NickM: Strawman Humper Exraordinaire
-
Recently a new commenter has graced my bloggings- NickM. Nick has proven to be an extraordinary strawman humper. The evidence for my claim is:
1- Nick's first offering:
Unfortunately for Nick, I wasn't taking the rate of point mutation. That was never part of my post. Strawman.
After telling him that Nick started humping that strawman until he got tired of it.
In the same thread Nick erects another:
Again I never said that but there is the term "common ancestor" that one would think means very close genetically, anyway.
Nick accepts that but then has to erect yet another strawman:
That is strange seeing the the OP and topic refers to a 10%+ difference/ divergence.
What the fuck Nick? Is your PhD thesis in strawman evolution?
Recently a new commenter has graced my bloggings- NickM. Nick has proven to be an extraordinary strawman humper. The evidence for my claim is:
1- Nick's first offering:
To take the rate of point mutation (the type of mutation from A to T or C to A or whatever) and then make conclusions using the difference statistics which include indels is wildly, hopeless illegitimate.
Unfortunately for Nick, I wasn't taking the rate of point mutation. That was never part of my post. Strawman.
After telling him that Nick started humping that strawman until he got tired of it.
In the same thread Nick erects another:
You seem to think that you start out with a population with no mutations.
Again I never said that but there is the term "common ancestor" that one would think means very close genetically, anyway.
Nick accepts that but then has to erect yet another strawman:
And yet you think 1% divergence over ~6 million years of divergence is impossible.
That is strange seeing the the OP and topic refers to a 10%+ difference/ divergence.
What the fuck Nick? Is your PhD thesis in strawman evolution?
posted by Joe G @ 3:52 PM
3 Comments:
At 4:16 PM,
NickM said…
Dude, you were the one who abandoned the 10%-stuff-is-impossible after we pointed out that this larger number includes indel mutations. IIRC we concluded that it would take only something like 80,000 of these, and that thus you would need one to fix only once every 15 generations or so.
YOU then switched to discussing the point mutation-difference (~1%) and arguing that THAT was impossible because there wasn't enough time. But, again and again you showed an amazing ability to misunderstand basic concepts in population genetics.
And on top of all this you just toss around profanity and insults. Keep at it, the more people like you on the ID side, the better it is for evolution. I'm not going to waste any more time explaining basics to someone who is not willing to lift a finger to understand. Cheers, Nick
At 4:30 PM,
Joe G said…
NickM:
Dude, you were the one who abandoned the 10%-stuff-is-impossible after we pointed out that this larger number includes indel mutations. IIRC we concluded that it would take only something like 80,000 of these, and that thus you would need one to fix only once every 15 generations or so.
What are you smoking?
1- The fixation rate for indels is too high for your position to account for
2- indels are less than 1/2 of the differences
3- Neutral muations don't help you
YOU then switched to discussing the point mutation-difference (~1%) and arguing that THAT was impossible because there wasn't enough time.
I never made such a switch. Obviously you have reading comprehension issues.
But, again and again you showed an amazing ability to misunderstand basic concepts in population genetics.
You never provided anything to support your claims. You just keep repeating them.
But by all means do run away and keep up the good work of strawman humping.
Cheers, Joe
At 4:32 PM,
Joe G said…
NickM:
Keep at it, the more people like you on the ID side, the better it is for evolution.
ID isn't anti-evolution, Nick.
Keep at it Nick. ID's numbers will keep rising...
Post a Comment
<< Home