DNA-sequence analysis as a guide to origins

24 Jul

Now that Jokodo has shown himself to be totally exhausted [and let me make it explicitly clear that having just trashed two of his submissions (‘just google it and come back when you know enough to criticise specific assumptions….’; & ‘I am seeing someone who spouts ill-defined claims…’ ) I do not wish to hear any more from him in this blogsite so he should consider himself banned] we can turn to a serious consideration of the basis upon which alternative theories of the origins of man from apes are determined. The flaw in these theories concerns the use of ‘known’ or ‘predicted’ mutation rates in the genome to establish the relationships between different groups of current populations in terms of their common ancestor.

Since I posted the above paragraph, Jokodo would not be deterred and had to have his say as shown in the comments section of this post. I therefore restored his two trashed submissions in order that there is continuity in these proceedings. He has not replied to the final question that I asked, so I presume that he is now fully exhausted.

Edited: 7.21 pm, 25 July 2012.

Jokodo was not finished. He came back with another comment (No 7) which I replied to with a further question (N0 8).

Edited: 10.07 pm, 25 July 2012.

Advertisements

9 Responses to “DNA-sequence analysis as a guide to origins”

  1. Jokodo July 24, 2012 at 12:29 pm #

    “The flaw in these theories concerns the use of ‘known’ or ‘predicted’ mutation rates in the genome to establish the relationships between different groups of current populations in terms of their common ancestor.”

    Can you get a tiny bit more specific? What is your reason to believe that the estimated rates are off by a factor of 30 (1,500,000/50,000)?

    BTW, kudos for trying, but you’re still a long way off from a serious critique of existing research on the topic.

  2. shantanup July 25, 2012 at 5:32 am #

    ”Can you get a tiny bit more specific? What is your reason to believe that the estimated rates are off by a factor of 30 (1,500,000/50,000)?”
    With which model and hypothesis are you comparing my hypothesis with here? You said earlier that my model was what the following report cites as being the ‘D’ model: http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v1…_126a_BX2.html (pdf here: http://159.226.149.45/compgenegroup/…tureReview.pdf
    I cannot connect into these links so please explain how my hypothesis is incompatible with the ‘evidence’ from their use of what you yourself seem to have described to me as being nothing more than ‘educated guesses’? – please correct me if I have misunderstood you on this point.

    • Jokodo July 25, 2012 at 1:44 pm #

      If you go back to the thread and click the actual link rather than the corrupted copy (because the forum software breaks down long links by inserting `…’ in the string displayed), you will find that yes, you can connect.

      And no, I didn’t say that they only had educated guesses. I said that *you* would *at*least* need to be able to give an educated guess yourself to make the claims you are making, even if they didn’t contradict evidence we already have.

      • shantanup July 25, 2012 at 2:48 pm #

        It was not part of any thread at FRDB, as usual you are prevaricating.

  3. Jokodo July 25, 2012 at 4:08 pm #

    What was it then? Dug it out for you again: http://159.226.149.45/compgenegroup/paper/subing%20NatureReview.pdf

    • shantanup July 25, 2012 at 5:30 pm #

      Thankyou for this link Jokodo. It will take me some time to go through it and determine how my hypothesis is the ‘D’ one according to you.

      In the meantime, have you now remembered when and how you gave me the following two links: http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v1…_126a_BX2.html (pdf here: http://159.226.149.45/compgenegroup/…tureReview.pdf), or shall I remind you now?

      • Jokodo July 25, 2012 at 8:47 pm #

        It’s irrelevant when and how I gave you the links. What’s relevant is that I did give them to you and they worked until you copy-pasted them ignoring that the software suppresses long links, instead of something crazy like klicking them – and then blamed it on me and accused me of “prevaricating”.

  4. shantanup July 25, 2012 at 8:56 pm #

    What is relevant is that you have not told me where in the link it states that my hypothesis is the ‘D’ model like you said: why are you avoiding this question?

    • Jokodo July 26, 2012 at 1:40 pm #

      So, after starting a blog about how you believe that modern East Asians have originated from the first members of the the genus homo to enter Asia, independently of what went on in Africa at the time, you ask why and how your “hypothesis” is comparable to the previously suggested (and largely abandoned, in the face of the evidence) model according to which modern East Asians have originated from the first members of the the genus homo to enter Asia, independently of what went on in Africa at the time?

      Seriously?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: