A new generation of scientific mavericks is not content to merely tinker with life's genetic code.

Newsweek International ^ | June 4, 2007 issue | Lee Silver

[js1138]

Skippy the fish has left the building.

A circle is not an ellipse.

1^720 is a really big number.

[Southack]

See post #74. Enjoy your crow.

[ahayes]

See post #75. Put up or shut up.

[Southack]

This thread, plus the original article, and the links therein document the endotoxic recognition and signaling in coral that is not in Fish (but which we know is in humans): http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1823622/posts

[ahayes]

Once again, list these genes that are allegedly present in coral and humans but not in fish. If you’ll read this thread you’ll notice I repeatedly point out to you that you have no clue what any of these genes are, you have no clue about what genes fish might have, and you have no clue about what these genes even do. (All of this is completely consistent, since from your other posts you maintain the trend by having no clue what an allele is.)

The news (not scientific) article you point to says zilch about fish, nor does it even say what the particular genes in question are. If you would read my posts without the words going into your eyes and out your ears, you would realize that they mean that coral have an ancestral Toll gene and humans have an expanded but related set of genes. Fish, which are not mentioned there at all, have a set of genes that is smaller than that of humans but larger than that of corals. All of this is consistent with the evolutionary process.

[Southack]

"Fish, which are not mentioned there at all, have a set of genes that is smaller than that of humans but larger than that of corals. All of this is consistent with the evolutionary process."

So if coral has more genes than fish or humans, you'll conced that Evolutionary Theory is pure bunk?

[ahayes]

So if coral has more genes than fish or humans, you'll conced that Evolutionary Theory is pure bunk?

Do you ever have any thought following from a coherent train of logic?

[Southack]

""Fish ... have a set of genes that is smaller than that of humans but larger than that of corals." - ahayes

Per you:
Fish genes < Humans
Fish genes > corals

----> Humans > Fish > Coral

Do you disagree with any of the above?

[allmendream]

I agree. There is no doubt that humans could be bred or engineered like race horses, but before anyone thinks this is a good idea might I remind you that ‘there is no such thing as a free lunch’ and that you look at the many problems that race horses have due to their fantastic speed (paper thin fragile skin, thin legs prone to break, etc). There are ‘costs’ to be paid for any ‘advantage’ that is conferred by genetics. The concept is called antagonistic pleotropy.

Additionally there is the fact that human genetics is a continuum. For the majority of people to be born with ‘good eyes’ some people at either end are going to be nearsighted or farsighted. People with bad eyes can be born from people with good eyes, they just got the wrong combination of genes in that shuffle; and people (like me) can have perfect vision and be born from people with bad eyes (dad nearsighted, mom farsighted).

[allmendream]

Impenetrability!!!!!

[ahayes]

Toll-like genes, poor Southack, Toll-like genes.

• Coral: One Toll-like gene.
• Fish: More Toll-like genes.
• Humans: Even more Toll-like genes.

And check this out!

• Humans: TLR-4
• Fish: TLR-4
• Coral: No TLR-4 :-(

That means:

• Your claim that coral have endotoxin regulation identical to that of humans originates from your lower GI tract.

[ahayes]

In a word, yes!

[Southack]

See the question to you in post #88. Answer that with one word, and then we’ll continue. I’ll walk you through to reality one question and answer at a time.

[ahayes]

Do you disagree with any of the above?

Yes.

An aside: From your profile you would seem to have at least a semi-functioning brain (certainly the pictures of girls in bikinis indicate your hypothalamus is functioning fine), so why are you incapable of understanding a simple phylogenetic tree?

[Southack]

Per you:
Fish genes < Humans
Fish genes > corals

——> Humans > Fish > Coral

Do you disagree with any of the above in this post?

[ahayes]

Yes. You limited it to “genes” generic, while I was referring to Toll-like genes.

[Southack]

"Fish, which are not mentioned there at all, have a set of genes that is smaller than that of humans but larger than that of corals. All of this is consistent with the evolutionary process." - ahayes

You are *so* busted.

[ahayes]

How is that?

[Pietro]

'..manipulation of the genome and its infusion with desireable features (at least in their eyes) from other species."

This is, I believe, the same stupid arrogance that led to Noah's flood.

[js1138]

You expect an answer from someone who has spent years arguing that modern fish are ancestors to humans?