@ Potyondi

[Gorilla]

Does Potyondi care to debate the thrust of this thread in a formal debate?

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2065

All your aquired knowledge cannot help you here. :222:

[Donny the Punk]

In all that gibberish, I couldn't find a single proposition that could be considered sane. "There is no X chromosome" - are you for real?

[Gorilla]

In all that gibberish, I couldn't find a single proposition that could be considered sane. "There is no X chromosome" - are you for real?

Unless I missed something (I just had a quick look at the thread in question), I never stated such a thing.

It's obvious that despite having the largest vocabulary on the board, your maths intelligence is below high-school graduate level. You might say what I was discussing was beyond you.

Do you believe the human/chimp genetic similarity figure to be greater than 94%? If you rely on links, and claim a greater figure than roughly 94%, then you are saying the comparison must be being made between two creatures posessing the same chromosome number. I agree, if you're unable to comprehend the maths, it must look like gibberish.

How is that possible? :p

[Donny the Punk]

Unless I missed something (I just had a quick look at the thread in question), I never stated such a thing.
"I say there is one sex chromosome, the male Y."

That would surprise those with Turner Syndrome.

It's obvious that despite having the largest vocabulary on the board, your maths intelligence is below high-school graduate level. You might say what I was discussing was beyond you.
It's obvious because I admitted my mathematical incompetence somewhere around here. :D


Do you believe the human/chimp genetic similarity figure to be greater than 94%? If you rely on links, and claim a greater figure than roughly 94%, then you are saying the comparison must be being made between two creatures posessing the same chromosome number. I agree, if you're unable to comprehend the maths, it must look like gibberish.

How is that possible? :p
I didn't see that claim advanced; I saw the notion that "within important sequence stretches of these functionally significant genes," they had this much in common. That's evidently less than 94% of the total.

But the real reason I called it gibberish is because I didn't see anything to talk about - the whole thing was premised on a misinterpretation of one of the links. What, exactly, is your point?

[Gorilla]

"I say there is one sex chromosome, the male Y."

That would surprise those with Turner Syndrome.

If we are discussing the genetics of populations, why have you raised Turner syndrome? What is Turner syndrome to do with the genetics of populations?

It's obvious because I admitted my mathematical incompetence somewhere around here. :D

We all have our strengths and weaknesses.

Do you believe the human/chimp genetic similarity figure to be greater than 94%? If you rely on links, and claim a greater figure than roughly 94%, then you are saying the comparison must be being made between two creatures posessing the same chromosome number. I agree, if you're unable to comprehend the maths, it must look like gibberish.

I didn't see that claim advanced; I saw the notion that "within important sequence stretches of these functionally significant genes," they had this much in common. That's evidently less than 94% of the total.

You overlooked this: Check this out: http://www.broad.mit.edu/news/links/...kgrounder.html (http://www.broad.mit.edu/news/links/chimp-backgrounder.html)


Quote:
At the DNA level, the human and chimpanzee genomes are almost 99% identical at the DNA bases where the two genomes align to each other. By taking into account the insertions and deletions that have occurred in each species since their divergence from a common ancestor ~5 to 6 million years ago, they still share 96% of their sequence.

So in other words, this claims 96% genetic similarity across the genome, not selected sequences where a higher degree of similarity is found.

Read the link. 96% genetic similarity across the genome, not selected streches of DNA. This figure is also greater than 94%.


But the real reason I called it gibberish is because I didn't see anything to talk about - the whole thing was premised on a misinterpretation of one of the links. What, exactly, is your point?

I have just demontrated this to be false, along with every comment you made. Just give up, you can't talk your way out of a mathematic debate.

[Donny the Punk]

Noddy, I'm not in a mathematical debate. :p I've never shown any interest in this, and that you would call me out on it when I don't even have a position on the matter is just bizarre. Call you it a victory if you like, but it doesn't follow that you would recognise my weakness in maths and yet assume that I'd get embroiled in an argument over them.

[Gorilla]

Keep your pants on.

PWND