On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 01:09:56 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by "Hybrid Angel/Messenger" <X>:
>
>"Bob Casanova" <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:i0di049t146r9n2a0af84rqnn3qh3mk82e@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:44:26 -0400, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by "Hybrid Angel/Messenger" <X>:
>>
>>>
>>>"Bob Casanova" <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>news:lmba045ghrvqih2056p9jec32q2hbqpgg0@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 21:50:44 -0400, the following appeared
>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by "Hybrid Angel/Messenger" <X>:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Bob Casanova" <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>news:9n1uv3hsc2ouqqa1s7f3hg54g4av0gcuqh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 23:41:36 -0400, the following appeared in
>>>>>> sci.skeptic, posted by "Hybrid Angel/Messenger" <X>:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>>>>.....I shove science at you all the time...
>>>>>>>Like genetics.....you reject it, all of the time.......
>>>>
>>>>>> You don't push science, since it's obvious from your posts
>>>>>> that you're scientifically illiterate.
>>>>
>>>>>In some fields yes. Just like you......
>>>>
>>>> But unlike you, I don't make pronouncements in fields in
>>>> which I'm illiterate. For you, that would be biology.
>>>
>>>Just genomes....
>>>
>>>Following the Biblical ancestral line...and how it runs right
>>>into us......intelligent, modern humans......
>>>>
>>>>>Are we, or are we not, 99.5%+ Neanderthal genome.....?
>>>>>Don't give me the bull**** of common ancestor. You can't
>>>>>produce one......
>>>>
>>>> Like I said, scientifically illiterate.
>>>
>>>Different sciences.....evidently the one in which you're not
>>>literate....
>>>
>>>> Thanks for confirming. Since we share 98% of our DNA with
>>>> chimps does that mean we interbred with them?
>>>
>>>More like 95% Chimp.....check it out. New technology....
>>>And it shows we are more like, 99.9% Neanderthal....
>>
>> OK, Sparky, what percentage indicates that there was
>> cross-breeding?
>
>99.5%+ Neanderthal genome....
>
>> You can't write a check for "some value between $95 and
>> $99.90", so lets have an exact figure. And then produce
>> evidence (not more claims) that the figure is accurate. Good
>> luck on that...
>
>It means the 99.5%+ may hit the 99.9%....mark, as I saw on a
>History Channel series about the Neanderthals.....99.9%....
>
>The 99.5% is an absolute. But...it may be higher. We'll find out....
>
>That 95% is for the Chimp in us.......
I see; you don't even understand a fairly simple question.
OK, thanks for confirming (once again) your ignorance.
<snip rambling stupidity>
HANL.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
|
