Re: Jim doesn't like Felsenstein

From: Jim McGinn (jimmcginn_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 02/25/05 

Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 13:43:48 -0500 (EST)

William Morse wrote:
> Jim McGinn wrote
> > William Morse wrote:

> >> my statement above is true. If a benefactor is
> >> A5, the probability that a recipient is A5 is
> >> higher if the two are more closely related than
> >> it is if the two are more distantly related. If
> >> you don't understand this, there is no point
> >> in continuing the discussion.
>
> > Gee, what a shame (sarcasm intended).
>
> Like I said. As to your percentage question,
> Joe Felsenstein has already answered it,

Did he? Where?

> and
> since you didn't like the answer when he said
> it I have no expectation that you will like
> the answer when I say it. Good day, sir.

In the posts that preceded this post William
(like Josh) presented a question that was so
vague and ambiguous that there is no right
answer. When I pointed out some facts to
assist him in clarifying his question he
realized that the premise/assertion that
underlies his question had evaporated. In
order to save face he bailed. Typical
neoDarwinists tactics.

Ultimately, William, you have the same issue
that Josh has. Your head is filled with
neoDarwinistic superstition. Until I brought
it up it had never occurred to you that we
have two very different interpretations of the
word relatedness in evolutionary biology.

Now you can no longer pretend that you don't
know this.

Jim

Quantcast