
a "Founder Affect," as it would probably be a slight disadvantage, at
least
at first. Alternatively, Group-A carrying the mutation meets up with
Group-B
also carrying the mutation.

I like that idea better, because it gives "Humans" twice the starting
point...

Of course if something like this is true then molecular dating sucks
rocks.
The fusion could have gone back millions of years before finally
cornering
a population, breaking it off from all the other populations... even
if we
could date it, we'd just be dating the version from the dominate
population,
not the oldest.

I *Hate* DNA. Everyone treats it as if it were gospels, but nobody
actually
knows how to read it. It's excellent at showing us differences, and
terrible
at trying to work out HOW those differences arose.

There's a point to something JTEM said there: the fusion could have
happened before separation of the chimp and human lineages, just not
having attained a high frequency in the population until later.

The dating method is associated with the reduction in recombination rate
due to the fusion event no longer being at the end of a chromosome.
There are also the sequence rearrangements and insertion/deletions
around the fusion site between chimps and humans. They could have
occurred after the fusion back millions of years, but that would have
further reduced the recombination rate between the fused and unfused chromosomes.

It doesn't matter for JTEM. If it happened a long time ago or just
recently it still happened and would still be the fusion of what are
still two separate chromosomes in the other apes. Adam and Eve may not
have had the chromosome fusion, but by the time Neanderthals and Modern
Humans separated the fusion existed because Neanderthals also have the
fusion site. The Reason to Believe creationists would claim that
Neanderthals are a recreation that had the same chromosome fusion as
Adam and Eve.

Ron Okimoto

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

On 12/22/2022 8:39 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:

Ron O wrote:

There is a new estimate for the time that the chromosomal fusion
occurred to create human chr 2 by combining two ape chromosomes. The
fusion obviously occurred after the human lineage separated from the
chimp lineage, but the time range is in the millions of years.
Researchers have been trying to figure out ways to make some reasonable
estimate as to when it occurred. Neanderthals have this fusion, so the
fusion likely occurred before the separation of the Neanderthal lineage
500,000 to 800,000 years ago.

https://www.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/48-46

There's a lot out there that says this could have been more than one event.

That, a mutation where an individual had 47 -- an unmatched pair -- could have existed. If this gets propagated within a group then you can have members with the mutation breeding with members who also have the
mutation, until it's no longer a mutation. Doesn't seem likely though, absent a "Founder Affect," as it would probably be a slight disadvantage, at least at first. Alternatively, Group-A carrying the mutation meets up with Group-B also carrying the mutation.

The evidence for more than one deleterious step doesn't involve more
than one fusion event because we only have evidence for one fusion
event. There have been rearrangements and insertion/deletion changes in
the region of the fusion event relative to chimps, but it isn't clear if
they happened before or after the fusion event. You can't tell for
sequence that is missing (deleted). There might have been a mutation
that weakened one centromere of the two chromosomes involved so that,
that chromosome may have had difficulty segregating properly, and would
be deleterious in terms of dead embryos. The fusion event would have
rescued that bad centromere by attaching it to a good centromere of
another chromosome. This would have also aided in reducing the
chromosomal anomalies due to segregation of the fused chromosome with
two active centromeres.

I like that idea better, because it gives "Humans" twice the starting point...

Of course if something like this is true then molecular dating sucks rocks. The fusion could have gone back millions of years before finally cornering
a population, breaking it off from all the other populations... even if we could date it, we'd just be dating the version from the dominate population, not the oldest.

If you understood what they were measuring you would know that it
doesn't matter about how long the fusion existed outside of some fixed population with only the fusion. There is a reduced recombination rate
for the fusion region because it is no longer on the end of two
chromosomes, and what does it matter if it could have happened a million
years before it became a human signature differentiating it from the
other apes. It would have still occurred, and eventually would
differentiate our chromosome number from the other apes.

I *Hate* DNA. Everyone treats it as if it were gospels, but nobody actually knows how to read it. It's excellent at showing us differences, and terrible at trying to work out HOW those differences arose.

Just because you don't want to understand the DNA evidence doesn't mean
that no one can understand it. Behe and Denton are two ID perps that understand the DNA evidence well enough to agree that biological
evolution is a fact of nature, and that it has to be considered in any intelligent design model. The Big Tent was always a lie that the ID
perps propagated. Science is only the best means that we have for understanding nature (the creation) and there is only one nature to
understand. Any ID science would have never supported the Big Tent encompassing all the various biblical creationist beliefs.

Ron Okimoto

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/704349243109949440

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

On 12/22/22 9:30 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

There's a point to something JTEM said there: the fusion could have
happened before separation of the chimp and human lineages, just not
having attained a high frequency in the population until later.

It's more than that, my honey bunches of oats. It's excessively unlikely
that it happened all at once. In all probability it began as 47
chromosomes and only later became 46. The belief is that it's *Oodles*
easier to move from 48 to 47 and then 46, instead of from 48 to 46.

You forgot to misspell my name.

And of course it started with 47. The fusion happened in some gamete and
the resulting individual was a heterozygote.

Going from 48 to 47 isn't much of a barrier to breeding with all the 48 chromosome members of the group, for example. There's no reason why
you can't have both members carrying 47 and 48 chromosomes in the
same population.

And in fact there are many mammal populations, including the current
human one, in which heterozygotic chromosomal fusions exist as a
polymorphism. There are in fact mammal populations in which the
frequencies are enough for homozygotes to be found, with local
populations in which the fusion is fixed.

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

jillery wrote:

What you write above is factually correct. However, those facts don't
inform when the chromosome 2 translocation happened.

I suspect it happened more than once.

Using your
words, it's excessively unlikely to have happened after LCA between
H.sapiens and H.neanderthalensis

The claim is that Neanderthals definitely had 46 chromosomes, yes.

or before the LCA between chimpanzee and humans.

I would suspect -- guess, bet -- that it happened after or it created the split. But it's entirely possible that there were Chimps with 47
Chromosomes.

It's remotely possible there were 46-chromosome
neanderthals and chimpanzee ancestors, but those lineages must have
gone extinct.

I would be very surprised if there were anything on the Pan side with 46 Chromosomes.

I would also be surprised if Heidelberg Man/Neanderthals didn't have 46.
To the best of my knowledge, Neanderthals did.

If you had asked me five years ago I would have guessed a start with
erectus for sure, and maybe even habilis! But certainly erectus. So, don't
ask me when it happened...






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/704315883114364928

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

Ron O wrote:

The evidence for more than one deleterious step doesn't involve more
than one fusion event because we only have evidence for one fusion
event.

Yeah, but that's how DNA works.

If there was more than one event, I can't see how we could expect the
two lines to propagate at a 100% equal basis. This never happens in
the case of humans. The smaller group is swamped by the larger group,
or there's a power inequity... something like that. There's no point in
making any determination dependent on two equally sized groups
interbreeding in a state of equality.

So, we could just be seeing the molecular dating of the dominant group,
which could be more recent. That's all.

Just because you don't want to understand the DNA evidence doesn't mean

Omg, I keep forgetting that you are SO full of shit...

Going from 48 to 47 shouldn't represent much of an issue, certainly less of
an issue than going from 48 to 46. That 46 offspring is going to be dancing alone...

But having 47 chromosomes shouldn't be anywhere near as tough of an issue.
The 47 offspring COULD breed. And when you've got people with 47 doing the slip-n-slide with others who have 47, THAT'S the most likely path to
46.

It's the model that works. Period.

48 -> 47 -> 46

The breeding issue is the, um, well it's the issue. But if you have multiple groups
where the 47 is common enough, and they meet, they can start pushing out 46ers and maybe enough of them so that they don't have to worry about breeding restrictions.






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/704315883114364928

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

On 12/23/22 3:27 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:

John Harpshman wrote:

You forgot to misspell my name.

Sorry, Don. Won't happen again.

And of course it started with 47.

Undoubtedly, that's how it happened.

Where I was going out on the limb was saying that it happened
more than once. Or, to me it almost seems like it had to. There
were two events, not one, and we became "Fixed" at 46 after
these two (or more) groups joined up for a little horizontal Square
Dancing.

Two events aren't required, just one that increases in frequency.
Additional events just result in increased frequency of heterozygotes, increasing the chance of getting a homozygote. But since homozygotes
just breed back into the population, the relevant figure is the
frequency of the fused chromosome in the population, relative to 2N.

And I know I've talked about this before, the two events, going
back some ways, but I don't think I was clear on the importance,
or on it at all.

I don't think there is any importance.

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

John Harpshman wrote:

You forgot to misspell my name.

Sorry, Don. Won't happen again.

And of course it started with 47.

Undoubtedly, that's how it happened.

Where I was going out on the limb was saying that it happened
more than once. Or, to me it almost seems like it had to. There
were two events, not one, and we became "Fixed" at 46 after
these two (or more) groups joined up for a little horizontal Square
Dancing.

And I know I've talked about this before, the two events, going
back some ways, but I don't think I was clear on the importance,
or on it at all.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/704315883114364928

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

On 12/23/2022 5:21 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:

Ron O wrote:

The evidence for more than one deleterious step doesn't involve more
than one fusion event because we only have evidence for one fusion
event.

Yeah, but that's how DNA works.

If there was more than one event, I can't see how we could expect the
two lines to propagate at a 100% equal basis. This never happens in
the case of humans. The smaller group is swamped by the larger group,
or there's a power inequity... something like that. There's no point in making any determination dependent on two equally sized groups
interbreeding in a state of equality.

Why does there have to be two fusion events? Around 1 in 2,000
individuals have some type of chromosome structural difference. They
are called structural variants and include inversions and
translocations. The event was a head to head fusion, so it wasn't a Robertsonian type of reciprocal translocation. Reciprocal
translocations involving the large chromosomes result in half the
gametes being unbalanced. Half the pregnancies result in dead embryos,
usually early in development and they are very common with a lot of them segregating in the population right now. They aren't really noticed
unless the transferred bits of chromosome are small and the embryo dies
late in pregnancy. If there was segregation distortion related to the
fused chromosome it wouldn't be any worse than the reciprocal
translocations that are so common. If there was segregation distortion
there would have been difficulty fixing the change in the population.
It would most easily occur within small family bands. The ancient
Neanderthal DNA indicates that there was inbreeding within the small
family groups, but there was also migration where mostly females would
transfer between groups. With a system like this you could fix the
fusion in one small family group and it could be distributed to other
family groups by transfer of females. You have to mate two carriers
together before you can get progeny that have two copies of the fused chromosome.

The facts are just the facts. The fusion obviously got fixed in the
population ancestral to both modern humans and Neanderthals. It doesn't
matter how unlikely the event is once it happens, and it happened
800,000 years in the past. It could have been intelligent design, but
the designer would have had to use an ape genomic template to create
humans, and part of the design would have been fusing two ape
chromosomes together to make one large chromosome.

So, we could just be seeing the molecular dating of the dominant group,
which could be more recent. That's all.

The recent dominant group would have had to have the chromosome fusion
or it would have been lost by replacement of the smaller group by the
larger group. If the fusion was transferred from the smaller group to
the larger group that would just extend the time that the fusion would segregate in a population, but wouldn't change the date of the original
fusion. For that to matter you would have to demonstrate that the recombination rate was not decreased by the fusion event in populations
with mixed chromosomal composition. The current paper under discussion
used the reduction in recombination rate as their clock. If the
recombination rate only decreased after fixation of the fusion in some population, it could extend the date of the fusion event further back
into the past, but what good does that do creationists that don't want
the fusion event to have ever occurred?

Just because you don't want to understand the DNA evidence doesn't mean

Omg, I keep forgetting that you are SO full of shit...

Who seems to be full of shit and doesn't want to understand the DNA
evidence?

Going from 48 to 47 shouldn't represent much of an issue, certainly less of an issue than going from 48 to 46. That 46 offspring is going to be dancing alone...

Do you know what you are trying to claim? You should try again. There
is no mystery about how you go from 48 to 46 chromosomes due to a
chromosomal fusion. There are 22 pairs of autosomal chromosomes and 1
pair of sex chromosomes (XX or XY) for humans. The other great apes
have 48 chromosomes, 23 pairs of autosomes and one pair of sex
chromosomes. When two of the autosomes fused together you have one
chromosome where you used to have 2. This means that you can have the
same genomic content but have one less pair of chromosomes, so adopting
the fusion reduced the chromosome number for humans to 46 chromosomes.
When the fusion was segregating there was no longer 23 pairs of ape
autosomes. Carriers of the fusion would have 21 pairs of autosomes, the
fusion chromosome, one 2p chromosme and one 2q chromosome. The 2p and
2q chromosomes are no longer paired to individual 2p and 2q chromosomes
so they exist has half pairs. This gives you the 47 chromosome count
for individuals that have one copy of the fusion chromosome.
Individuals in the population without the fusion would have 48
chromosomes and individuals with only the fusion would have 46
chromosomes, so individuals with 46, 47 and 48 chromosomes would
naturally be segregating in the population. If carriers had segregation distortion issues carriers might have half their gametes defective when
the mate with either 46 or 48 chromosome individuals, but there is no
reduction in viable gametes when a 46 chromosome individual mates with
an individual with 48 chromosomes. Such a pairing just produces all
progeny with 47 chromosomes. When a 46 chromosome individual mates with
a 47 chromosome individual half the progeny have 46 chromosomes and half
have 47 chromosomes. But half the gametes of the 47 chromosome
individual are not viable so it takes twice as many conceptions to
produce the same number of progeny. For a species with a monthly
menstural cycle this isn't much of a handicap.

There is no mystery of how you go from 48 chromosomes to 46.

But having 47 chromosomes shouldn't be anywhere near as tough of an issue. The 47 offspring COULD breed. And when you've got people with 47 doing the slip-n-slide with others who have 47, THAT'S the most likely path to
46.

It's the model that works. Period.

48 -> 47 -> 46

The breeding issue is the, um, well it's the issue. But if you have multiple groups
where the 47 is common enough, and they meet, they can start pushing out 46ers
and maybe enough of them so that they don't have to worry about breeding restrictions.

There is no mystery of how you go from 48 chromosomes to 46. You need
to rethink what you are trying to argue.

Ron Okimoto

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/704315883114364928

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

John Harshman wrote:

Two events aren't required

Like I said, THAT'S where I wander our on the limb. Saying it was two
events. And that still makes the most sense.

I don't think there is any importance.

Offspring with 46 chromosomes were severely disadvantaged. Offspring with
47, not so much. So to me it seems most likely to get from a mutant to
billions of Homo running about with 46 chromosomes is to have TWO or
more populations meet up, each with the 47 thing going on.

Maybe we're into unknown & unknowable territory here but, so what?



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/149095877458

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

Ron O wrote:

Why does there have to be two fusion events?

Why does there have to be one?

Once you agree that it doesn't have to be only one, two seems
like the best model. It doesn't have to be right, but neither does
it have to be wrong, and it seems like a stronger model.

I've argued many, Many, MANY times over the years that once
you establish something has happened, you need a reason to
stop it from happening or, by definition, it will happen again.

It did happen again... if it's possible and there is nothing stopping
it.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/149095877458

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

On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 23:36:03 -0800 (PST), JTEM is my hero
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

Ron O wrote:

Why does there have to be two fusion events?

Why does there have to be one?

Once you agree that it doesn't have to be only one, two seems
like the best model. It doesn't have to be right, but neither does
it have to be wrong, and it seems like a stronger model.

I've argued many, Many, MANY times over the years that once
you establish something has happened, you need a reason to
stop it from happening or, by definition, it will happen again.

It did happen again... if it's possible and there is nothing stopping
it.

Events of the type represented by the human chromosome 2 translocation
are rare. For two of these rare events to happen sufficiently close
in time and space to eventually merge to 46 chromosomes is possible,
in the sense that the laws of physics allow it, but is extremely
improbable, especially within small isolated populations. The
mechanism that you previously noted is far more probable and IIUC has
been documented in other species; a single chromosome translocation in
a population of individuals with N chromosomes, followed by the
reproduction of multiple N-1 chromosome offspring, followed by pairs
of N-1 chromosome individuals reproducing N-2 chromosome offspring.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

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

On 12/23/22 11:29 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

Two events aren't required

Like I said, THAT'S where I wander our on the limb. Saying it was two
events. And that still makes the most sense.

I don't think there is any importance.

Offspring with 46 chromosomes were severely disadvantaged. Offspring with
47, not so much. So to me it seems most likely to get from a mutant to billions of Homo running about with 46 chromosomes is to have TWO or
more populations meet up, each with the 47 thing going on.

That just isn't true. Offspring with 46 chromosomes are at no
disadvantage. In fact they have no problems making gametes while those
with 47 have a very slight disadvantage. Nor is there any difference
between two populations and one; only the overall frequency of the fused chromosome matters.

Maybe we're into unknown & unknowable territory here but, so what?

I don't think what you're talking about is unknown and unknowable. It's
simple genetics.

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

On 12/24/2022 1:36 AM, JTEM is my hero wrote:

Ron O wrote:

Why does there have to be two fusion events?

Why does there have to be one?

Snip and run from reality, but reality never changes. There was one,
whether the designer did it or not.

Once you agree that it doesn't have to be only one, two seems
like the best model. It doesn't have to be right, but neither does
it have to be wrong, and it seems like a stronger model.

You didn't understand any of what you were given. It is just a fact
that there was a chromosome fusion involving two ape chromosomes. There
was one, not two or none. It doesn't matter whether the designer did it
or not, there was obviously a chromosome fusion event. These things
happen. Around 1 in 2000 people wandering around today have structural chromosomal mutations like translocations inversions and
duplication/deletions. These things have already happened and they keep happening.

I've argued many, Many, MANY times over the years that once
you establish something has happened, you need a reason to
stop it from happening or, by definition, it will happen again.

The problem is that you can't keep it from happening. These types of
mutations just happen on a regular basis. The only thing we can do is
identify the issue and tell parents the odds of them having normal
children after the events happen. If not enough of one chromosome was transferred to another in the translocation event babies can be born
with severe defects. In the case of this chromosome fusion the aberrant segregation of chromosomes would have been lethal early in embryo
development and the woman likely would not even know she was pregnant
because the whole chromosomes were involved in the fusion. For
translocations where only a piece of a chromosome is transferred there
can be enough development to notice and these people have to be
genetically advised of the possible outcomes of trying to have kids. We
can now super ovulate the woman and produce multiple embryos and pick
out the normal ones, so there is something positive that can be done
after the fact.

It did happen again... if it's possible and there is nothing stopping
it.

The only thing stopping it from happening again is that it has already happened. Such a chromosome fusion could still happen in chimps because
they still have the two separate chromosomes.

Ron Okimoto

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/149095877458

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

John Harshman wrote:

That just isn't true. Offspring with 46 chromosomes are at no
disadvantage.

Sure. Go reproduce with a Chimp.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/hello%20kitty

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

jillery wrote:

Events of the type represented by the human chromosome 2 translocation
are rare.

There's two points here. The first is this type of genetic burping
isn't all that uncommon:

https://www.nature.com/articles/jhg201080

I mean, it's not like everyone undergoes a chromosome count, &
a mapping, yet they do find these things all the time.

Secondly, it's not about mutations it's about viability. If 47 pops
up in an individual, they can still produce viable offspring. But if
someone with 46 magicked up, successful breeding is unlikely at
best.

Seems to me that the best model for having a large enough
population carrying 47 chromosomes so that offspring with 46
can meet and successfully reproduce is if you start with two
or more.

For two of these rare events to happen sufficiently close
in time and space to eventually merge to 46 chromosomes is possible,
in the sense that the laws of physics allow it, but is extremely
improbable, especially within small isolated populations.

So let's delete the time requirement.

If we are speaking of two or more populations, it's very unlikely
that they interbred as equals. Just having one group larger than
the other throws everything out of whack!

That's all you need; a population difference. Such a mutation could
have been floating around in Group-A for a million years, and present
in Group-B for only 10k. But if Group-B is larger, it may be their DNA
that gets passed down through the filter of time.

The
mechanism that you previously noted is far more probable and IIUC has
been documented in other species; a single chromosome translocation in
a population of individuals with N chromosomes, followed by the
reproduction of multiple N-1 chromosome offspring, followed by pairs
of N-1 chromosome individuals reproducing N-2 chromosome offspring.

Yeah, well, there's more than one model. This is the norm. I don't see
that as the best model. Given a reproductive rate that looks something
like a rodent, sure. But start slowing things down, longer childhoods, fewer offspring and it doesn't look as hot.

A lot of this depends on your assumptions, or overview. The more recent
you make this happen, for example, the more like us in the present your starting population looks, and acts.

Environment matters. If you subscribe to Aquatic Ape then you can
support a larger population than a forest. And if Chimps are any
indication, the forest can support a larger population than a savanna.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/704367375724707840

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

Ron O wrote:

Snip

Oh, the freudian thing again...

It's too late now. If dad was going to castrate you it would already
be gone...

You didn't

Jesus Christ! You play this fool well...

There
was one, not two or none. It doesn't matter whether the designer did it
or not, there was obviously a chromosome fusion event. These things
happen. Around 1 in 2000 people wandering around today have structural chromosomal mutations like translocations inversions and duplication/deletions. These things have already happened and they keep happening.

That's the point. But offspring with 46 chromosomes is unlikely to have
been able to reproduce with members of the population with 48. So we're
talking about how it went from 48 to 46.

The problem is that you can't keep it from happening.

That's not the problem, no.

The problem isn't that mutations happen. The problem is coming up with
a model that best provides for a mutation coming to typify a population.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/hello%20kitty

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

John Harshmin wrote:

Do you consider that a serious response? Do you really think it's the chromosome count that's the problem there?

Yeah, I'm the one who invented the idea that the chromosome fusion
was a barrier to reproduction. That was me. All the cites you can
find talking about it? All me. It was very clever of you to note this
fact, introduce it as your "Argument." Very clever, indeed. And I'm not
being the least bit sarcastic.

Well. Maybe just a little.






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/hello%20kitty

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

On 12/24/22 8:01 AM, JTEM is my hero wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

That just isn't true. Offspring with 46 chromosomes are at no
disadvantage.

Sure. Go reproduce with a Chimp.

Do you consider that a serious response? Do you really think it's the chromosome count that's the problem there? Just think for a change.

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

On 12/24/22 8:44 AM, JTEM is my hero wrote:

John Harshmin wrote:

Do you consider that a serious response? Do you really think it's the
chromosome count that's the problem there?

Yeah, I'm the one who invented the idea that the chromosome fusion
was a barrier to reproduction. That was me. All the cites you can
find talking about it? All me. It was very clever of you to note this
fact, introduce it as your "Argument." Very clever, indeed. And I'm not
being the least bit sarcastic.

Well. Maybe just a little.

Well, when sarcasm is your only tool, I suppose that's what you have to
use. The fact is that (as Ron O. has tried to explain to you a few times
now), the problem with chromosome fusions lies with meiosis in
heterozygotes, in which there can be problems in forming gametes, though
with only minor effects on fecundity. But that's exactly the "barrier to reproduction" you're talking about. It's the same barrier whether the heterozygote goes only to mate with an individual having 46, 47, or 48 chromosomes. The sole effect is during meiosis in gametogenesis.

There is of course no such problem with homozygotes, regardless of
whether they have 48 or 46 chromosomes. And mitosis is no difficulty at
all. The result of a mating between 48-chromosome and 46-chromosome
individuals would just be all 47-chromosome heterozygotes, with no
reduced fecundity.

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

John Harkman wrote:

JTEM is my hero wrote:

Yeah, I'm the one who invented the idea that the chromosome fusion
was a barrier to reproduction. That was me. All the cites you can
find talking about it? All me. It was very clever of you to note this
fact, introduce it as your "Argument." Very clever, indeed. And I'm not being the least bit sarcastic.

Well. Maybe just a little.

Well, when sarcasm is

Wow. Doubling Down on your stupidity. i am so shocked oh my gosh i
can't believe it no way this has never happened before oh my.

(That was more sarcasm, btw)

The fact is that (as Ron O. has tried to explain to you

And your lack of reading comprehension!

In this one thread such an event was impossibly rare and could never
happen twice AND oh so common. In both cases the point was to
disagree with me, not stick to what is at issue. And what is at issue?
Now a mutation, and exception, came to be the norm.

And this Harpmen sock puppet? You're even pretending that I invented
the notion that the chromosome fusion would be a barrier to
reproduction (with those who lack it).

I invented it. All me. My idea. Never before seen or heard before me, here
and now. AND YOU'RE DOUBLING DOWN, you're such a disgrace!

There's science and then there's emotional problems. You have emotional problems. Lots.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/Merry%20Christmas

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

On 12/24/22 9:32 AM, JTEM is my hero wrote:

John Harkman wrote:

JTEM is my hero wrote:

Yeah, I'm the one who invented the idea that the chromosome fusion
was a barrier to reproduction. That was me. All the cites you can
find talking about it? All me. It was very clever of you to note this
fact, introduce it as your "Argument." Very clever, indeed. And I'm not
being the least bit sarcastic.

Well. Maybe just a little.

Well, when sarcasm is

Wow. Doubling Down on your stupidity. i am so shocked oh my gosh i
can't believe it no way this has never happened before oh my.

(That was more sarcasm, btw)

The fact is that (as Ron O. has tried to explain to you

And your lack of reading comprehension!

In this one thread such an event was impossibly rare and could never
happen twice AND oh so common. In both cases the point was to
disagree with me, not stick to what is at issue. And what is at issue?
Now a mutation, and exception, came to be the norm.

And this Harpmen sock puppet? You're even pretending that I invented
the notion that the chromosome fusion would be a barrier to
reproduction (with those who lack it).

I invented it. All me. My idea. Never before seen or heard before me, here and now. AND YOU'RE DOUBLING DOWN, you're such a disgrace!

There's science and then there's emotional problems. You have emotional problems. Lots.

Well, one can at least hope that somebody read that post and learned
something, if you didn't. I see you have no response to the actual content.

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

On 12/24/2022 10:07 AM, JTEM is my hero wrote:

Ron O wrote:

Snip

Oh, the freudian thing again...

It's too late now. If dad was going to castrate you it would already
be gone...

Isn't it sad that what you snipped out and ran from would have told you
how wrong your were?

You didn't

Jesus Christ! You play this fool well...

What type of fool are you playing?

There
was one, not two or none. It doesn't matter whether the designer did it
or not, there was obviously a chromosome fusion event. These things
happen. Around 1 in 2000 people wandering around today have structural
chromosomal mutations like translocations inversions and
duplication/deletions. These things have already happened and they keep
happening.

That's the point. But offspring with 46 chromosomes is unlikely to have
been able to reproduce with members of the population with 48. So we're talking about how it went from 48 to 46.

What you have just snipped out and run from explained what happened when
an individual with 46 chromosomes mated with one with the ancestral 48 chromosome individuals. Go up one post and find out for yourself that
100% of the possible combinations are viable they all result in
individuals with 47 chromosomes. When an individual with 47 chromosomes
mates with one with the ancestral 48 chromosomes half the progeny born
have 48 chromosomes and half have 47 chromosomes. When an individual
with 47 chromosomes mates with an individual with 46 chromosomes half
the progeny have 47 chromosomes and half have 46 chromosomes.

The half of gametes that have an too much or too little of a chromosome
cause early embryonic death, and the female likely never knew she was
pregnant. This likely delays a successful pregnancy, but not by much
because humans have a monthly menstrual cycle.

That is one of the reasons you see claims that the fusion wasn't very deleterious. There are also cases where for some reason the chromosomes continue to pair properly and there isn't any segregation distortion and
full complements of the affected chromosomes find their way into gametes
so there doesn't seem to be much of any effect.

The problem is that you can't keep it from happening.

That's not the problem, no.

The problem isn't that mutations happen. The problem is coming up with
a model that best provides for a mutation coming to typify a population.

No problem at all as you can see above. Just drift and founder effects
would do it. It would have helped if the fusion was selected for, for
some reason, but there wasn't much keeping the fusion from hanging
around until it was fixed or not. There are claims that the fusion
brought differnt genes in closer proximity on one chromosome and that
might have been selected for due to the change in gene regulation.

Ron Okimoto

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/hello%20kitty

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

Ron O wrote:

Isn't it sad that what you snipped

No. You weren't using them anyway.

And, again, it's not about mutations. It's not about chromosome
fusions. It's about how an anomaly became the norm.

What type of

Nope. Didn't work. It's still about how an anomaly became the
norm.

What you have just snipped

Those little raisins weren't doing anything...

And keep in mind: You're supposed to be DIFFERENT people!

You're pretending that there's a vast conspiracy here, where
years -- GENERATIONS -- of sources talking about the change
in chromosome count being a barrier to interbreeding were
all created in an attempt to hide the fact that I only just now
invented the idea.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/704331147857051648

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

On 12/24/2022 1:03 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:

Ron O wrote:

Isn't it sad that what you snipped

No. You weren't using them anyway.

And, again, it's not about mutations. It's not about chromosome
fusions. It's about how an anomaly became the norm.

I see that you have snipped and run from what you can't deal with again.
Just like any other mutation it gets fixed in the population. If
there is a selective advantage the fixation is faster. If it is neutral fixation is literally the rate of mutation, but is affected by things
like founder effects.

What was keeping it from becoming the norm. What you snipped out would
have told you that matings produced viable progeny. Your example of 46
X 48 was no impediment. 100% of the gametes are viable and all progeny
just have 47 chromosomes. For matings of 46 X 47 half the progeny have
46 chromosomes and half have 47.

What type of

Nope. Didn't work. It's still about how an anomaly became the
norm.

What you have just snipped

Those little raisins weren't doing anything...

They are just things that you had to run from and deny, so they
obviously did something. Just because you want to remain willfully
ignorant doesn't mean much.

And keep in mind: You're supposed to be DIFFERENT people!

You're pretending that there's a vast conspiracy here, where
years -- GENERATIONS -- of sources talking about the change
in chromosome count being a barrier to interbreeding were
all created in an attempt to hide the fact that I only just now
invented the idea.

This seems like you are talking about yourself. Did you write this or
was it one of your other personalities.

Ron Okimoto

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/704331147857051648

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

John Harshman wrote:

Well, one can at least hope

"It's a conspiracy! All those cites talking about the chromosome
fusion being a barrier to interbreeding were faked! They were
created to hide the fact that JTEM came up with the idea. Here.
Just now."

Oh, the lengths your disorder sends you down..



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/704331147857051648

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

Ron O wrote:

I see that you have snipped

No. You castrated yourself.

What was keeping it from becoming the norm. What

So you're BOTH claiming that these types of mutations happen
all the time AND that we've been fixed with 46 Chromosomes
being the norm since before the emergence of our species...

Hmm.

AND you're pretending that this is settled, that I made up the
idea that the Chromosome thingy is a barrier to reproduction.
I headed a VAST conspiracy to fake generations of cites
taking about this, all to hide the fact that I only just made it up
now.

Damn. If you are a seriously deranged sock puppet.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/704349243109949440

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

On 12/24/2022 3:45 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:

Ron O wrote:

I see that you have snipped

No. You castrated yourself.

You seem to be talking to yourself again. Are all your personalities
aware of each other?

What was keeping it from becoming the norm. What

So you're BOTH claiming that these types of mutations happen
all the time AND that we've been fixed with 46 Chromosomes
being the norm since before the emergence of our species...

Hmm.

The estimated time of the fusion is around 800,000 years ago if you had
read the paper that this thread is about. That was about the time the population that became Neanderthals and Denisovans were leaving Africa. Anatomically modern humans are found in the fossil record in Africa in sediments around 200,000 years old.

The genome sequence we have of Neanderthals indicates that they had the chromosome fusion, so they seem to have taken it with them when they
left Africa.

I don't think you can claim that population that became Neanderthals
were fixed for the chromosome fusion when they left Africa, but their descendants that became Neanderthals had the fusion 60,000 years ago.

AND you're pretending that this is settled, that I made up the
idea that the Chromosome thingy is a barrier to reproduction.
I headed a VAST conspiracy to fake generations of cites
taking about this, all to hide the fact that I only just made it up
now.

Nothing should have to be settled. Things are just what they are.

Damn. If you are a seriously deranged sock puppet.

You seem to have another personality wandering around in your mind that
keeps writing notes to your other personalities.

Willful ignorance and snipping and running doesn't change reality. That
seems to be what the other fella wandering around inside your brain
seems to be trying to tell you. Is the one that writes most of your
posts just a sock puppet for the others?

Ron Okimoto

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/704349243109949440

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

On Sat, 24 Dec 2022 09:15:23 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:

On 12/24/22 8:44 AM, JTEM is my hero wrote:

John Harshmin wrote:

Do you consider that a serious response? Do you really think it's the
chromosome count that's the problem there?

Yeah, I'm the one who invented the idea that the chromosome fusion
was a barrier to reproduction. That was me. All the cites you can
find talking about it? All me. It was very clever of you to note this
fact, introduce it as your "Argument." Very clever, indeed. And I'm not
being the least bit sarcastic.

Well. Maybe just a little.

Well, when sarcasm is your only tool, I suppose that's what you have to
use. The fact is that (as Ron O. has tried to explain to you a few times >now),

Not just Ron O.

the problem with chromosome fusions lies with meiosis in
heterozygotes, in which there can be problems in forming gametes, though >with only minor effects on fecundity. But that's exactly the "barrier to >reproduction" you're talking about. It's the same barrier whether the >heterozygote goes only to mate with an individual having 46, 47, or 48 >chromosomes. The sole effect is during meiosis in gametogenesis.

There is of course no such problem with homozygotes, regardless of
whether they have 48 or 46 chromosomes. And mitosis is no difficulty at
all. The result of a mating between 48-chromosome and 46-chromosome >individuals would just be all 47-chromosome heterozygotes, with no
reduced fecundity.

JTEM did raise a point worth mentioning, that many people think the
human chromosome 2 translocation was responsible for creating
H.sapiens. In fact, it had almost nothing to do with it.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

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

On 12/24/22 4:04 PM, jillery wrote:

On Sat, 24 Dec 2022 09:15:23 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:

On 12/24/22 8:44 AM, JTEM is my hero wrote:

John Harshmin wrote:

Do you consider that a serious response? Do you really think it's the
chromosome count that's the problem there?

Yeah, I'm the one who invented the idea that the chromosome fusion
was a barrier to reproduction. That was me. All the cites you can
find talking about it? All me. It was very clever of you to note this
fact, introduce it as your "Argument." Very clever, indeed. And I'm not
being the least bit sarcastic.

Well. Maybe just a little.

Well, when sarcasm is your only tool, I suppose that's what you have to
use. The fact is that (as Ron O. has tried to explain to you a few times
now),

Not just Ron O.

the problem with chromosome fusions lies with meiosis in
heterozygotes, in which there can be problems in forming gametes, though
with only minor effects on fecundity. But that's exactly the "barrier to
reproduction" you're talking about. It's the same barrier whether the
heterozygote goes only to mate with an individual having 46, 47, or 48
chromosomes. The sole effect is during meiosis in gametogenesis.

There is of course no such problem with homozygotes, regardless of
whether they have 48 or 46 chromosomes. And mitosis is no difficulty at
all. The result of a mating between 48-chromosome and 46-chromosome
individuals would just be all 47-chromosome heterozygotes, with no
reduced fecundity.

JTEM did raise a point worth mentioning, that many people think the
human chromosome 2 translocation was responsible for creating
H.sapiens. In fact, it had almost nothing to do with it.

We don't actually know that. Conceivably, there's something about it
that's important. But it does seem unlikely.

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

jillery wrote:

JTEM did raise a point worth mentioning, that many people think the
human chromosome 2 translocation was responsible for creating
H.sapiens. In fact, it had almost nothing to do with it.

Ah. The brain trust is coalescing!

Watch for the back-peddling! It's always so much fun.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/704216412103884800

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

Ron O wrote:

You seem to be talking to yourself

Which is weird. Because if there is anyone here other than another
sock puppet of your's reading this, and they are too stupid to see
what you're doing, what you always do, you already fooled them.
There's no point in continuing. And if you haven't fooled them, well,
you just keep digging the hole deeper & deeper...

The estimated time of the fusion is around 800,000 years ago

I don't buy into molecular dating at all. Are you claiming that they
retrieved DNA from a fossil of 800,000 years in age or is your
statement predicated in the fantasy of molecular dating?

And dating is irrelevant anyways. Even if there were such a thing
as molecular dating, it is just as likely telling us the most recent
time a fusion occurred, not the first. Or it could be telling us the
first -- we'd literally have no way of knowing. So it's irrelevant.

Remember: You DO claim that such mutations are common! And
that because they're so common it couldn't happen more than
once... because that would require them to be common, which you
say they are... and are not.

Here. You in one of your many different mental states "Arguing"
that it was too common to happen more than once:

: These things happen. Around 1 in 2000 people wandering around
: today have structural chromosomal mutations like translocations
: inversions and duplication/deletions. These things have already
: happened and they keep happening.

Oo! And then there's your free-fall fantasy concerning the VAST
internet conspiracy, as well as time travel. This is how I could invent
the notion that the chromosome fusion could be a barrier to
interbreeding -- and genetic wall of isolation -- right here and right
now, AND there can be cites going back many years all talking
about the same thing.

Are you autistic? Is this why you see this black & white world where
one answer is 10 hundred million percent correct and agreed upon,
and the more common answer doesn't exist?

Man, you are 10 shades of screwed...

Merry Christmas!



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/704216412103884800

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

On Sat, 24 Dec 2022 17:39:40 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:

On 12/24/22 4:04 PM, jillery wrote:

On Sat, 24 Dec 2022 09:15:23 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:

On 12/24/22 8:44 AM, JTEM is my hero wrote:

John Harshmin wrote:

Do you consider that a serious response? Do you really think it's the >>>>> chromosome count that's the problem there?

Yeah, I'm the one who invented the idea that the chromosome fusion
was a barrier to reproduction. That was me. All the cites you can
find talking about it? All me. It was very clever of you to note this
fact, introduce it as your "Argument." Very clever, indeed. And I'm not >>>> being the least bit sarcastic.

Well. Maybe just a little.

Well, when sarcasm is your only tool, I suppose that's what you have to
use. The fact is that (as Ron O. has tried to explain to you a few times >>> now),

Not just Ron O.

No reply. Quelle surprise.

the problem with chromosome fusions lies with meiosis in
heterozygotes, in which there can be problems in forming gametes, though >>> with only minor effects on fecundity. But that's exactly the "barrier to >>> reproduction" you're talking about. It's the same barrier whether the
heterozygote goes only to mate with an individual having 46, 47, or 48
chromosomes. The sole effect is during meiosis in gametogenesis.

There is of course no such problem with homozygotes, regardless of
whether they have 48 or 46 chromosomes. And mitosis is no difficulty at
all. The result of a mating between 48-chromosome and 46-chromosome
individuals would just be all 47-chromosome heterozygotes, with no
reduced fecundity.

JTEM did raise a point worth mentioning, that many people think the
human chromosome 2 translocation was responsible for creating
H.sapiens. In fact, it had almost nothing to do with it.

We don't actually know that. Conceivably, there's something about it
that's important. But it does seem unlikely.

I suppose you're right, if you mean "We don't actually know" in the
same sense as "We weren't there".

This topic reprises the same issues discussed in a recent SBP thread,
which you also conveniently ignored. Similar methods which date when
human chromosome 2 fused, also date when various lineages diverged
from modern humans. My understanding is none of those divergences
correlate with that fusion event. This doesn't inform whether that
fusion event caused some feature we modern humans have, but biological isolation isn't one of them.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

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

On 12/24/2022 11:49 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:

Ron O wrote:

You seem to be talking to yourself

Which is weird. Because if there is anyone here other than another
sock puppet of your's reading this, and they are too stupid to see
what you're doing, what you always do, you already fooled them.
There's no point in continuing. And if you haven't fooled them, well,
you just keep digging the hole deeper & deeper...

We both should understand by now that you are the paranoid lost soul
that has to snip and run from what you need to remain willfully ignorant
of. The poor guy that has to make up lies about sock puppets to keep
the delusions running.

Demonstrate that you did not snip and run to remain willfully ignorant.
What happens when an individual with 46 chromosomes pairs with an
individual with 48 chromosomes? Are any missegregation gametes produced
by either individual? Are any pregnancies going to be prematurely
terminated by the missegregation of chromosomes? How many chromosomes
will all the progeny have?

The estimated time of the fusion is around 800,000 years ago

I don't buy into molecular dating at all. Are you claiming that they retrieved DNA from a fossil of 800,000 years in age or is your
statement predicated in the fantasy of molecular dating?

Willful ignorance is just a way of life for you. What was this thread
about, and how could you have checked out what you want to remain
willfully ignorant of?

And dating is irrelevant anyways. Even if there were such a thing
as molecular dating, it is just as likely telling us the most recent
time a fusion occurred, not the first. Or it could be telling us the
first -- we'd literally have no way of knowing. So it's irrelevant.

We only have evidence of one fusion event creating human chromosome 2.
You should read the two references provided in the first post of this
thread. You can look up some of the old literature that predates the
molecular work.

This is cytological evidence from 1982. https://personal.broadinstitute.org/sfs/personal/Science-1982-Yunis-1525-30.pdf

WIKI entry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2

It probably wasn't the first fusion event in the human lineage, but for
the creation of chromosome 2 it was the one fusion event that managed to
be fixed in the population that became modern humans that resulted in
the creation of chromosome 2 from what are still two separate
chromosomes in the other great apes.

Remember: You DO claim that such mutations are common! And
that because they're so common it couldn't happen more than
once... because that would require them to be common, which you
say they are... and are not.

Yes, they are common, but not many get fixed in the population. As I
said around 1 in 2,000 people walking around have some type of
chromosommal structural mutation. Pretty much all of them are only
found in a few individuals of the extant population.

Here. You in one of your many different mental states "Arguing"
that it was too common to happen more than once:

: These things happen. Around 1 in 2000 people wandering around
: today have structural chromosomal mutations like translocations
: inversions and duplication/deletions. These things have already
: happened and they keep happening.

Oo! And then there's your free-fall fantasy concerning the VAST
internet conspiracy, as well as time travel. This is how I could invent
the notion that the chromosome fusion could be a barrier to
interbreeding -- and genetic wall of isolation -- right here and right
now, AND there can be cites going back many years all talking
about the same thing.

What do you not get? Look up fixation rate of neutral mutations, and
then think about the fact that most structural variants are not neutral
and most have deleterious effects. The fusion was probably not that deleterious because half the gametes of carriers would be lethal, but
the lethality occurs early in development, so it just means that half
the conceptions would not lead to a normal pregnancy. Humans have a
monthly menstrual cycle, so normal pregnancies would just be delayed.
There is no segregation distortion for individuals that have 46
chromosomes instead of the ancestral 48. You would understand that if
you hadn't snipped and run from the information multiple times in this
thread.

Are you autistic? Is this why you see this black & white world where
one answer is 10 hundred million percent correct and agreed upon,
and the more common answer doesn't exist?

You seem to be talking to yourself again. Do all your personalities
know the others exist? You seem to lose track.

Man, you are 10 shades of screwed...

Which personality is this telling the one writing your post that they
are 10 shades of screwed?

Ron Okimoto

Merry Christmas!

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/704216412103884800

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

On Sun, 25 Dec 2022 06:40:48 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:

On 12/24/22 11:29 PM, jillery wrote:

On Sat, 24 Dec 2022 17:39:40 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:

On 12/24/22 4:04 PM, jillery wrote:

On Sat, 24 Dec 2022 09:15:23 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:

On 12/24/22 8:44 AM, JTEM is my hero wrote:

John Harshmin wrote:

Do you consider that a serious response? Do you really think it's the >>>>>>> chromosome count that's the problem there?

Yeah, I'm the one who invented the idea that the chromosome fusion >>>>>> was a barrier to reproduction. That was me. All the cites you can
find talking about it? All me. It was very clever of you to note this >>>>>> fact, introduce it as your "Argument." Very clever, indeed. And I'm not >>>>>> being the least bit sarcastic.

Well. Maybe just a little.

Well, when sarcasm is your only tool, I suppose that's what you have to >>>>> use. The fact is that (as Ron O. has tried to explain to you a few times >>>>> now),

Not just Ron O.

No reply. Quelle surprise.

I don't believe you actually did explain how chromosomal fusions affect >reproduction. Perhaps I missed it. But you should definitely get over >yourself.

You first.

the problem with chromosome fusions lies with meiosis in
heterozygotes, in which there can be problems in forming gametes, though >>>>> with only minor effects on fecundity. But that's exactly the "barrier to >>>>> reproduction" you're talking about. It's the same barrier whether the >>>>> heterozygote goes only to mate with an individual having 46, 47, or 48 >>>>> chromosomes. The sole effect is during meiosis in gametogenesis.

There is of course no such problem with homozygotes, regardless of
whether they have 48 or 46 chromosomes. And mitosis is no difficulty at >>>>> all. The result of a mating between 48-chromosome and 46-chromosome
individuals would just be all 47-chromosome heterozygotes, with no
reduced fecundity.

JTEM did raise a point worth mentioning, that many people think the
human chromosome 2 translocation was responsible for creating
H.sapiens. In fact, it had almost nothing to do with it.

We don't actually know that. Conceivably, there's something about it
that's important. But it does seem unlikely.

I suppose you're right, if you mean "We don't actually know" in the
same sense as "We weren't there".

This topic reprises the same issues discussed in a recent SBP thread,
which you also conveniently ignored. Similar methods which date when
human chromosome 2 fused, also date when various lineages diverged
from modern humans. My understanding is none of those divergences
correlate with that fusion event. This doesn't inform whether that
fusion event caused some feature we modern humans have, but biological
isolation isn't one of them.

There is ambiguity regarding what "H. sapiens" means. Some people still >consider neandertals and denisovans "archaic H. sapiens". Biological >isolation isn't really the question here.

It is the question I raised. Feel free to specify the question you
raised.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

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

On 12/24/22 11:29 PM, jillery wrote:

On Sat, 24 Dec 2022 17:39:40 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:

On 12/24/22 4:04 PM, jillery wrote:

On Sat, 24 Dec 2022 09:15:23 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:

On 12/24/22 8:44 AM, JTEM is my hero wrote:

John Harshmin wrote:

Do you consider that a serious response? Do you really think it's the >>>>>> chromosome count that's the problem there?

Yeah, I'm the one who invented the idea that the chromosome fusion
was a barrier to reproduction. That was me. All the cites you can
find talking about it? All me. It was very clever of you to note this >>>>> fact, introduce it as your "Argument." Very clever, indeed. And I'm not >>>>> being the least bit sarcastic.

Well. Maybe just a little.

Well, when sarcasm is your only tool, I suppose that's what you have to >>>> use. The fact is that (as Ron O. has tried to explain to you a few times >>>> now),

Not just Ron O.

No reply. Quelle surprise.

I don't believe you actually did explain how chromosomal fusions affect reproduction. Perhaps I missed it. But you should definitely get over
yourself.

the problem with chromosome fusions lies with meiosis in
heterozygotes, in which there can be problems in forming gametes, though >>>> with only minor effects on fecundity. But that's exactly the "barrier to >>>> reproduction" you're talking about. It's the same barrier whether the
heterozygote goes only to mate with an individual having 46, 47, or 48 >>>> chromosomes. The sole effect is during meiosis in gametogenesis.

There is of course no such problem with homozygotes, regardless of
whether they have 48 or 46 chromosomes. And mitosis is no difficulty at >>>> all. The result of a mating between 48-chromosome and 46-chromosome
individuals would just be all 47-chromosome heterozygotes, with no
reduced fecundity.

JTEM did raise a point worth mentioning, that many people think the
human chromosome 2 translocation was responsible for creating
H.sapiens. In fact, it had almost nothing to do with it.

We don't actually know that. Conceivably, there's something about it
that's important. But it does seem unlikely.

I suppose you're right, if you mean "We don't actually know" in the
same sense as "We weren't there".

This topic reprises the same issues discussed in a recent SBP thread,
which you also conveniently ignored. Similar methods which date when
human chromosome 2 fused, also date when various lineages diverged
from modern humans. My understanding is none of those divergences
correlate with that fusion event. This doesn't inform whether that
fusion event caused some feature we modern humans have, but biological isolation isn't one of them.

There is ambiguity regarding what "H. sapiens" means. Some people still consider neandertals and denisovans "archaic H. sapiens". Biological
isolation isn't really the question here.

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

Ron O wrote:

We both

So let's recap:

You are that such mutations are far too common to happen more than once,
AND that I invented the notion that the drop to 46 chromosome was a likely barrier to interbreeding, a form of genetic isolation. I someone undertook a vast conspiracy where I wrote & backdates the countless cites talking about this.

This is pretty typical of you, wilding flailing about, gushing ANYTHING as a rationalization, grepping for any excuse to claim you oppose something...

Demonstrate that

: These things happen. Around 1 in 2000 people wandering around
: today have structural chromosomal mutations like translocations
: inversions and duplication/deletions. These things have already
: happened and they keep happening.

That's you! That's you "Arguing" that there could only ever be a single event... Sheesh!

snip

Your junk was long gone before I said anything.

But I love this OTHER conspiracy theory, the one where a operate a
nefarious cancel bot, merely to transform you Nobel Prize winning
papers into butt of jokes....

We only have evidence of one fusion event creating human chromosome 2.

Great. The whole point is HOW we dropped from 48 to 46. It's about creating
a model where this can happen, and is a better model than others.

This is cytological evidence from 1982.

As usual, you post a URL and then demand that everybody else guess as what
you mean. If you find a quote in there that you feel supports a particular view,
quote it. Explain what you believe it supports, and why.

This isn't hard. You are pretending to have read it, and understood it AND that it supports a position you are holding. Yet, as always, you are incapable of saying WHY.

WIKI entry:

Wiki isn't a cite. It can be used to establish that, yes, an idea is out there, it's
not just you, but it's dominated by a very small number of dogmatic trolls.

It probably wasn't the first fusion event in the human lineage, but for
the creation of chromosome 2 it was the one fusion event that managed to
be fixed in the population that became modern humans

We are talking about how. And, yes, I do believe believe the "How" is best explained by two events, not one. The mutation popped up in two or more populations.. probably a mutation were instead of a matched pair of 48 or
46 they carried 47. Not everyone. Maybe not even most.

Remember: You DO claim that such mutations are common! And
that because they're so common it couldn't happen more than
once... because that would require them to be common, which you
say they are... and are not.

Yes, they are common

So we are agreed: "They are so common that they could never happen
more than once."

THAT is your "Argument" <cough> <cough> <cough>

Oh. And your castration complex:

https://dictionary.apa.org/castration-complex

Trust me, sugar lumps. I never touched your jewels. They were already
gone. So no more talk about me giving you the snip.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/704660666718502912

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

On 12/26/2022 3:41 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:

Ron O wrote:

We both

So let's recap:

You are that such mutations are far too common to happen more than once,
AND that I invented the notion that the drop to 46 chromosome was a likely barrier to interbreeding, a form of genetic isolation. I someone undertook a vast conspiracy where I wrote & backdates the countless cites talking about this.

This is pretty typical of you, wilding flailing about, gushing ANYTHING as a rationalization, grepping for any excuse to claim you oppose something...

Demonstrate that

: These things happen. Around 1 in 2000 people wandering around
: today have structural chromosomal mutations like translocations
: inversions and duplication/deletions. These things have already
: happened and they keep happening.

That's you! That's you "Arguing" that there could only ever be a single event... Sheesh!

snip

Your junk was long gone before I said anything.

But I love this OTHER conspiracy theory, the one where a operate a
nefarious cancel bot, merely to transform you Nobel Prize winning
papers into butt of jokes....

We only have evidence of one fusion event creating human chromosome 2.

Great. The whole point is HOW we dropped from 48 to 46. It's about creating
a model where this can happen, and is a better model than others.

This is cytological evidence from 1982.

As usual, you post a URL and then demand that everybody else guess as what you mean. If you find a quote in there that you feel supports a particular view,
quote it. Explain what you believe it supports, and why.

This isn't hard. You are pretending to have read it, and understood it AND that
it supports a position you are holding. Yet, as always, you are incapable of saying WHY.

WIKI entry:

Wiki isn't a cite. It can be used to establish that, yes, an idea is out there, it's
not just you, but it's dominated by a very small number of dogmatic trolls.

It probably wasn't the first fusion event in the human lineage, but for
the creation of chromosome 2 it was the one fusion event that managed to
be fixed in the population that became modern humans

We are talking about how. And, yes, I do believe believe the "How" is best explained by two events, not one. The mutation popped up in two or more populations.. probably a mutation were instead of a matched pair of 48 or
46 they carried 47. Not everyone. Maybe not even most.

Remember: You DO claim that such mutations are common! And
that because they're so common it couldn't happen more than
once... because that would require them to be common, which you
say they are... and are not.

Yes, they are common

So we are agreed: "They are so common that they could never happen
more than once."

THAT is your "Argument" <cough> <cough> <cough>

Oh. And your castration complex:

https://dictionary.apa.org/castration-complex

Trust me, sugar lumps. I never touched your jewels. They were already
gone. So no more talk about me giving you the snip.

A lot of snipping and running, but not much else.

Ron Okimoto

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/704660666718502912

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

On 12/26/22 6:04 PM, RonO wrote:

On 12/26/2022 3:41 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:

Ron O wrote:

We both

So let's recap:

You are that such mutations are far too common to happen more than once,
AND that I invented the notion that the drop to 46 chromosome was a
likely
barrier to interbreeding, a form of genetic isolation. I someone
undertook a
vast conspiracy where I wrote & backdates the countless cites talking
about
this.

This is pretty typical of you, wilding flailing about, gushing
ANYTHING as a
rationalization, grepping for any excuse to claim you oppose something...

Demonstrate that

: These things happen. Around 1 in 2000 people wandering around
: today have structural chromosomal mutations like translocations
: inversions and duplication/deletions. These things have already
: happened and they keep happening.

That's you! That's you "Arguing" that there could only ever be a single
event... Sheesh!

  snip

Your junk was long gone before I said anything.

But I love this OTHER conspiracy theory, the one where a operate a
nefarious cancel bot, merely to transform you Nobel Prize winning
papers into butt of jokes....

We only have evidence of one fusion event creating human chromosome 2.

Great. The whole point is HOW we dropped from 48 to 46. It's about
creating
a model where this can happen, and is a better model than others.

This is cytological evidence from 1982.

As usual, you post a URL and then demand that everybody else guess as
what
you mean. If you find a quote in there that you feel supports a
particular view,
quote it. Explain what you believe it supports, and why.

This isn't hard. You are pretending to have read it, and understood it
AND that
it supports a position you are holding. Yet, as always, you are
incapable of
saying WHY.

WIKI entry:

Wiki isn't a cite. It can be used to establish that, yes, an idea is
out there, it's
not just you, but it's dominated by a very small number of dogmatic
trolls.

It probably wasn't the first fusion event in the human lineage, but for
the creation of chromosome 2 it was the one fusion event that managed to >>> be fixed in the population that became modern humans

We are talking about how. And, yes, I do believe believe the "How" is
best
explained by two events, not one. The mutation popped up in two or more
populations.. probably a mutation were instead of a matched pair of 48 or
46 they carried 47. Not everyone. Maybe not even most.

Remember: You DO claim that such mutations are common! And
that because they're so common it couldn't happen more than
once... because that would require them to be common, which you
say they are... and are not.

Yes, they are common

So we are agreed:  "They are so common that they could never happen
more than once."

THAT is your "Argument" <cough> <cough> <cough>

Oh. And your castration complex:

https://dictionary.apa.org/castration-complex

Trust me, sugar lumps. I never touched your jewels. They were already
gone. So no more talk about me giving you the snip.

A lot of snipping and running, but not much else.

It may be time to stop feeding the troll.

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

On Tuesday, 27 December 2022 at 06:45:32 UTC+2, John Harshman wrote:

On 12/26/22 6:04 PM, RonO wrote:

On 12/26/2022 3:41 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:

Ron O wrote:

We both

So let's recap:

You are that such mutations are far too common to happen more than once, >> AND that I invented the notion that the drop to 46 chromosome was a
likely
barrier to interbreeding, a form of genetic isolation. I someone
undertook a
vast conspiracy where I wrote & backdates the countless cites talking
about
this.

This is pretty typical of you, wilding flailing about, gushing
ANYTHING as a
rationalization, grepping for any excuse to claim you oppose something... >>

Demonstrate that

: These things happen. Around 1 in 2000 people wandering around
: today have structural chromosomal mutations like translocations
: inversions and duplication/deletions. These things have already
: happened and they keep happening.

That's you! That's you "Arguing" that there could only ever be a single
event... Sheesh!

snip

Your junk was long gone before I said anything.

But I love this OTHER conspiracy theory, the one where a operate a
nefarious cancel bot, merely to transform you Nobel Prize winning
papers into butt of jokes....

We only have evidence of one fusion event creating human chromosome 2.

Great. The whole point is HOW we dropped from 48 to 46. It's about
creating
a model where this can happen, and is a better model than others.

This is cytological evidence from 1982.

As usual, you post a URL and then demand that everybody else guess as
what
you mean. If you find a quote in there that you feel supports a
particular view,
quote it. Explain what you believe it supports, and why.

This isn't hard. You are pretending to have read it, and understood it
AND that
it supports a position you are holding. Yet, as always, you are
incapable of
saying WHY.

WIKI entry:

Wiki isn't a cite. It can be used to establish that, yes, an idea is
out there, it's
not just you, but it's dominated by a very small number of dogmatic
trolls.

It probably wasn't the first fusion event in the human lineage, but for >>> the creation of chromosome 2 it was the one fusion event that managed to >>> be fixed in the population that became modern humans

We are talking about how. And, yes, I do believe believe the "How" is
best
explained by two events, not one. The mutation popped up in two or more
populations.. probably a mutation were instead of a matched pair of 48 or >> 46 they carried 47. Not everyone. Maybe not even most.

Remember: You DO claim that such mutations are common! And
that because they're so common it couldn't happen more than
once... because that would require them to be common, which you
say they are... and are not.

Yes, they are common

So we are agreed: "They are so common that they could never happen
more than once."

THAT is your "Argument" <cough> <cough> <cough>

Oh. And your castration complex:

https://dictionary.apa.org/castration-complex

Trust me, sugar lumps. I never touched your jewels. They were already
gone. So no more talk about me giving you the snip.

A lot of snipping and running, but not much else.

It may be time to stop feeding the troll.

I think he genuinely tried ... but did not resist.

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

John Harshman wrote:

It may be time to stop feeding the troll.

Ironically, you were agreeing with me, disagreeing with the alter. The Harpmen alter was claiming that, YES, of course it started with 47 and that this could have been before divergence:

: And of course it started with 47. The fusion happened in some gamete and
: the resulting individual was a heterozygote.

: There's a point to something JTEM said there: the fusion could have
: happened before separation of the chimp and human lineages, just not
: having attained a high frequency in the population until later.

But the beauty of being a highly disordered troll hiding behind sock puppets
is that consistency is never an issue.

Right?

"Oh, I disagree with me pretending to me Ron O. So I should attack JTEM,
whom I agree with!"

Damn. You are worthless...




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/704660666718502912

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

Ron O wrote:

snipping

Ah, the freud thing again... you never had any to snip off!

So let's recap:

Such mutations happen all the time, according to you, they're
far too common to appear in one than once group. It's
impossible.

AND, I made up the idea that the chromosome count, our 46
compared to the 48 of great apes, could be a barrier to
interbreeding... I invented the notion... just sort of pulled it out
of thin air, and created the countless cites talking about it to
conceal what i had done... even backdating many of them.

Wow. You are ten shades of FUCKED UP. But, par for the course.
You are this way. Doesn't matter the sock puppet you cower
behind, you're always just as stupid.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/704660666718502912

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

On 12/27/2022 2:21 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:

Ron O wrote:

snipping

Ah, the freud thing again... you never had any to snip off!

It doesn't matter who said what. What matters is what you do.

Ron Okimoto

So let's recap:

Such mutations happen all the time, according to you, they're
far too common to appear in one than once group. It's
impossible.

What a loser. What you snipped and ran from just stated the simple fact
that we do not have evidence for more than one fusion event. Lying
about the information that has been given to you repeatedly is just lame
and stupid as well as dishonest.

AND, I made up the idea that the chromosome count, our 46
compared to the 48 of great apes, could be a barrier to
interbreeding... I invented the notion... just sort of pulled it out
of thin air, and created the countless cites talking about it to
conceal what i had done... even backdating many of them.

Wow. You are ten shades of FUCKED UP. But, par for the course.
You are this way. Doesn't matter the sock puppet you cower
behind, you're always just as stupid.

This is what snipping and running comes to. You can remain willfully
ignorant of what has been discussed, but you could just go back up the
thread and see what actually happened.

Ron Okimoto

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/704660666718502912

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

On Tue, 27 Dec 2022 17:01:19 -0600, RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:

On 12/27/2022 2:21 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:

Ron O wrote:

snipping

Ah, the freud thing again... you never had any to snip off!

It doesn't matter who said what. What matters is what you do.

Ron Okimoto

So let's recap:

Such mutations happen all the time, according to you, they're
far too common to appear in one than once group. It's
impossible.

What a loser. What you snipped and ran from just stated the simple fact >that we do not have evidence for more than one fusion event. Lying
about the information that has been given to you repeatedly is just lame
and stupid as well as dishonest.

AND, I made up the idea that the chromosome count, our 46
compared to the 48 of great apes, could be a barrier to
interbreeding... I invented the notion... just sort of pulled it out
of thin air, and created the countless cites talking about it to
conceal what i had done... even backdating many of them.

Wow. You are ten shades of FUCKED UP. But, par for the course.
You are this way. Doesn't matter the sock puppet you cower
behind, you're always just as stupid.

This is what snipping and running comes to. You can remain willfully >ignorant of what has been discussed, but you could just go back up the >thread and see what actually happened.

Think YASMA. It's what JTEM do.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

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

Ron O wrote:

It doesn't matter who said what.

Only to idiots like you.

you snipped

No, you never had any balls to begin with. If you had, you wouldn't
be cowering behind this sock puppet, "Arguing" that such mutations
were far too common to happen more than once...

Damn. You're a disgrace!

This is what snipping

Oh, come on! You were sitting down to pee long before you first
crossed paths with JTEM...

There was never anything left for me to snip off.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/Accidental%20photo

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

jillery wrote:

Think YASMA. It's what JTEM do.

"JTEW do consistency! JTEM do facts. Me no like!"




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/Accidental%20photo

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