A question about evolutionary theory

[hammegk]

I've completely lost track of the point of this conversation.

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
And, interestingly, there is almost invariably great genetic distance between two species which they will identify as the same "kind" than there is between humans and chimpanzees.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


hammegk: Is that so. Can you cite a source? Or should we just take your word for it ....

Still looking for numbers that a layman might understand that demonstrates that 'greater genetic difference' over Felidae than exists chimp to human.

SFAIK, Dr.A still thinks his word = actual data. I don't. Do you?

 

[drkitten]

Moving from that to a computation of the variation among Felidae and comparing it to the variation homo sap to Pan spp is not anything I understand how to accomplish. Are you aware of a source for a compution that has been done?

In such a direct form? I'm not aware of any such. Nor am I aware of any peer-reviewed mathematics journal articles that include the statement "a square has more sides than a triangle." Interested parties are expected to be able to make this inference from the respective definitions of a square and a triangle, and from their background knowledge for the fact that 3<4.

Before you criticise the methods and findings of science, it's generally considered courteous for you to familiarize yourself with them. If you can't read the scientific findings, then ask what they mean. Read other, more introductory-level, papers until you find your understanding increased.

If you want to play with the grownups, you have to play by grownup rules. If you want a seat at the kiddy table, I'll be happy to provide you with some plastic forks and wieners, but don't complain that you missed out. It was your choice to sit there.

 

[hammegk]

In such a direct form? I'm not aware of any such.

Nor am I aware of any peer-reviewed mathematics journal articles that include the statement "a square has more sides than a triangle." Interested parties are expected to be able to make this inference from the respective definitions of a square and a triangle, and from their background knowledge for the fact that 3<4.

I suspect even you can see that this diatribe added nothing to the discussion, and I even suspect you recognize bad analogies when you see them.

Before you criticise the methods and findings of science,

Requesting understandable data from the experts gathered here is a criticism? Is my question truly that esoteric?

it's generally considered courteous for you to familiarize yourself with them. If you can't read the scientific findings, then ask what they mean.

Gee, I thought I've done that here .... several times now.

Read other, more introductory-level, papers until you find your understanding increased.

Agreed, yet I'm never going to have a BS in biology, forget the PhD.

If you want to play with the grownups, you have to play by grownup rules. If you want a seat at the kiddy table, I'll be happy to provide you with some plastic forks and wieners, but don't complain that you missed out. It was your choice to sit there.

Having a bad morning, are we? There there, bunkie.

I suspected there is no data to share on the genetic variation question across recognized Felidae. The discussions comparing chimp to human also provide no actual answer. One recent article cited 40 million dna differences chimp to man.

Yet, do you concur that Dr.A's word = scientific proof?

 

[pgwenthold]

I don't know about that. Can they (shrews) be trained?

They can be tamed, apparently. But not quite the same way as die fledermaus.

 

[drkitten]

Requesting understandable data from the experts gathered here is a criticism? Is my question truly that esoteric?

I'll let you know as soon as you either "request" anything, or as soon as you ask a genuine question.

Statements such as the following are neither request nor questions; they are reflexively nihilistic insults to the practitioners of science.

I suspected there is no data to share on the genetic variation question across recognized Felidae.

And you were wrong; I provided citations that provide actual numbers describing the degree of genetic variation within Felidae.

At this point, you have two choices. You can either read the papers and try to ferret out the numbers, or you can whine about your unwillingness (not inability) to understand the writings. But I have neither interest nor responsibility for interpreting the data for you.

Yet, do you concur that Dr.A's word = scientific proof?

I do not, which is why I posted "scientific proof" in the form of peer-reviewed articles from high-end journals (in science, not only the coin of the realm, but large denomination coins at that).
I do, in fact, claim, that such articles are "scientific proof."

If you have genuine questions about their interpretation, let me know. I will probably refuse to answer on the grounds that you've annoyed me enough for September already, but you might get lucky. If you have genuine methodological criticisms to offer, I will be very interested indeed.

 

[hammegk]

I'll let you know as soon as you either "request" anything, or as soon as you ask a genuine question.

My question remains:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Dr Adequate
And, interestingly, there is almost invariably great genetic distance between two species which they will identify as the same "kind" than there is between humans and chimpanzees.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


hammegk: Is that so. Can you cite a source? Or should we just take your word for it ....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


hammegk:
Still looking for numbers that a layman might understand that demonstrates that 'greater genetic difference' over Felidae than exists chimp to human.
My last question to you

hammegk
Not in a way that I could make sense of.

For example

http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/buckli01/node3.html

does provide a definition. Moving from that to a computation of the variation among Felidae and comparing it to the variation homo sap to Pan spp is not anything I understand how to accomplish. Are you aware of a source for a compution that has been done?

Has been answered that "no computaion has been done" (understandable to any but the cognoscenti), and you've made no comment at all on my linked definitions of genetic difference.

Statements such as the following are neither request nor questions; they are reflexively nihilistic insults to the practitioners of science.

quote: hammegk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I suspected there is no data to share on the genetic variation question across recognized Felidae.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And you were wrong; I provided citations that provide actual numbers describing the degree of genetic variation within Felidae.

At this point, you have two choices. You can either read the papers and try to ferret out the numbers, or you can whine about your unwillingness (not inability) to understand the writings. But I have neither interest nor responsibility for interpreting the data for you.

You obviously have no "responsibility". You may choose to continue to assert that data you understand shows more than say, 40 million differences across Felidae dna, but you are unwilling to demonstrate your knowledge for doofs like me.

I do not, which is why I posted "scientific proof" in the form of peer-reviewed articles from high-end journals (in science, not only the coin of the realm, but large denomination coins at that).
I do, in fact, claim, that such articles are "scientific proof."

Too bad you are unwilling to share your working definition of genetic difference, let alone try to explain it.

If you have genuine questions about their interpretation, let me know.

I've already stated that I have no understanding of your citations.

If you have genuine methodological criticisms to offer, I will be very interested indeed.

I have none, nor is my interest in methodology. I continue to request layman level results that defends the claim that the genetic variation across Felidae exceeds that variation chimp to man.

And prior to addressing that question, some understanding on the meaning of genetic difference would seem appropriate.

 

[drkitten]

You obviously have no "responsibility". You may choose to continue to assert that data you understand shows more than say, 40 million differences across Felidae dna, but you are unwilling to demonstrate your knowledge for doofs like me.

Absolutely.

The facts, observations, and scientific findings are public, and I have provided (some of) them. My interpretation and explanation are my own, and I see no need to cast pearl before swine. My time and explanatory energies are finite, and I see no need to fill a hole willfully dug and defended in the name of ignorance.

I have none, nor is my interest in methodology. [...]

And prior to addressing that question, some understanding on the meaning of genetic difference would seem appropriate.

And if you wanted to know why I consider you a "doof" and a swine, here you have it in a nutshell. You have no interest in the methodology, and then you demand to know what the meaning of "genetic difference" is, which is itself a methodological question.

You're absolutely right. Some understanding of "genetic difference" would be absolutely critical. So acquire some. Let me know when you do, and I'll discuss issues with you at an adult level.

Until then, I wish you "good day" merely as a matter of form.

 

[hammegk]

As some would say: Pathetic ...

Others: In The Rain ...

Others: Evasion noted ...

Sorry to make you cry

Love & kisses, hammegk.

 

[Capsid]

The method commonly used now is to compare the sequence of mitochondrial DNA, 16S ribosomal DNA for one. This is used since it is maternally inherited and therefore a clone. The mutation rate is fairly constant over time and therefore changes in the sequence can be used to trace lineages of animals and their genetic divergence/similarity. Phylogenetic trees are constructed by software packages which compute how far the DNA has diverged from each other and how long this would have taken.

These computations should be able to tell you if cats are more genetically diverse than the great apes but I have not been able to find that data. It may be possible to do this yourself at PubMed which will have some of the sequences available. I found 129 16S nucleotide sequences for Felidae. Those for the apes and man are there too. The software is free too.

I did find the Tree of Life Project though but I don't think they have got as far as apes and cats yet, well I couldn't find it.

I'm not an expert in this either, so my knowledge is minimal but I hope that helps a bit.

 

[Mojo]

Others: Evasion noted ...

A strange kind of evasion, isn't it, that provides you with links to the information you've requested?

"As some would say: Pathetic"

 

[Jeff Corey]

Hello, an old country behaviorist here, but does the ability to interbreed have some rough correspondence to percentage of genes shared?
There exist ligers and tigons but no humanzees or chimpans- THAT WE KNOW OF!

 

[Mercutio]

Hello, an old country behaviorist here, but does the ability to interbreed have some rough correspondence to percentage of genes shared?
There exist ligers and tigons but no humanzees or chimpans- THAT WE KNOW OF!

Reminds me of an old joke...

 

[hammegk]

A strange kind of evasion, isn't it, that provides you with links to the information you've requested?

"As some would say: Pathetic"

How nice. A person who seems to understand how the citations answer the question; "Is the genetic difference across Felidae greater than the genetic difference chimp to human?".

Would you be willing to explain what you found most compelling? And perhaps you could even answer, yes, or no ... (although all of us know the answer depends on ones' chosen definition of genetic difference, which appears to be harder to pin down than the definition of 'species').


Capsid: Thanks for some understandable info. Unfortunately I don't see myself ever competently performing the research & computations to confirm or deny Dr.A's original claim.

Originally posted by Mercutio

Reminds me of an old joke...

Reminds me of several old jokes.... There seem to be a few younger jokes here too.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Jeff said:
Hello, an old country behaviorist here, but does the ability to interbreed have some rough correspondence to percentage of genes shared?

One critical issue is whether there is sufficient correspondence between the chromosomes so that they can pair up when two gametes join. If they can't pair up adequately, the fertilized zygote won't be viable.

~~ Paul