Sufficient humans to repopulate?

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Specialist, Jul 3, 2003.

  1. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,140
    Paulsamuel: "I am your God all must bow down before me, or else I won’t like that and you will suffer horribly! HAHAHAHahahaha, cough”

    Spuriousmonkey: “All hail are new god!!!”

    WellCookedFetus: “I am not respecting a egomaniac that claims to be a god!”

    2inquisitive: “God?!?! Has a freaking asshole! Lets insult him the same way he’s insulting us!”

    … and after this: the thread maturity drops by 2 year every post.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,140
    Paulsamuel,

    let me get this strait even when the article presents evidence against you, it actually support your claims because the authors (you assure us) would make your claims an exception?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    i think the point might have been that the 'evidence' was not actually discussing this scenario but a different one. Hence it maybe shouldn't be used as evidence against the notion that one pregnant female could repopulate a species.

    or not...
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paulsamuel Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    882
    wellcooked

    it appears you didn't read the article, again.

    It does require some genetics background, which, it appears, you do not have.

    no where does the article disagree with me. As i stated, it agrees with me, and with all the background theory i have provided in this thread.
     
  8. 2inquisitive The Devil is in the details Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,181
    Sorry, I am not into insults, I just thought the literature was
    relevant to this thread.
    Thanks, Paul, I did use my own search terms but I can't remember
    exactly what they were. My memory is not as good as it used
    to be.
     
  9. paulsamuel Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    882
    2inquisitive

    no problemo.

    keep up the good work.
     
  10. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,140
    paulsamuel,

    Well yes all I have done was read the abstract, even so all you have stated is that the article agrees with you simply because the authors would agree with you as you claim, and possible that there work is not relevant, because of it use of plants and simulated models, again this is no proof of anything on your part only hearsay. If you would mine put up better evidence on your part that actually from the article then we might also have proof that you actually read it as well.

     
  11. paulsamuel Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    882
    wellcooked

    i will say this again, and i cannot stress the importance of this enough, READ!

    when you read you learn, you find more references to the topic, you'll find that the topic is not discreet and will link intellectually to a plethora of other topics.

    a good rule of thumb is (and i know this is difficult, so don't beat yourself up over it if you can't do it continuously) one journal article per day. if this is too much, try one per working day (5 per week)
     
  12. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,140
    paulsamuel,

    That’s strange you obviously did not read what I said, let me state it again: there is no proof you read it either, until then you have no valid argument unless you attack the article it self or present other articles. You really have a problem in presenting arguments: failing to have a proper premises or valid claims, constant use of fallacies. When you speak like a professor I will respect you like the one you claim to be, until then you nothing but a jerk.

    I do have a subscription to Nature and SA you know, and I don’t pay for them to lay on my desktop either.
     
  13. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    Moderation

    Ok, I'm going to pretend to be moderator here

    let us try to figure out how we can resolve this dispute. We have seen some references, but with my layman knowledge I would venture to guess that this wouldn't so far exclude the possibility of a single pregnant female population founder.

    So...for both parties. Can we summarize our main points and possibly give a reference to support our position. And if you still have time left, maybe argue why this reference supports your position and not the other.
     
  14. Idle Mind What the hell, man? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,709
    You should be a mod spurious...

    As for this thread, I am disgusted. Why are you people (paulsamuel and WellCooked, I'm looking in your direction) bickering like children? Don't answer that, it is meant rhetorically.

    Anyways, the original question posed by Specialist, lest you've forgotten was this:
    The answer, disregarding likelihood as it was not stated in the original question, is a single pregnant female. That's it! Conversation over. If his (or her) question were more specific, and perhaps asked what the minimum number for establishing a genetically stable human population with the least likelihood of failure, then I could see maybe having a disagreement. But that is not the case.

    We are all here to learn, and it is incredibly difficult to take you two seriously when each thread is filled with childish insinuations and outright insults.

    Grow up.
     
  15. paulsamuel Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    882
    yahoo!!!

    thanks Idle Mind!!

    In the words of Mugato (of Zoolander), I thought I was taking crazy pills here!
     
  16. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,140

Share This Page