You need to admit your own errors and stop your manipulative tactics. If you could correct me then with evidence you should have.
Well, I tried. For a moment I thought it had sunk in, but now you’re back to denial.
1 Like
Now you are back to being vague.
If we can understand “follow and inheritance”, that would, I suppose, refer to a gene that either arose or was lost exactly once on the tree. There are only four spots on the Venn diagram that require two events to explain: human/chicken, human/zebrafish, mouse/chicken, and mouse/zebrafish. This totals 48 + 73 + 43 + 57 = 221 genes that don’t “follow and inheritance”. Now, what percentage is that?
1 Like
That’s discounting some overlap, right?
No, segments of the diagram don’t overlap. 48 would be human/chicken only.
Obviously 196 is not the sum of 48, 73, 43, and 57, and no swapping of digits like if there were a typo fixes it. So something else must have gone wrong here. But what?
That would be trying to do math in my head. OK, 221. Fixing it.
No, Bill is perfectly correct here. When capitalized, the term “Lab” may refer to “Labrador Retriever”, a popular breed of dog.
And I think we all must admit, the above is the first and only time he has referred to this breed of dog during this discussion.
Of course, otherwise for most of the last few posts has simply been lying outright and making very clumsy attempts to cover up for this, even by his standards.
1 Like
As the Dover quote I cited here demonstrates, what Bill should have said was:
As I demonstrated here and here, Matzke is just yet another of Bill’s red herrings.
1 Like
That’s obviously not the interpretation I used. I suspect I included all the gene losses too.
Ask Bill.
Sealions love red herrings.
But single losses “follow and inheritance”, don’t they? I guess only Bill can tell us what those words mean, if indeed even he can.
1 Like
I accept.
I conflated nothing.
I made no mistake; I simply challenged your false claim. Look in the mirror, Bill.
Hi John
I agree at this point I made a false claim.
1 Like
In my experience, that won’t last.
1 Like
Maybe, maybe not. Lost genes aren’t inherited.
True, but we were supposedly talking about nested hierarchy, and genes lost or gained exactly once fit the tree. Absence is inherited just as presence is.
1 Like
The natural entropy of a sequence moves you away from function.
How about asking how one can create a universe from nothing. There is a lot of things in our universe we don’t understand. We cannot know how something occurred yet the evidence points to that model. You are discounting an alternative explanation simply because you do not know how.
Ooh, entropy. He’s all sciencey! And he seems to have no idea how natural selection filters out deleterious mutations.
Of course I know that natural selection filters out deleterious mutations. The problem is the directionality of rare helpful mutations are for reproductive advantage and not new function.