Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Other than the fact that current fluff does not disprove hybrids from earlier fluff, I concur with the above post.
SJ
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world.”
- Ephesians 6:12
Wrong. There is no room for them in the hominid family tree.
humans and Eldar are cousins within the same branch of hominid
Wrong. No hominid creatures had or could have evolved 5-stranded DNA with 20 base pairs in the roughly 14 million years since our most recent common ancestor.
From this we know that Eldar follow the same XX, XY chromosome paradygn that Humans do
Nope. Not science, but if we're talking about a hypothetical alien race and its biology then it's worth noting that they wouldn't have what we understand as sex chromosomes.
given morphology, Eldar are hominids closer to Homo Sapien Sapien than our next closest cousins, the Pan Troglodytes
Wrong. By that reasoning, whales are closer to sharks than to cows, when in reality whales and sharks diverged ~400 million years ago, while whales and cows diverged about 50 Mya. Morphology is not relevant to genetic proximity in this context.
Xenology is newer, however, it does not show a biological impossibility. It shows a biological improbability.
Wrong It is biologically impossible for creatures with different DNA structures and base-pairs to interbreed.
We can and have successfully spliced plant and insect DNA with mammal DNA
You can say there are no Unicorns in Vietnam, but you would be wrong since Unicorns were found in Vietnam only a few years ago
Just...no. Wrong. They found a bovid resembling an antelope. Notably, it has two horns.
Eldar have a quintuplet Helix and 20 base pairs, it is only improbable that a Human-Eldar hybrid could exist
Wrong. Still not possible for two creatures with different DNA structures to interbreed.
double-helix DNA with 4 base pairs
Wrong. Human DNA has four nucleobases, but only two base pairs.
the concept of impossibility is a falsehood
Wrong. Anything which violates a law of the universe is impossible. Statistically speaking certain extremely unlikely events, like a broken glass reassembling itself, do not technically violate the laws of physics (conservation of energy etc) but are in practice so improbable that the line between impossible and improbable becomes blurred. However, this does not apply to intermixing of different DNA structures, wherein there are actual laws and mechanisms preventing it from happening that render it impossible.
Hawking Radiation escapes the event horizon of black holes
Wrong. Virtual particles are created at the edge of the event horizon but do not cross it.
the act of observing a quantum event will influence the event
Wrong. Also irrelevant. You can affect the eigenstates of a system if you choose your measurement poorly, but this is a misunderstanding of the uncertainty principle, which does not depend on an actual physical measurement.
As to protons and photons, I could get into the formation of protons, anti-protons, electrons, and anti-electrons, as well as go off on a tangent discussing why our universe does not seem to want the produce the anti-spin variants in equal proportion, which may have to do with the creation of time
I can't even link anything to refute this, because it is gibberish. It makes no sense, there is no such thing as anti-spin or "the formation of time".
I hope this serves to clear up any confusion that has been created by all the arguing and misinformation!
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2015/04/14 16:40:51
Blood rains down from an angry sky, my WAAAGH! rages on, my WAAAGH! rages on!
I think there are several reasons why an animal may have a huge genome:
1: Lots of complicated bodily processes
2: Having evolved from an ancestor who had a lot of complicated processes (the genes get switched off, but are still there)
3: Accumulation of defective but harmless junk DNA or mutations
Humans have 3,200,000,000 base pairs in their genome. Protopterus aethiopicus (marbled lungfish) has 130,000,000,000, about 40 times as many. It may be a very cool fish, but it's we who rule the planet.
Per the tenets of the forum, just saying someone is wrong is against forum policy. You need to back up your position by proving the statements wrong.
The reason why I doubt your educational claims is because your word usage and lack of a formed thought in your arguments point to a high school or early college level of writing, not post-graduate or career path level of writing.
So, don't say "you are wrong", say "this is the reason why your statement is wrong".
SJ
PS - Forgot to mention, your links support my position, not yours.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/14 15:01:30
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world.”
- Ephesians 6:12
Not adding this to argument, just hoping to do a little reaching here, I just noticed that some people here, didn't bother looking at the names so it could be anyone or a group, have been doing species names as Genus Species, this is not the correct way of writing this out, and while a minor point does bug me a bit. It should be Genus species, and where possible should be italicised, which for obvious reasons isn't always feasible. Again not adding into any arguments here cause I'm bored of it all, but hopefully someone might read this and learn something
jeffersonian000 wrote: Per the tenets of the forum, just saying someone is wrong is against forum policy. You need to back up your position by proving the statements wrong.
The reason why I doubt your educational claims is because your word usage and lack of a formed thought in your arguments point to a high school or early college level of writing, not post-graduate or career path level of writing.
So, don't say "you are wrong", say "this is the reason why your statement is wrong".
SJ
PS - Forgot to mention, your links support my position, not yours.
Funnily enough, we've already disputed and proven your statements wrong, many times over. You just refuse to accept it.
Clearly at this stage he's obviously trolling (I hope that's what it is anyway) and we all should obviously just leave it now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
statu wrote: Not adding this to argument, just hoping to do a little reaching here, I just noticed that some people here, didn't bother looking at the names so it could be anyone or a group, have been doing species names as Genus Species, this is not the correct way of writing this out, and while a minor point does bug me a bit. It should be Genus species, and where possible should be italicised, which for obvious reasons isn't always feasible. Again not adding into any arguments here cause I'm bored of it all, but hopefully someone might read this and learn something
Yeah I remember that from biology. If you can't italicise (ie if you're handwriting it) aren't you meant to underline it? I think that's what I was taught.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/14 15:46:02
jeffersonian000 wrote: Per the tenets of the forum, just saying someone is wrong is against forum policy. You need to back up your position by proving the statements wrong.
The links speak for themselves, but very well. Edited.
The reason why I doubt your educational claims is because your word usage and lack of a formed thought in your arguments point to a high school or early college level of writing, not post-graduate or career path level of writing.
I apologize for not busting out my academic prose for a forum discussion, but frankly, at this point I'm not trying to convince you. I'm trying to convince anyone that might be misled by you. Credentials are irrelevant, this is a logical fallacy called "appeal to authority". This is why I'm not saying "you're an engineer, you're not qualified to have an opinion", I'm saying "the things that you are saying are untrue."
PS - Forgot to mention, your links support my position, not yours.
Can you point to where it says that particles cross the event horizon? Or explain what anti-spin is? Or where in (for example) causal dynamical triangulation models baryon asymmetry is linked to the emergence of 3+1 dimensions? Or maybe a branch of the hominid family that has more than a double helix DNA? Or more than four nucleobases? How about an example of an animal mating with a plant and producing viable hybrid offspring? How about a most recent common ancestor for humans and an alien species with quintuple-helix DNA? An example of unicorn, maybe? How about a cup spontaneously reassembling itself after shattering?
I have no interest in being right. Being proven wrong is how I learn new things. If you can prove me wrong, I will have learned something about biology and I will thank you for it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/14 15:50:34
Blood rains down from an angry sky, my WAAAGH! rages on, my WAAAGH! rages on!
statu wrote: Not adding this to argument, just hoping to do a little reaching here, I just noticed that some people here, didn't bother looking at the names so it could be anyone or a group, have been doing species names as Genus Species, this is not the correct way of writing this out, and while a minor point does bug me a bit. It should be Genus species, and where possible should be italicised, which for obvious reasons isn't always feasible. Again not adding into any arguments here cause I'm bored of it all, but hopefully someone might read this and learn something
Yeah I remember that from biology. If you can't italicise (ie if you're handwriting it) aren't you meant to underline it? I think that's what I was taught.
Yeah where possible you should do that, just something to make it look different
Except for the 1d4Chan article, each of your links support my counters to your initial argument trying to disprove the existence of a published character. The 1d4Chan article is mostly gibberish, and is an opinion piece, so doesn't really support anything beyond Eldar having crystalline fecal matter, though the statement at the end that Eldar and Humans either share a common ancestor (which supports my argument) or are both the product of genetic engineering (an argument you did not put forth) leans more to my camp than yours. Did you even read the articles before linking them?
The articles on most recent common ancestor, hominidae, and hybridization are exactly the points I made, which is why I pointed this out to you the first time you brought it up.
Misquoting me on my examples on how we are using gene splicing to add non mammalian DNA to mammals to prove you point just showed another failure to understand written word, especially when you link an article that restates the original point that you misquoted.
On my error of stating 4 base pairs, you got me there. I was thinking amino acids and wrote 4 instead of 2. That one was a legitimate error on my part. Of course, it makes zero difference to the argument, as we have no idea how a quintouple helix DNA would work beyond the mechanics we can currently apply to how double helix DNA. If the 20 base pairs of the Eldar DNA is related to the additional sides of the helix, if at least one side matches Human base pairs, and if it only requires matching one side of the super stack to human DNA, there would no reason to assume that genetic transfer of information could not happen. But be that as it may, the structure of Eldar DNA versus the Structure of Human DNA only highlights why such a creature as Illiyan Nastase could be so comparitivrly rare, it does not disprove his existence. First off, the character exists. Secondly, because the character exists, there exists a mechanic that allows the character to exist. Per your linked article on what defines a species, the fact that Eldar and Humans did interbreed supports my statement that Humans and Eldar are the same species, with makes Eldar Hominidae per the current system of classification we use.
At this point, I'd recommend you actually read the articles you linked.
SJ
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world.”
- Ephesians 6:12
jeffersonian000 wrote: Except for the 1d4Chan article, each of your links support my counters to your initial argument trying to disprove the existence of a published character. The 1d4Chan article is mostly gibberish, and is an opinion piece, so doesn't really support anything beyond Eldar having crystalline fecal matter, though the statement at the end that Eldar and Humans either share a common ancestor (which supports my argument) or are both the product of genetic engineering (an argument you did not put forth) leans more to my camp than yours. Did you even read the articles before linking them?
The articles on most recent common ancestor, hominidae, and hybridization are exactly the points I made, which is why I pointed this out to you the first time you brought it up.
Misquoting me on my examples on how we are using gene splicing to add non mammalian DNA to mammals to prove you point just showed another failure to understand written word, especially when you link an article that restates the original point that you misquoted.
On my error of stating 4 base pairs, you got me there. I was thinking amino acids and wrote 4 instead of 2. That one was a legitimate error on my part. Of course, it makes zero difference to the argument, as we have no idea how a quintouple helix DNA would work beyond the mechanics we can currently apply to how double helix DNA. If the 20 base pairs of the Eldar DNA is related to the additional sides of the helix, if at least one side matches Human base pairs, and if it only requires matching one side of the super stack to human DNA, there would no reason to assume that genetic transfer of information could not happen. But be that as it may, the structure of Eldar DNA versus the Structure of Human DNA only highlights why such a creature as Illiyan Nastase could be so comparitivrly rare, it does not disprove his existence. First off, the character exists. Secondly, because the character exists, there exists a mechanic that allows the character to exist. Per your linked article on what defines a species, the fact that Eldar and Humans did interbreed supports my statement that Humans and Eldar are the same species, with makes Eldar Hominidae per the current system of classification we use.
At this point, I'd recommend you actually read the articles you linked.
SJ
This is just going to keep going on and on until everyone stops posting, for the sake of just ending this, could you admit that maybe Nastase and his eldar origins may possibly be a story, and could everyone else admit maybe Xenology is possibly maybe all lies. Talking in universe for both of them points? That way everyone carries on thinking as they want to, no one admits they are wrong, and we all get to put this behind us
jeffersonian000 wrote: On my error of stating 4 base pairs, you got me there. I was thinking amino acids and wrote 4 instead of 2. That one was a legitimate error on my part. Of course, it makes zero difference to the argument, as we have no idea how a quintouple helix DNA would work beyond the mechanics we can currently apply to how double helix DNA. If the 20 base pairs of the Eldar DNA is related to the additional sides of the helix, if at least one side matches Human base pairs, and if it only requires matching one side of the super stack to human DNA, there would no reason to assume that genetic transfer of information could not happen.
This is nonsense. That is not how DNA works.
But be that as it may, the structure of Eldar DNA versus the Structure of Human DNA only highlights why such a creature as Illiyan Nastase could be so comparitivrly rare, it does not disprove his existence. First off, the character exists.
A make-believe character doesn't disprove real science. Scientifically, such a creature cannot exist. In the make-believe world, if different rules apply, then anything is possible. But in real world science, it's not possible.
Secondly, because the character exists, there exists a mechanic that allows the character to exist. Per your linked article on what defines a species, the fact that Eldar and Humans did interbreed supports my statement that Humans and Eldar are the same species, with makes Eldar Hominidae per the current system of classification we use.
Besides the gibberish nomenclature (Eldar Hominidae? It would have to be Homo eldar, since homo is the genus, not "hominidae", and the species goes after the genus name, not before) that is...not at all what the article says about species classification. Discounting genetic differences for just a moment, at the bare minimum, one would need to demonstrate that such a creature was itself capable of producing offspring. If one existed, which it could not. The problem is the misuse of the word "species". Humans and chimpanzees are different species, and we share about 95% of our genes. We share about 50% of our genes with bananas. Humans and quintuple-helix, 20-base-pair aliens share at MOST 10% of our genes, if every human gene is included in the alien genome. These are not the same species.
Scientifically, the question is "let's assume an alien species were discovered with 20 base-pair, quintuple helix DNA, that was already in its anatomically modern form at least 60 million years ago. What could we know about it?" Among the things we could know about it is that it would be unable to interbreed with humans, it could not be a hominid, it couldn't have a common ancestor with life on earth, etc.
You still have quite a few errors:
You're wrong about Hawking radiation.
The bit about anti-spin and the formation of time is still gibberish.
There are still no unicorns.
Gene-splicing is still not the same as inter-breeding.
You still don't understand the uncertainty principle.
Species are still defined by genetic similarity, precluding the possibility of a creature with radically different DNA from being included in a species with life on earth.
Morphology still doesn't tell you about evolutionary proximity when it runs counter to genetic evidence.
It is still impossible for species with radically different DNA to interbreed.
There is such a thing as "impossible".
Blood rains down from an angry sky, my WAAAGH! rages on, my WAAAGH! rages on!
And again, you miss the entire point. I'll try to use smaller words. Because Nastase exists in the 40k fluff, Humans and Eldar are the same species due to how we define a species. Attempting to disprove Nastase is useless, because the character was published, and has not yet been retracted nor retconned. Despite the Xenology detailing a completely alien concept on biology, the Xenology does not make the blanket statement that Eldar cannot interbreed with Humans, hence the reason why the Xenology has zero bearing on the argument.
Sorry, guess I couldn't stay with a primary school vocabulary.
SJ
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world.”
- Ephesians 6:12
jeffersonian000 wrote: And again, you miss the entire point. I'll try to use smaller words. Because Nastase exists in the 40k fluff, Humans and Eldar are the same species due to how we define a species. Attempting to disprove Nastase is useless, because the character was published, and has not yet been retracted nor retconned. Despite the Xenology detailing a completely alien concept on biology, the Xenology does not make the blanket statement that Eldar cannot interbreed with Humans, hence the reason why the Xenology has zero bearing on the argument.
Sorry, guess I couldn't stay with a primary school vocabulary.
SJ
They're not necessarily the same species, we define a species as organisms that can produce fertile offspring, as we have no evidence he truly did exist, remember by the black library fella's own admission he could be a story, and assuming he did we have no information on whether or not he was fertile, there is insufficient evidence to claim they are the same species
You still have quite a few errors:
You're wrong about Hawking radiation.
Hawking attempts to explain how Black Holes lose mass via "Hawking Radiation". His math is sound, still waiting on observable proof. We do, however, observe X-ray shooting out of the poles of Black Holes, although the effect is not the same as the radiation Hawking proposes. So yeah, I actually do understand what Hawking Radiation is. Can you even point out what part you think I'm wrong about?
The bit about anti-spin and the formation of time is still gibberish.
Well, time and space are related, and one of the current thoughts on the origin of time and why it seems to move in one direction is that expansion of the universe is causing time to flow in the one direction the is observable. On my spin comment, I'll just quote Wikipedia:
"In particle physics, antimatter is material composed of antiparticles, which have the same mass as particles of ordinary matter but have opposite charge and other particle properties such as lepton and baryon number, quantum spin, etc."
There are still no unicorns.
Prove it.
Gene-splicing is still not the same as inter-breeding.
I never said otherwise, but you probably didn't both to read what I actually said ... twice.
You still don't understand the uncertainty principle.
I do understand the uncertainty principle, probably better than you do, since you seem to have confused my reference to the Observer Effect for the Uncertainty Principle. As Wiki states:
"In science, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on a phenomenon being observed."
Species are still defined by genetic similarity, precluding the possibility of a creature with radically different DNA from being included in a species with life on earth.
I'll let your own linked Wiki article shed light:
"A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, the difficulty of defining species is known as the species problem."
While a commend you for attempting to use the species problem to disprove the existence of Nastase, you did not follow up in logical manner that might have lent more weight you argument.
Morphology still doesn't tell you about evolutionary proximity when it runs counter to genetic evidence.
I never said it did, although I'm sure you didn't actually read what I said, which made no mention of morphology. Your the one that mentioned morphology.
It is still impossible for species with radically different DNA to interbreed.
It is improbable for two different organisms with radically different DNA to interbreed. Yet, when two organisms do interbreed, we call that a species.
There is such a thing as "impossible".
Prove it.
SJ
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world.”
- Ephesians 6:12
It is improbable for two different organisms with radically different DNA to interbreed. Yet, when two organisms do interbreed, we call that a species.
When fertile offspring are produced, eg lions and tigers are separate species, yet they can interbreed and produce offspring. Even then though it isn't as simple as that
Assume we can clone a Neanderthal, and grow it in a Human woman. Without being able to time travel, which from my very limited physics knowledge is nigh on impossible, and maybe only possible to time zones where there is a receiver, admittedly I could be wrong there, it is impossible for us to be able to find out if the Neanderthal child we created has developed as a Neanderthal, or if being raised by humans has caused it to develop differently
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/14 21:20:00
jeffersonian000 wrote: On the human-fungi hybrid, you must not be following recent science news. We can and have successfully spliced plant and insect DNA with mammal DNA
What part of this am I misquoting? You imply that splicing genes is evidence that human-fungi hybridization is possible, which only shows that you don't know what a hybrid is, and is irrelevant to the question of interbreeding.
given morphology, Eldar are hominids closer to Homo Sapien Sapien than our next closest cousins, the Pan Troglodytes...
You brought it up first? Right here? Remember?
A species is a subcategory of a phylum, which is defined by genetic proximity. If two creatures aren't part of the same phylum, they are by definition not part of the same species, regardless of whether they can interbreed. It just happens that we've never seen a creature that can interbreed with a member of a different phylum, so the "species defined by breeding fertile offspring" rule of thumb works for every example so far.
If eldar are a subspecies of Homo sapiens, or a species of the genus Homo, at what point did they diverge from our most recent common ancestor, that shared 90% of our genes and less than 10% of an eldar's genes? The answer is that a creature that shares fewer genes with us than we do with bananas is obviously not a member of the same species. Anyone that disagrees is welcome to try to draw a cladogram to demonstrate otherwise.
Hawking radiation doesn't cross the event horizon of a black hole, a fact obvious to anyone that actually understands quantum mechanics. Nor do x-ray bursts or gamma ray bursts.
Anti-particles don't have "anti-spin", obviously. The only thing I can think of that might make sense here is the helicity of neutrinos and anti-neutrinos, but that isn't called anti-spin anywhere and it applies only to neutrinos, not positrons etc.
Unicorns: the onus of proof is on the person making the claim. The claim that unicorns exist in Vietnam is unsubstantiated, and presumed false until demonstrated otherwise.
Blood rains down from an angry sky, my WAAAGH! rages on, my WAAAGH! rages on!
office_waaagh wrote: A species is a subcategory of a phylum, which is defined by genetic proximity. If two creatures aren't part of the same phylum, they are by definition not part of the same species, regardless of whether they can interbreed. It just happens that we've never seen a creature that can interbreed with a member of a different phylum, so the "species defined by breeding fertile offspring" rule of thumb works for every example so far..
Every living example, to my knowledge. I'm sure I attended a lecture once whereby Prof. Chris Stringer mentioned that there are examples that don't fit this model, but I can't remember what they were. An extinct example would be us and the Neanderthals, separate species, and yet possibly maybe did interbreed, and as some genes that probably started in them are still knocking about in modern humans, they must have been able to produce fertile offspring.
jeffersonian000 wrote: On the human-fungi hybrid, you must not be following recent science news. We can and have successfully spliced plant and insect DNA with mammal DNA
What part of this am I misquoting? You imply that splicing genes is evidence that human-fungi hybridization is possible, which only shows that you don't know what a hybrid is, and is irrelevant to the question of interbreeding.
Or it's an example of your not knowing what the word hybridization means. Should I have used the word Chimera, instead? Would you have even understood that term?
given morphology, Eldar are hominids closer to Homo Sapien Sapien than our next closest cousins, the Pan Troglodytes...
You brought it up first? Right here? Remember?
Yep, that was my response to your post on morphology. Remember?
A species is a subcategory of a phylum, which is defined by genetic proximity. If two creatures aren't part of the same phylum, they are by definition not part of the same species, regardless of whether they can interbreed. It just happens that we've never seen a creature that can interbreed with a member of a different phylum, so the "species defined by breeding fertile offspring" rule of thumb works for every example so far.
I agree completely, which is why I've stated that Eldar and Humans are the same species. See? Round and round we go!
If eldar are a subspecies of Homo sapiens, or a species of the genus Homo, at what point did they diverge from our most recent common ancestor, that shared 90% of our genes and less than 10% of an eldar's genes? The answer is that a creature that shares fewer genes with us than we do with bananas is obviously not a member of the same species. Anyone that disagrees is welcome to try to draw a cladogram to demonstrate otherwise.
Not sure where you are getting 90% same, 10% different. Is that from 40k fluff? Or is that your wild guess? Chimpanzees and Humans share 94% of the same DNA, most Humans share 97% of the same DNA, so unless GW has published a guesstimate on Eldar DNA to Human DNA, we can safely say that Nastase shows Eldar and Humans sharing at least 95% similarity, which places their most common ancestor at less than 6 million years, probably closer to 50,000 years or so.
Do you know what world Eldar originated on? Or when they added Terra to their Webway? We know they had a presence on Earth within the last 40-50 thousand years, we know that Humanity was a common trading partner of the Eldar during the Golden Age of Technology, and we know that the Humans of Sol (but not the Emperor) seem to have lost knowledge of the Eldar during the Long Night.
You can't actually say that Humans and Eldar do not share a common ancestor, without knowing more about their origins than what is currently in print. You can, however, say you doubt any connection between the two Races. It's good to have an opinion.
Hawking radiation doesn't cross the event horizon of a black hole, a fact obvious to anyone that actually understands quantum mechanics. Nor do x-ray bursts or gamma ray bursts.
So, how do Black Holes evaporate, ie, lose mass?
Anti-particles don't have "anti-spin", obviously. The only thing I can think of that might make sense here is the helicity of neutrinos and anti-neutrinos, but that isn't called anti-spin anywhere and it applies only to neutrinos, not positrons etc.
Check out Baryogenesis. If you understand what you read, we might have a meaningful discussion on that point.
Unicorns: the onus of proof is on the person making the claim. The claim that unicorns exist in Vietnam is unsubstantiated, and presumed false until demonstrated otherwise.
Unsubstantiated? You linked an article detailing the unicorn found in Vietnam, or did you forget that?
SJ
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world.”
- Ephesians 6:12
jeffersonian000 wrote: On the human-fungi hybrid, you must not be following recent science news. We can and have successfully spliced plant and insect DNA with mammal DNA
What part of this am I misquoting? You imply that splicing genes is evidence that human-fungi hybridization is possible, which only shows that you don't know what a hybrid is, and is irrelevant to the question of interbreeding.
Or it's an example of your not knowing what the word hybridization means. Should I have used the word Chimera, instead? Would you have even understood that term?
given morphology, Eldar are hominids closer to Homo Sapien Sapien than our next closest cousins, the Pan Troglodytes...
You brought it up first? Right here? Remember?
Yep, that was my response to your post on morphology. Remember?
A species is a subcategory of a phylum, which is defined by genetic proximity. If two creatures aren't part of the same phylum, they are by definition not part of the same species, regardless of whether they can interbreed. It just happens that we've never seen a creature that can interbreed with a member of a different phylum, so the "species defined by breeding fertile offspring" rule of thumb works for every example so far.
I agree completely, which is why I've stated that Eldar and Humans are the same species. See? Round and round we go!
If eldar are a subspecies of Homo sapiens, or a species of the genus Homo, at what point did they diverge from our most recent common ancestor, that shared 90% of our genes and less than 10% of an eldar's genes? The answer is that a creature that shares fewer genes with us than we do with bananas is obviously not a member of the same species. Anyone that disagrees is welcome to try to draw a cladogram to demonstrate otherwise.
Not sure where you are getting 90% same, 10% different. Is that from 40k fluff? Or is that your wild guess? Chimpanzees and Humans share 94% of the same DNA, most Humans share 97% of the same DNA, so unless GW has published a guesstimate on Eldar DNA to Human DNA, we can safely say that Nastase shows Eldar and Humans sharing at least 95% similarity, which places their most common ancestor at less than 6 million years, probably closer to 50,000 years or so.
Do you know what world Eldar originated on? Or when they added Terra to their Webway? We know they had a presence on Earth within the last 40-50 thousand years, we know that Humanity was a common trading partner of the Eldar during the Golden Age of Technology, and we know that the Humans of Sol (but not the Emperor) seem to have lost knowledge of the Eldar during the Long Night.
You can't actually say that Humans and Eldar do not share a common ancestor, without knowing more about their origins than what is currently in print. You can, however, say you doubt any connection between the two Races. It's good to have an opinion.
Hawking radiation doesn't cross the event horizon of a black hole, a fact obvious to anyone that actually understands quantum mechanics. Nor do x-ray bursts or gamma ray bursts.
So, how do Black Holes evaporate, ie, lose mass?
Anti-particles don't have "anti-spin", obviously. The only thing I can think of that might make sense here is the helicity of neutrinos and anti-neutrinos, but that isn't called anti-spin anywhere and it applies only to neutrinos, not positrons etc.
Check out Baryogenesis. If you understand what you read, we might have a meaningful discussion on that point.
Unicorns: the onus of proof is on the person making the claim. The claim that unicorns exist in Vietnam is unsubstantiated, and presumed false until demonstrated otherwise.
Unsubstantiated? You linked an article detailing the unicorn found in Vietnam, or did you forget that?
SJ
Once again, not necessarily the same species, please stop claiming they are. Assuming he was real in universe, for all we know he was sterile, meaning they are different species. And even if he was fertile that does not mean they are the same species
See, this is why there's really no point in discussing anything with you. The only person that doesn't realize that you have no idea what you're talking about is you. You respond to being corrected by stating things that are either untrue or gibberish. You don't know enough about spacetime or baryogenesis to talk meaningfully about either, you're just relying on nobody else knowing enough to call you on it. It's unfortunate for you that you don't understand taxonomy, biology, or physics, but it's pretty clear that nobody here really thinks that you understand the things you're saying or agrees with any of it, so no harm done in the grand scheme.
Frankly, at this point, just letting people re-read your posts is sufficient to demonstrate the lack of any meaningful science content.
I do want to make a point though, with regard to speciation. Genetically, differences are used as sort of a "clock" to determine how long different populations have been reproductively isolated for. So the more different the genomes are, the longer it's been since they shared a common ancestor. Now, even humans and bananas share about 50% of our genes, and our most recent common ancestor was hundreds of millions of years ago. Obviously, we are not the same species as bananas. The definition of "species" as "creatures that can produce offspring" presupposes sufficient genetic similarity that all members of the species share a common ancestor that was substantially genetically similar to all of them. Once different groups have been reproductively isolated for long enough, their genes will "drift" and they will eventually lose the ability to interbreed successfully.
Obviously, creatures with 20 base-pair DNA in a quintuple helix cannot interbreed with creatures with a double helix with two base pairs. I think there is no disagreement on this point with any basis in reality. Therefore, obviously, such creatures could not be the same species. Any common ancestor would have to predate the separation of humans and bananas, by many orders of magnitude. So again, such creatures would not belong to the same phylum, much less the same genus or species.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/15 00:11:28
Blood rains down from an angry sky, my WAAAGH! rages on, my WAAAGH! rages on!
Cannot wait for yet another "Thank you for agreeing with me" post
jeffersonian000 wrote:
If eldar are a subspecies of Homo sapiens, or a species of the genus Homo, at what point did they diverge from our most recent common ancestor, that shared 90% of our genes and less than 10% of an eldar's genes? The answer is that a creature that shares fewer genes with us than we do with bananas is obviously not a member of the same species. Anyone that disagrees is welcome to try to draw a cladogram to demonstrate otherwise.
Not sure where you are getting 90% same, 10% different. Is that from 40k fluff? Or is that your wild guess? Chimpanzees and Humans share 94% of the same DNA, most Humans share 97% of the same DNA, so unless GW has published a guesstimate on Eldar DNA to Human DNA, we can safely say that Nastase shows Eldar and Humans sharing at least 95% similarity, which places their most common ancestor at less than 6 million years, probably closer to 50,000 years or so.
2 Base pairs (human) compared to 20 (Eldar). 2 is 10% of 20. Therefore the maximum amount of identical DNA in an Eldar (assuming they have all of the Human DNA plus all their extra) is 10% similarity. By pure abundance of all their other base pairs there is no way they can breed.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
See, this is why there's really no point in discussing anything with you. The only person that doesn't realize that you have no idea what you're talking about is you. You respond to being corrected by stating things that are either untrue or gibberish. You don't know enough about spacetime or baryogenesis to talk meaningfully about either, you're just relying on nobody else knowing enough to call you on it. It's unfortunate for you that you don't understand taxonomy, biology, or physics, but it's pretty clear that nobody here really thinks that you understand the things you're saying or agrees with any of it, so no harm done in the grand scheme.
Frankly, at this point, just letting people re-read your posts is sufficient to demonstrate the lack of any meaningful science content.
I do want to make a point though, with regard to speciation. Genetically, differences are used as sort of a "clock" to determine how long different populations have been reproductively isolated for. So the more different the genomes are, the longer it's been since they shared a common ancestor. Now, even humans and bananas share about 50% of our genes, and our most recent common ancestor was hundreds of millions of years ago. Obviously, we are not the same species as bananas. The definition of "species" as "creatures that can produce offspring" presupposes sufficient genetic similarity that all members of the species share a common ancestor that was substantially genetically similar to all of them. Once different groups have been reproductively isolated for long enough, their genes will "drift" and they will eventually lose the ability to interbreed successfully.
Obviously, creatures with 20 base-pair DNA in a quintuple helix cannot interbreed with creatures with a double helix with two base pairs. I think there is no disagreement on this point with any basis in reality. Therefore, obviously, such creatures could not be the same species. Any common ancestor would have to predate the separation of humans and bananas, by many orders of magnitude. So again, such creatures would not belong to the same phylum, much less the same genus or species.
Except that GW included the possibility of Humans and Eldar interbreeding by having at last one named character that is the result of a Human and an Eldar intercourse. GW also created the odd genetics of the Eldar without specifically retracting, redacting, or retconning their previous stance on Human-Eldar crossbreeds. Which means that when we apply real world science to this example of biology in the 40k universe, we arrive at Humans and Eldar sharing a common ancestor.
If eldar are a subspecies of Homo sapiens, or a species of the genus Homo, at what point did they diverge from our most recent common ancestor, that shared 90% of our genes and less than 10% of an eldar's genes? The answer is that a creature that shares fewer genes with us than we do with bananas is obviously not a member of the same species. Anyone that disagrees is welcome to try to draw a cladogram to demonstrate otherwise.
Not sure where you are getting 90% same, 10% different. Is that from 40k fluff? Or is that your wild guess? Chimpanzees and Humans share 94% of the same DNA, most Humans share 97% of the same DNA, so unless GW has published a guesstimate on Eldar DNA to Human DNA, we can safely say that Nastase shows Eldar and Humans sharing at least 95% similarity, which places their most common ancestor at less than 6 million years, probably closer to 50,000 years or so.
2 Base pairs (human) compared to 20 (Eldar). 2 is 10% of 20. Therefore the maximum amount of identical DNA in an Eldar (assuming they have all of the Human DNA plus all their extra) is 10% similarity. By pure abundance of all their other base pairs there is no way they can breed.
Nah, you were just using bad math and a poor understanding of biology.
SJ
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/04/15 00:29:49
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world.”
- Ephesians 6:12
If eldar are a subspecies of Homo sapiens, or a species of the genus Homo, at what point did they diverge from our most recent common ancestor, that shared 90% of our genes and less than 10% of an eldar's genes? The answer is that a creature that shares fewer genes with us than we do with bananas is obviously not a member of the same species. Anyone that disagrees is welcome to try to draw a cladogram to demonstrate otherwise.
Not sure where you are getting 90% same, 10% different. Is that from 40k fluff? Or is that your wild guess? Chimpanzees and Humans share 94% of the same DNA, most Humans share 97% of the same DNA, so unless GW has published a guesstimate on Eldar DNA to Human DNA, we can safely say that Nastase shows Eldar and Humans sharing at least 95% similarity, which places their most common ancestor at less than 6 million years, probably closer to 50,000 years or so.
2 Base pairs (human) compared to 20 (Eldar). 2 is 10% of 20. Therefore the maximum amount of identical DNA in an Eldar (assuming they have all of the Human DNA plus all their extra) is 10% similarity. By pure abundance of all their other base pairs there is no way they can breed.
They might have a completely different set as well, their 20 bases might not even include our 4. In which case there's no compatibility even between the odd bases in the gene. And then they might not have a triplet code, it might be quintuplets or God knows what.
Also humans and chimps share 99% DNA. 99.9% with other humans (iirc). Not sure where the 94 and 97 are from.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/04/15 00:42:06
That's a conclusion you may draw, but it is not the only one. If we assume that they can somehow hybridise, which to be clear I don't think they can, that doesn't prove they share a common ancestor. It is possible, if incredibly unlikely, that it is a case of convergent evolution, where by they have developed similar enough traits without being genetically related in any way.
Hawking radiation doesn't cross the event horizon of a black hole, a fact obvious to anyone that actually understands quantum mechanics. Nor do x-ray bursts or gamma ray bursts.
So, how do Black Holes evaporate, ie, lose mass?
Either the particles are formed just outside the event horizon, or it's quantum tunnelling which doesn't care about potential barriers. Take your pick.
Anti-particles don't have "anti-spin", obviously. The only thing I can think of that might make sense here is the helicity of neutrinos and anti-neutrinos, but that isn't called anti-spin anywhere and it applies only to neutrinos, not positrons etc.
Check out Baryogenesis. If you understand what you read, we might have a meaningful discussion on that point.
Anti-particles do not have anti-spin. They have the same value of spin that the normal particle does. It can be in a different direction (the actual direction spin can never be fully defined, however) but that doesn't make it "anti-spin". (Hint: Google anti-spin and all you find is table tennis pages).
Unicorns: the onus of proof is on the person making the claim. The claim that unicorns exist in Vietnam is unsubstantiated, and presumed false until demonstrated otherwise.
Unsubstantiated? You linked an article detailing the unicorn found in Vietnam, or did you forget that?
SJ
That was not a Unicorn. Considering that stories of unicorns existed in western european mythology long before the people of those countries ever got to Vietnam. Also, the Saola is bovine, not equine. So it can't be a Unicorn as defined in mythology.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/04/15 01:02:49
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
The original reporting of 99% the same between Chimps and Human was found to be in error, with 94% the correct value. Not sure why you don't know that, given you reported background in biology.
As to 97% similarity across Humanity, not all Humans have Neanderthal DNA, which can account for 1-3% of most Humans, except for those from Africa, which still has the most differentiate DNA amount Human groups. Why do you not know that, either?
Now, you are 99.5% similar to those in your community, and 99.9% similar to those in your immediate family. At this point, I have no idea what it is you do know.
SJ
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world.”
- Ephesians 6:12
jeffersonian000 wrote: The original reporting of 99% the same between Chimps and Human was found to be in error, with 94% the correct value. Not sure why you don't know that, given you reported background in biology.
As to 97% similarity across Humanity, not all Humans have Neanderthal DNA, which can account for 1-3% of most Humans, except for those from Africa, which still has the most differentiate DNA amount Human groups. Why do you not know that, either?
Now, you are 99.5% similar to those in your community, and 99.9% similar to those in your immediate family. At this point, I have no idea what it is you do know.
SJ
I never claimed to have a background in biology. I have a C in A Level biology, no where did I claim anything more. I have a decent grasp on how DNA works however, which is all I need to know Eldar Human hybrids are biologically impossible. And there's no need for 'I have no idea what it is you do know'. That's uncalled for, frankly.
Can I have a source for the 94%?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/04/15 00:55:12
jeffersonian000 wrote: The original reporting of 99% the same between Chimps and Human was found to be in error, with 94% the correct value. Not sure why you don't know that, given you reported background in biology.
As to 97% similarity across Humanity, not all Humans have Neanderthal DNA, which can account for 1-3% of most Humans, except for those from Africa, which still has the most differentiate DNA amount Human groups. Why do you not know that, either?
Now, you are 99.5% similar to those in your community, and 99.9% similar to those in your immediate family. At this point, I have no idea what it is you do know.
SJ
Our DNA is different but it is still 98.5% of the same gene sequences. They got a lower number by looking at different things (indels) which have only been found in non-functioning sections of the genome.
While the results confirmed that single nucleotide substitutions did account for roughly 1.4 percent of the differences, in accordance with previous estimates, Britten also found that indels account for a further 3.9 percent of divergence. This gives a rough estimate of five percent difference, he said.
"There seems to be a deep interest in this question," of how genetically similar we are with chimpanzees, said Britten. "Increasing the number is mostly a technical matter though; we are still the same distance away as we were before, and that is about five million years," he said.
The new estimate could be a little misleading, said Saitou Naruya, an evolutionary geneticist at the National Institute of Genetics in Mishima, Japan. "There is no consensus about how to count numbers or proportion of nucleotide insertions and deletions," he said.
Indels are common in the non-functional sections of the genome, said Peter Oefner, a researcher at Stanford's Genome Technology Center in Palo Alto, California. Scientists estimate that up to 97 percent of DNA in the human genome has no known function. However, he added, indels are extremely rare in gene sequences.
"We haven't observed a single indel in a [gene] to date between human and chimp," said Oefner. Therefore, the revised estimate doesn't alter the amount of DNA that holds information about our species. Humans and chimps still differ by about one percent in gene sequences, he said.
So either you didn't understand what you read, or chose to be deliberately misleading.
I never claimed to have a background in biology. I have a C in A Level biology, no where did I claim anything more. I have a decent grasp on how DNA works however, which is all I need to know Eldar Human hybrids are biologically impossible. And there's no need for 'I have no idea what it is you do know'. That's uncalled for, frankly.
Our functional genes are still 98.5% identical. The lower figure comes from counting indels (deletions or insertions of nucleotides or DNA sequences into existing sequences), which are common in non-functioning sections of the genome.
So far we haven't found any indels in any of the genes which actually carry genetic information.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/04/15 01:03:19
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
No, I understand what I read. I also read multiple sources, because one source can be misleading. It has bearing on the argument, though.
SJ
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world.”
- Ephesians 6:12
I never claimed to have a background in biology. I have a C in A Level biology, no where did I claim anything more. I have a decent grasp on how DNA works however, which is all I need to know Eldar Human hybrids are biologically impossible. And there's no need for 'I have no idea what it is you do know'. That's uncalled for, frankly.
Our functional genes are still 98.5% identical. The lower figure comes from counting indels (deletions or insertions of nucleotides or DNA sequences into existing sequences), which are common in non-functioning sections of the genome.
So far we haven't found any indels in any of the genes which actually carry genetic information.
Thanks. So basically; the important genes are still nearly the same, but the useless stuff isn't as close, and they worked that out by counting the indels? And that brings the actual total amount down?