Re: The Irony of Hamilton's Success

From: Josh Hayes (joshno_at_spamblarg.net)
Date: 02/27/05 

Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 01:20:36 -0500 (EST)

"Claudius" <claudius_denk@yahoo.com> wrote in news:cvrntp$6p9$1
@darwin.ediacara.org:

Since I don't respond to McGinn any more, I feel a little strange
replying to what appears to be a McGinn sock puppet, but I'll give
"Claudius Denk", who posts from the exact same IP address as McGinn, the
benefit of the doubt.

(I don't want to get into witch-hunt mode, so I'm not going to post the
original received-by headers; after all, who would care either way?)

All I really want to get an answer to is this:

("Denk" writes:)

> Josh stated:
> "I would go so far as to say that any genes which are the
> same are, by definition, IBD."
>
> Indisputably this is a false statement. What's especially
> troubling is that it is so obviously false. But yet there
> it is.

On what basis do you make the claim that this is false?

Put another way, if it is false, then at least some genes which are
shared are not derived from a common ancestor. This is what you are
saying. How do these identical genes come to be identical since they
are, according to you, not identical because of descent? Do you have
examples of shared genes which are demonstrably of separate origin?

This is the question I asked McGinn, and he was too chicken*** to
answer it, as usual, knowing that to do so would sink his battleship.
Maybe his "ally" would be willing to put up an actual answer, instead of
running away? Denken-Sie ja?

When I posed this elementary-school-level question to McGinn, I said I
wasn't holding my breath waiting for an answer, and sure enough, he
pretended the question was "confused"; I'm hoping that Mr. Denk will
improve on the McGinn approach of slinging insults and nothing else.

(But I'm not holding my breath this time either)

-JAH

Loading