Forum:Flame war!

< Index | General discussion

Everybody start a flame war!

I'll go first: Captain Picard was a better captain than Captain Kirk. :P Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

(Explodes in outrage) You're obviously not a real fan of Star Trek. in fact, you obviously have no appreciation of Science Fiction at all! Totnesmartin (talk) (disgusted, memory alpha) 22:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

True. Wait... no, I mean... um. -- =w= 22:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Food is the greatest invention since sliced bread. SJ ^Debaser 22:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

.......Food was invented after bread? : ( -- =w= 22:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you silly little man, sliced bread is the greatest thing since food! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sliced bread sucks. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

So, what, you only eat whole loaves? How do you make a sandwich? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Star Trek is the last vestige of the dateless wonder. Too sick in the head to pull a female, they spend their nights learning klingon while masturbating furiously to what might have been. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC)No, "RA," your idiotic statement is incorrect. Sliced bread was invented before any other type of food. Ever wonder why people since "...is the greatest thing since sliced bread?" It's because before sliced bread, everyone was dying of starvation. Read a book, or fuck off and Godspeed. -Aschlafly SJ ^Debaser 22:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

That bread thing is typical of Windoze users. If you want to go on being a bitch of M$ then that's your business, but I'm smart enough to use a decent OS LOL --^{Ask me about your mother} 22:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I haz yoo know, CR, that I bee an OS youzer too. OS Wars. Good article. SJ ^Debaser 22:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh fuck you. Janeway would fuck them both in the ass. And Sisko would watch. And ENJOY it. ^pathetic 22:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sliced bread came after stew. In fact, everything came after stew. When the first creatures came out of the first oceans, what they had for dinner that night was stew. --Kels (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You're just saying that because you're Canadian. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

A Canadian says that my my uncle is a stew-loving monkey fish? Genesis people!!! --^{Ask me about your mother} 23:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Genesis? KHAAAAAAAAN!!! --Kels (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Picard was way better. He didn't yell and stuff when his relatives died. He just had a fight in a vineyard and cried a bit. Proper captaining there. --^{Ask me about your mother} 23:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Picard may have been a pussy, but Kirk was certainly a real dick. And, on occasion, a douchebag. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

see my comments above re: Star Trek. Aceⁱ⁹ 23:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Alcohol is an Illuminati plot to subdue the population. NOW SILENCE YOU TOOL OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

What does our genome share with the chimpanzees?

In order for humans to have evolved from an ape ancestor there would have had have had a major overhaul of the most highly conserved genes in the human genome. The unprecedented expansion of the human brain in size and complexity has no known genetic basis. Specifically, What makes us human? (Chimpanzee Genome, Nature 200 ) What is the genetic basis for the threefold expansion of the human brain in 2 1/2 million years?(Human ASPM Gene, Genetics 2003) What is the genetic and evolutionary background of phenotypic traits that set humans apart from our closest evolutionary relatives, the chimpanzees?(Gene Expression Differences Between the Brain Regions, Genome Res. 2003) One of the problems with the evolutionary expansion of the human brain from that of an ape is the size, weight and complexity. The human brain would have had to triple in size, starting 2 1/2 million years ago and ending 200 to 400 thousand years ago. The brain weight would have had to grow by 250% while the body only grows by 20%. The average brain weight would have to go from 400-450g, 2 1/2 MY ago to 1350–1450 g 0.2–0.4 MY. "It is generally believed that the brain expansion set the stage for the emergence of human language and other high-order cognitive functions and that it was caused by adaptive selection (DECAN 1992 ), yet the genetic basis of the expansion remains elusive."

Evolution of the Human ASPM Gene, a Major Determinant of Brain Size, Genetics, Vol. 165, 2063-2070, December 2003

Researchers are unanimous in admitting that they have no clue how the most significant human trait was produced and yet insist that the case for a common ancestor has been made. What do evolutionists consider to be proof for or against the common ancestor? Apparently the Endogenous retroviruses are considered a conclusive proof but the arguments of evolutionists are riddled with flaws and misrepresentations. If you would know the truth then read what they publish, they will get it right there: Endogenous retroviruses. Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) have become all but extinct in the human lineage, with only a single retrovirus (human endogenous retrovirus K (HERV-K)) still active. HERV-K was found to be active in both lineages, with at least 73 human-specific insertions (7 full length and 66 solo long terminal repeats (LTRs)) and at least 45 chimpanzee-specific insertions (1 full length and 44 solo LTRs). A few other ERV classes persisted in the human genome beyond the human–chimpanzee split, leaving approx 9 human-specific insertions (all solo LTRs, including five HERV9 elements) before dying out.

Against this background, it was surprising to find that the chimpanzee genome has two active retroviral elements (PtERV1 and PtERV2) that are unlike any older elements in either genome; these must have been introduced by infection of the chimpanzee germ line. The smaller family (PtERV2) has only a few dozen copies, which nonetheless represent multiple (approx5–8) invasions, because the sequence differences among reconstructed subfamilies are too great (approx8%) to have arisen by mutation since divergence from human. It is closely related to a baboon endogenous retrovirus (BaEV, 88% ORF2 product identity) and a feline endogenous virus (ECE-1, 86% ORF2 product identity). The larger family (PtERV1) is more homogeneous and has over 200 copies. Whereas older ERVs, like HERV-K, are primarily represented by solo LTRs resulting from LTR–LTR recombination, more than half of the PtERV1 copies are still full length, probably reflecting the young age of the elements. PtERV1-like elements are present in the rhesus monkey, olive baboon and African great apes but not in human, orang-utan or gibbon, suggesting separate germline invasions in these species. (Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome, Nature 2005)

With more than 100 members, CERV 1/PTERV1 is one of the most abundant families of endogenous retroviruses in the chimpanzee genome. (Genome Biol. 2006). They can be found in African great apes but not in humans. What is more the ERV virus is nearly extinct in the human genome with only a couple that actually work. The only thing that ERVs are proof of is the lengths evolutionists will go to to conflate and confuse the evidence.

For almost half a century it was believed that Chimpanzee and Human DNA was virtually identical. This is now known to be false. The Comparison of Human Chromosome 21 and Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 revealed that 83% of the 231 coding sequences, including functionally important genes, show differences at the amino acid sequence level. These included gross structural changes affecting gene products far more common than previously estimated (20.3% of the PTR22 proteins) (Nature, 27 May 2004). Genome wide the differences are now known to include 35 million single base substitutions, and five million indels (with the ~70,000 indels larger than 80 bp comprising 73% of the affected base pairs). This is in addition to 8 chromosomal rearrangements from 2 million base pairs to 4 million base pairs in length coming to more then 20 million base pairs.

When you compare these differences to the known mutation rates this simply does not add up. My opponent has went on record as saying:

Out of the ~200,000 ERV’s present in the human genome only 82 are not found in the chimp genome. In the chimp genome, only 280 can not be found in the human genome. That means that hundreds of thousands of ERV’s are shared between humans (sources: the human genome paper and the chimp genome paper referenced at the end of the post). The 360 total ERV’s that are not shared represent insertions since the chimp and human lineages diverged I am going to put the facts on the table and dispense with this claim in later rounds. The evidence against a common ancestor for chimpanzees and humans is overwhelming. The truth is slowly coming out, the differences are far greater then evolutionists have been telling us: Gene families are groups of homologous genes that are likely to have highly similar functions. Differences in family size due to lineage-specific gene duplication and gene loss may provide clues to the evolutionary forces that have shaped mammalian genomes. Here we analyze the gene families contained within the whole genomes of human, chimpanzee, mouse, rat, and dog. In total we find that more than half of the 9,990 families present in the mammalian common ancestor have either expanded or contracted along at least one lineage. Additionally, we find that a large number of families are completely lost from one or more mammalian genomes, and a similar number of gene families have arisen subsequent to the mammalian common ancestor. Along the lineage leading to modern humans we infer the gain of 689 genes and the loss of 86 genes since the split from chimpanzees, including changes likely driven by adaptive natural selection. Our results imply that humans and chimpanzees differ by at least 6% (1,418 of 22,000 genes) in their complement of genes, which stands in stark contrast to the oft-cited 1.5% difference between orthologous nucleotide sequences. This genomic “revolving door” of gene gain and loss represents a large number of genetic differences separating humans from our closest relatives.

Introduction Explaining the obvious morphological, physiological, and behavioral traits that separate modern humans from our closest relatives, the chimpanzees, is challenging given the low level of nucleotide divergence between the two species [1]. More than 30 years have passed since King and Wilson first pointed out this apparent paradox, saying that “the genetic distance between humans and the chimpanzee is probably too small to account for their substantial organismal differences” [2]. To explain the paradox, King and Wilson proposed that regulatory changes rather than protein-coding mutations were responsible for the vast majority of observed biological differences [2]. Evidence gathered since that time demonstrates that amino acid [e.g. refs.1], [3], [4], [5] and regulatory sequence [6], [7] changes have both been involved in the evolution of uniquely human phenotypes. The Evolution of Mammalian Gene Families

The problem is simple enough, since our common ancestor there would have had to be 35 million single base substitutions. That comes to 140 per diploid generation for 5 million years. That is in addition to 1 indel 14 base pairs long per year for the same amount of time and the vast majority of these would have to be fixed.

Instead of demonstrating how this is remotely possible given the known mutation rate evolutionists would rather talk about this: Phylogenies of seven HERV loci. When 8% of the human genome is made up of ERVs with a 94% nucleotide sequence identity should we really be supprised the seven loci are the same? For HERV-K JML 6.17 they identified 5 substitutions, a couple of them had as many as 10. This is supposed to be some kind of proof?

Here they discuss the probability of the 11 substitutions, assuming they happened by chance:

Although it is possible that any one position may suffer an identical substitution in both LTRs by chance, the probability of 11 positions undergoing identical substitutions in both LTRs is exceedingly low.

My question would be this: with a mutation rate of 2.3 x 10^-9 for length mutations what are the odds 1 indel, 14 base pairs in length fixed every year for 5 million years? That is in addition to the 6 single base pairs substituted per year in the same time frame.

-- Mark Kennedy 23:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

(tl;dr) What the hell? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If you can't flame MARK KENNEDY [1] there is something wrong with you. -- =w= 23:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I like to spend my time having fun, not reading long-ass pseudoscientfic TimeCube posts. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Mark Kennedy is fun. He's MARK KENNEDY ffs. Mark Kennedy! -- =w= 23:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

(ECx2)I think that's the side effect of "a little bit of knowledge" thing. In short, the top part at least is about how brain size in humans "has no genetic basis" so common descent hasn't been proved (although individual features don't have to have a genetic basis for common descent to hold, it just requires the genetic features to back up common descent, which it does). The rest is something about ERVs, and since I'm no expert, I have no fucking clue. ^pathetic 23:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thats because you lack an appreciation for the finer things in life. tmtoulouse 23:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, like Trent's mom. ^pathetic 23:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Dunno about that, she seemed pretty appreciative when I showed up in her bed. At least I took all that groaning and heaving to mean she was appreciative. What I mean is, I had sex with Trents mom and she liked it.Aceⁱ⁹ 23:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Bah! If all that's true, then why are there still monkeys? Answer that, smart guy. --Kels (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)