Re: Duplicate genes help humans run long distances

"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:46C14092.2D78EA9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Genetic evidence showing running is in our genetic heritage.

What an astoundingly bad piece of 'science'
-- and that's without beginning to consider
the detail (which would undoubtedly turn out
to be the crap).

Of course, it's no surprise that idiots like
Travsky and Olsen are taken in by it.

Of course, you have nothing with which to offer as counter evidence.

You idiot. I am objecting to
(a) its sheer banality, and
(b) the absurdity of the 'conclusions'
it goes on to draw.

It is neither banal nor absurd. Perhaps if you cited evidence supporting
such a claim...

It would help if you knew your own language.
Here are banal statements: #1: "Rain is wet",
#2: "Paint dries slowly", #3: "Water flows
downhill; #4:"Travsky is a fool".

What evidence can be cited to show that
these ARE banal?

Consider the opposite of each, and ask if
anyone in the world would consider agreeing
with them (apart from Travsky, of course).

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12381-duplicate-genes-help-humans-go-the-extra-mile.html
July 2007

Human beings can run long distances because we carry multiple copies of a gene
that helps supply our cells with energy, a new study suggests. That supports
the idea that endurance running gave our human ancestors an evolutionary edge.

<garbage snipped>

So animals that live in trees are not
designed for making long trips, involving
effort over an extended period of time.

AMAZING !

Give us some examples of "animals that live in trees" that make long trips:

They DON'T, you fool. That's the point.

Then why state the obvious?

I'm OBJECTING to stating the obvious,
then 'proving' it, and claiming that the
result is 'science'. Only total fools like
Travsky and Olsen would be taken in.

Even chimps, which spend a lot of time on
the ground, usually have tiny territories
a couple of kilometres across. They
never travel far. They can't -- since
they'd be killed by their neighbours.

Humans kill their neighbors. SO much for that argument.

The DIFFERENCE is that chimp territories
are typically a couple of kilometres across
-- so chimps will never travel far -- whereas
human territories (even in H/G societies)
are many miles across, so humans will
often have to travel far.

OK, this is complicated, and I can see how
you will have difficulty with it. See if you
can find an intelligent seven-year-old and
get him to explain it to you with a blackboard
and chalk, or even with a pen and a large
*** of paper.

However, there is ONE primate that stays
on the ground all the time. It therefore
can (and often has to) travel distances.

So -- surprisingly -- it has evolved
aspects of its anatomy (including its
DNA) to cope with that lifestyle.
Isn't that amazing?

You confuse range with mobility. Not amazing. Baboons and chimps spend a lot
of time on the ground and physically could travel far.

Baboon territories are even smaller than
those of chimps -- perhaps typically half
a kilometre across.

Maybe "physically" scientists could
provide chimps and baboons with large
running wheels (as in mouse cages).
But -- to have an effect on their DNA --
they'd have to go back a few million
years and make sure that most chimps
and baboons had them in their territories
-- and were rewarded for using them.
That would be a bit difficult.

And you also forget
that what the researchers were focusing on was *running*...

And you believe that? (Banal
proposition #4 is proved true yet
again. Not, of course, that it
needed to be.)


Paul.


.

Quantcast