[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Reconstructing DNA (was Re: Dino-fuzz found in amber?)
> Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 13:09:47 +1000
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: Reconstructing DNA (was Re: Dino-fuzz found in amber?)
> Anthony Docimo <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > given that the manus of both is modified, can it really be considered an
> > unmodified shared
> > condition? (thus leaving the pes as the only option)
> Two responses:
> (1) I never said it was "unmodified shared condition" - I was refuting
> RT's claim that it was.
> > For example, the> > functionally tridactly in T-rex and chicken would be
> > regarded as a> > unmodified shared condition.
if you're refuting it, why ask if he means the hand or hte foot? wouldn't you
only ask for further specification if you agreed? hence my statement.
> > if there's been no evolution, then what you call a chicken, is
> > *Tyrannosaurus
> > rex* full stop.
> What a ridiculous thing to say.
of course it is - that's the point of humor. (and I made that half of the post
to be humor)