Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
How would Noah's Ark accomodate mitochondrial DNA diversity? How would Noah's Ark accomodate mitochondrial DNA diversity?

01-27-2014 , 10:29 AM
the problem is equivocating between the specific, biological, scientific definition of natural selection and some less defined but analogous meaning of evolution destroys the argument in a couple of ways

1) "Natural selection" as a technical term in biology is not self-evident, or at least I don't think it is. Note that by saying it is not self-evident, I'm not saying it's not true. It is true, it's just not obviously and intuitively true. You can't directly observe natural selection.

2) There is no contradiction inherent to a creationist rejecting biological natural selection and accepting a description of free market capitalism in terms of something analogous. Rejecting biological natural selection as a concrete theory about human origins does not entail rejecting the idea of things "evolving" in the abstract. Creationists are wrong about biological natural selection for other reasons
How would Noah's Ark accomodate mitochondrial DNA diversity? Quote
01-27-2014 , 10:30 AM
It's not in his interests that you stop, rather yours.

In any case even if it was to be conceded that it's analagous to Natural Selection it can't then be used as a stick to beat creationists. However they will be entitled to some hand waving as they point out that it isn't natural selection.
How would Noah's Ark accomodate mitochondrial DNA diversity? Quote
01-27-2014 , 11:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dereds
It's not in his interests that you stop, rather yours.
This is somewhat unwelcome advice Dereds, and unnecessary in any case. To prevent further confusion, I had actually assumed that Zumby asked me to stop for my own benefit and to prevent doing any damage to the positions of those who support ToE in the eyes of those who don't. I'm not sure why'd you even think he was asking for himself, he has an ignore list too and knows how to use it.

Frankly I think it's a bit of a cheek either way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dereds
In any case even if it was to be conceded that it's analagous to Natural Selection it can't then be used as a stick to beat creationists. However they will be entitled to some hand waving as they point out that it isn't natural selection.
Another misconception.

I was actually asking, not stating, about whether Creationists reject the idea of Evolution completely, or only in the context of human Evolution.
How would Noah's Ark accomodate mitochondrial DNA diversity? Quote
01-27-2014 , 11:40 AM
I don't care if it's unwelcome advice mightyboosh I've been subject to unwelcome misrepresentations by you since I started posting here.

You can either post better or not but if not you will, as has been the case since you started posting here, be asked to by just about everyone.

And I don't care if this is unwelcome advice either.
How would Noah's Ark accomodate mitochondrial DNA diversity? Quote
01-27-2014 , 11:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyboosh
Ok, it's not actually Natural Selection, but wouldn't you say that it's analogous to Natural Selection? There's an organism (the business), an environment, a survival pressure, and there's an evolution and the businesses most fit for their environment are the ones that prosper.
Natural selection requires some mechanism for adaptive traits to be passed to the next generation. It's not at all clear that one 'generation' of businesses passes it's adaptive traits to a future generation of businesses or even what that might mean. But that isn't even my main issue with your argument. There are two horrible meta-issues:

1) It completely misrepresents the basis for scientific acceptance of the theory of evolution. Natural selection for biological organisms was proposed, tested, huge evidence gathered and then it was accepted. Subsequently, some scientists have tried to see if an analogous process is applicable in other areas. Your argument is backwards; it is biological natural selection that we have tons of evidence for, and it is that that inspires (almost always less well supported) comparisons with non-biological processes. Not the other way round.

2) It completely fails to address the reasons that creationists don't accept the ToE. Some (like LZ) think that the ToE may be plausible, but it contradicts scripture. Your argument is entirely useless against this position. Others believe that the ToE is not plausible. Typical reasons include things like 'irreducible complexity' (which your business example fails to address); lack of conscious design (which your business example fails to address - businesses are designed by conscious minds); lack of fossil evidence (which your business argument fails to address) etc.

In summary, your analogy is weak (though not fatally), your argument fails to explain why scientists accept the ToE and posits a reason for acceptance that no-one actually holds, and it fails to address the criticisms of the ToE that creationists actually make.

Quote:

Were you still willing to engage with me and help me improve my understanding and knowledge, and to benefit from that relationship, I'd probably feel differently about this request, I might even have conceded to it. As it is, I think you've forfeited any right to expect me to abide by what you wish.
Game on.
How would Noah's Ark accomodate mitochondrial DNA diversity? Quote
01-27-2014 , 11:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyboosh
Ok, it's not actually Natural Selection, but wouldn't you say that it's analogous to Natural Selection? There's an organism (the business), an environment, a survival pressure, and there's an evolution and the businesses most fit for their environment are the ones that prosper.

I think it's my apparently insurmountable problem (tongue in cheek) of lack of specificity letting me down here, not my understand of how Evolution by natural selection works. It simply didn't occur to me to explain what was obvious to me about my thought process, but perhaps not to everybody else.



Were you still willing to engage with me and help me improve my understanding and knowledge, and to benefit from that relationship, I'd probably feel differently about this request, I might even have conceded to it. As it is, I think you've forfeited any right to expect me to abide by what you wish.
No, it is not analogous and carries very little value except maybe as a means to spread misconception.

Natural selection is a process in biology where hereditary variations in offspring will give higher or lesser chance of procreation, thus changing life over time. It hinges on a cycle of life, variations, offspring and death.

What you are describing is closer to the ecological concepts of resilience and adaptive capacity. That is the ability of a system to either resist damage and recover (resilience) or change to fit to a changing environment (adaptive capacity). To understand why these processes are not analogous to natural selection, even when we call organisms systems or we call a system for an organism, you have to be able be understand that such having a high level of such abilities are not necessarily equal to heightened chances of making offspring.

It could even be the opposite. For example an organism could have higher resilience and adaptive capacity compared to peers because it is infertile.

Last edited by tame_deuces; 01-27-2014 at 11:47 AM. Reason: edited conclusion to make the difference clearer
How would Noah's Ark accomodate mitochondrial DNA diversity? Quote
01-27-2014 , 11:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyboosh
Another misconception.

I was actually asking, not stating, about whether Creationists reject the idea of Evolution completely, or only in the context of human Evolution.
Yet your point around hand waving presupposes an answer which is wrong given that Natural Selection and evolution in the contexts you raise aren't analagous.
How would Noah's Ark accomodate mitochondrial DNA diversity? Quote
01-27-2014 , 11:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by well named
the problem is equivocating between the specific, biological, scientific definition of natural selection and some less defined but analogous meaning of evolution destroys the argument in a couple of ways

1) "Natural selection" as a technical term in biology is not self-evident, or at least I don't think it is. Note that by saying it is not self-evident, I'm not saying it's not true. It is true, it's just not obviously and intuitively true. You can't directly observe natural selection.

]2) There is no contradiction inherent to a creationist rejecting biological natural selection and accepting a description of free market capitalism in terms of something analogous. Rejecting biological natural selection as a concrete theory about human origins does not entail rejecting the idea of things "evolving" in the abstract. Creationists are wrong about biological natural selection for other reasons
Ok, thanks, maybe I'm not sure what Natural selection really means then.
How would Noah's Ark accomodate mitochondrial DNA diversity? Quote
01-27-2014 , 12:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyboosh
Ok, thanks, maybe I'm not sure what Natural selection really means then.
You are not. You are assuming (via analogy) that higher chance of survival or higher ability to out-compete others means a better chance of having your genes naturally selected - and this is not true. The opposite can be true, in the cases where these things carry costs of their own.

If you want a good example in nature, just look at sardines vs great white sharks.
How would Noah's Ark accomodate mitochondrial DNA diversity? Quote
01-27-2014 , 02:47 PM
Cool example from reading the wiki

Quote:
Ultimately, what matters is total lifetime reproduction of the animal.

The peppered moth exists in both light and dark colors in the United Kingdom, but during the industrial revolution, many of the trees on which the moths rested became blackened by soot, giving the dark-colored moths an advantage in hiding from predators. This gave dark-colored moths a better chance of surviving to produce dark-colored offspring, and in just fifty years from the first dark moth being caught, nearly all of the moths in industrial Manchester were dark.

The balance was reversed by the effect of the Clean Air Act 1956, and the dark moths became rare again, demonstrating the influence of natural selection on peppered moth evolution.
This is my personal favourite:

Quote:
A well-known example of natural selection in action is the development of antibiotic resistance in microorganisms
You can read the whole explanation in the wiki. If you talk to someone (like me lol) who doesn't believe in natural selection just ask them if they finish their whole cycle of antibiotics or not. Most responsible humans finish their cycle for well known medical reasons. Even the most staunch Christians or YEC folk finish their antibiotic cycles. Pretty good example which hits close to home and common people can relate to.

Last edited by LEMONZEST; 01-27-2014 at 02:54 PM.
How would Noah's Ark accomodate mitochondrial DNA diversity? Quote
01-28-2014 , 01:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by carlo
Working from the Atlantean Flood there is a comprehension which presents this event to be about 10,000 years ago.

We should consider that the Atlantean atmosphere was more fluidic, such that our ancestors were progressing to a more outlined or form filled sensibility that we now possess. If the ancient Atlantean looked up to the sun he would have see more of a cloud like color filled feature, an obscuration of the discrete outlines to which we presently experience. A way to look at it is that of a fog filled atmosphere with the consistency of the fluid thicker than our present water but less than air.

The flood and Noah's Ark paints a picture of a new spiritual future for mankind and a corresponding change in the geography/meteorology of the earth in and of itself. There were migrations, east and west of the Atlantean peoples which leads one to believe that this event was ensconced within time which was not a millisecond. One great migration was from the ancient Hibernia, site of a great mystery center, to the region of the Gobi desert, as we now know it. the leader of these human beings was known as Manu. He had gathered around him advanced human beings, who in toto, would be responsible for the furthering of the post Atlantean soul.

In the western world discrete happenings appeared and expressed themselves as particular cultural ages.

The first cultural age ,post Atlantis, is known as the "Old Indian" age. the Atlantean mental abilities were not of an intellectual nature but more of a direct perception of what comes within his ken and in this an understanding of the object of his perception. As noted previously, the human being during this time was only marginally entering into the sense consciousness of our present age while the nights of the Atlantean were such as what we might call clairvoyance, or a comprehension of the spiritual realities underlying what we might call our sense bound or physical natures. There was no intellect, or counting, within the Atlantean mentality, but again immediate comprehension, a gift of divine providence. The skull of the Old Indian human being belied a flat frontal bone for the use of the intellect mandated a progression of the protruding frontal alignment to which we and the ancient aliens of Hollywood are used to seeing.

This was an age which was before the Vedas or Vedanta philosophy and the leaders of this age were known as Holy Rishis. there are no written records for as we all know the ancient Egyptians, or at least during that time, perfected what is known as the first writing.This age as will be the following lasted about 2160 years. Into this age came the idea of 'race" which was really a decadent Atlantean reality and also the caste system ,again decadent Atlantean, to which each man accepted as he had present comprehension of the spiritual world, but was losing it, as he accepted that in his migrations through past lives the present caste was fitted for him, and in fact was his karmic desire.

It should be noted that the idea of "religion", which is a reuniting of the individual man with his spiritual realities was unnecessary for it was without a doubt the reality to which he was ensconced. Just as you and I do not doubt the reality of a tree and so the ancient peoples saw or were immersed within their spiritual substrate.

Cliff Notes: 1) Atlantis beginnings of change of consciousness to our present time
2) No religion, as of yet but coming up

3) "Flat headed Old Indians" leaving the world of spiritual realities and progressing to a total loss of spiritual consciousness and receiving the gift of the intellect; that's us, one way or another.

I'll continue soon and speak to the next ages (total of 7 or which we are in the fifth).

By the way, I haven't forgot the original question and mitochondrial DNA but feel that the DNA theory has a long way to go to define particular peoples, ages and indeed the transformation of the earth, itself. It seems that some are looking for, or assuming the "G--d DNA" to which all things come forth which only tells me that they are still "scientific creationists" or a different color but from the same palette.
In the first post Atlantean cultural age, known as "Old Indian" we see the forerunners of the eastern Brahmins which culminated in the Buddha. Within this age the work was accomplished 'internally" or for want of a better word, in a meditative sense but not speaking, in the main to external reality. An echo of this is the eastern concept of "maya" or illusion. the ancient Indian was so ensconced within the upper worlds, non physical or spiritual, that he plainly saw that the sense bound or perceptive world to be this "maya" or illusion. Today one might call this world the "subjective" but its probably not the right word, but a good pointer to which I am referring.

The next age, likewise of about 2160 years is called the Old Persian cultural age. It should be noted that the world is large and what is presented here are the forerunners of the western cultures for of course there were spiritual influences present wherever Man abides.

Whereas the Indian saw "maya" the ancient Persian gladly seized and worked the earth or what one may call the sense bound realities. Although the ancient Persian had vestiges of a atavistic clairvoyance the great leader(s) of this cultural time, Zarathustra, guided the peoples of this time to seek the earthly, or earthly; work within it and see/transform the spiritual within the sense bound realities.From here the echos of the polarities of the Spirits of Light and Darkness comes forth.

Zarathustra spoke; look to the Sun and see Ahura Mazdao the Creator to which the sun is His embodiment. Zarathustra was not a "sun worshiper" but was spiritually conscious enough to relate to the Great Sun Spirit; just as when one sees a human being it can be known that his physical manifestation to the senses hides the spirit/soul being of human being.

As noted previously the ancient Persian worked the earth or the Darkness and in this the polarity of "Angra Mainyus" was appreciated. this being is known during our times as Ahriman. Zarathustra warned that it is possible to be overcome by this spirit of darkness , which to the modern eyes would present as one sided comprehension or knowledge or error. He and the ancient Persians "looked to the Light" and insured a proper life within this particular cultural experience.

There is of course, the presentation of "the Light penetrated into the darkness and the darkness comprehended it not" within the early lines of the Gospel of John. This is not to say that this Gospel copies the Persian philosophy (we might see it as this) but that the writer of the John Gospel also had a deep insight into the inter workings of the Cosmos and the Being of Christ. He(John), and Zarathustra had an insight but of course within different times and places and peoples.

There can be gleaned 2 streams of thought from the Old Indian which again culminated in the work of the Buddha and the external stream, that of Zarathustra which even be seen in our present times, within the considerations of the individual man.

The age of Zarathustra was again, pre historic, unwritten but it is interesting to note that the Parsi religion takes note of a direct line to Zarathustra. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsi

The above is no more than a"clipping" of the second post Atlantean culture, of duration 2160 years which was centered within the area of present day iran.

the third age, or Egypto Chaldean, to follow.
How would Noah's Ark accomodate mitochondrial DNA diversity? Quote
01-29-2014 , 02:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotReady
I think it's possible that there will someday be some actual, unambiguous evidence for macroevolution...
Leaving out the issue of common human descent, I'm a little surprised. It may not be unambiguous (since one can always think of another explanation) but don't you think the evidence for macro evolution is at least pretty good?
How would Noah's Ark accomodate mitochondrial DNA diversity? Quote
01-29-2014 , 02:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by neeeel
I get the "you cant actually prove anything 100% thing", maybe proof was the wrong word. Evidence maybe? I dont know. Do you believe in the tooth fairy? why not? I see nothing in your post that can be verified, checked, correlated, or anything . It contains claims about things ( souls, mysticism, spiritual future, and so on) that have never been detected, sensed, or that we in any way have evidence for. I need some reason not to dismiss it as "cool story bro" . If you dont have anything, or dont want to give anything, then fair enough.
As I remember, Steiner was pretty upfront about the fact that his account shouldn't persuade anyone at first blush (especially wrt the book "occult science", which is pretty "out there"). The claim was that, by putting the work into the exercises and mode of thinking he advocated, you would come to see the truth of it.

It wasn't really intended as persuasive - more a roadmap for those interested in following. (Apologies to Carlo if my feeble memory has mangled things over the years. I read anthroposophy quite some time ago).
How would Noah's Ark accomodate mitochondrial DNA diversity? Quote
01-29-2014 , 03:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunny
Leaving out the issue of common human descent, I'm a little surprised. It may not be unambiguous (since one can always think of another explanation) but don't you think the evidence for macro evolution is at least pretty good?
I only see two classes of evidence - fossils and genetics.

On fossils I see the same as Darwin did - the fossil record doesn't support macroevolution. Most evolutionists tell us the reason the fossil record is weak is because fossils are hard to make - but then, that admits the fossil record is weak.

On genetics, common genome can just as well be interpreted as common design as common descent.

I've finally come to the position that it doesn't matter much anyway. If you were to read all my posts on evolution over the years you would not find anything that denies macro or the possibility of it. I just question that the evidence supports it. But my main controversy with evolutionists, which will continue even if macro is established 100%, is the idea that it somehow contradicts the Bible or lessens the probability that God exists.

Charles Hodge, a Reformed Christian and president of Princeton Theological Seminary, wrote a pamphlet in 1874 called "What is Darwinism". His conclusion was that it is atheism - but he based that on Darwin's and others' insistence that natural selection is unguided. Hodge and Warfield both did not reject the possibility that evolution is part of God's creative design, but rejected the wholly unscientific assertion that evolution, or any natural process, is independent of God.
How would Noah's Ark accomodate mitochondrial DNA diversity? Quote
01-29-2014 , 03:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotReady
I only see two classes of evidence - fossils and genetics.

On fossils I see the same as Darwin did - the fossil record doesn't support macroevolution. Most evolutionists tell us the reason the fossil record is weak is because fossils are hard to make - but then, that admits the fossil record is weak.

On genetics, common genome can just as well be interpreted as common design as common descent.
I don't really see this as a conflict. What's "common design"? Isn't it reasonable to take the genetic evidence as evidence of how god did it?

I agree that the evidence is made of lots of individually weak elements (I'd also include the explanatory power for stuff like ring species in that). As far as scientific hypotheses go though, it seems pretty robust to me. I also think the "why wouldn't it happen?" argument has merit.
Quote:
I've finally come to the position that it doesn't matter much anyway. If you were to read all my posts on evolution over the years you would not find anything that denies macro or the possibility of it. I just question that the evidence supports it.
Yeah this was my recollection of your view. I knew you were "apathetically skeptical" (so to speak) about humanity's evolutionary history. I didn't realise you doubted the existence of the phenomenon of macroevolution though.
Quote:
But my main controversy with evolutionists, which will continue even if macro is established 100%, is the idea that it somehow contradicts the Bible or lessens the probability that God exists.

Charles Hodge, a Reformed Christian and president of Princeton Theological Seminary, wrote a pamphlet in 1874 called "What is Darwinism". His conclusion was that it is atheism - but he based that on Darwin's and others' insistence that natural selection is unguided. Hodge and Warfield both did not reject the possibility that evolution is part of God's creative design, but rejected the wholly unscientific assertion that evolution, or any natural process, is independent of God.
Yeah, me too. I think it undercuts the argument from design, but that in itself doesn't mean god is less likely.
How would Noah's Ark accomodate mitochondrial DNA diversity? Quote
01-29-2014 , 05:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotReady
I only see two classes of evidence - fossils and genetics.

On fossils I see the same as Darwin did - the fossil record doesn't support macroevolution. Most evolutionists tell us the reason the fossil record is weak is because fossils are hard to make - but then, that admits the fossil record is weak.

On genetics, common genome can just as well be interpreted as common design as common descent.

I've finally come to the position that it doesn't matter much anyway. If you were to read all my posts on evolution over the years you would not find anything that denies macro or the possibility of it. I just question that the evidence supports it. But my main controversy with evolutionists, which will continue even if macro is established 100%, is the idea that it somehow contradicts the Bible or lessens the probability that God exists.

Charles Hodge, a Reformed Christian and president of Princeton Theological Seminary, wrote a pamphlet in 1874 called "What is Darwinism". His conclusion was that it is atheism - but he based that on Darwin's and others' insistence that natural selection is unguided. Hodge and Warfield both did not reject the possibility that evolution is part of God's creative design, but rejected the wholly unscientific assertion that evolution, or any natural process, is independent of God.
What I don't understand is how so many theists have simply absorbed Evolution and carried on as if it had no impact on what they believe. Prior to Darwin, every religion that had ever existed was completely wrong about how biological entities came to be the way they are, claiming that the gods made them exactly as we see them now. This isn't a minor mistake, it's huge. How then, can anything that religions say be treated with any credibility? Believe in god by all means, but how can anyone assert that, for example, the Catholic Church (who have officially accepted ToE) is right about anything that they think that God has commanded, or done, or intends? They've been wrong before, devastatingly so, why would they be right about anything else?

If a source that I considered an authority on a subject, made such a grievous error on that subject, I would have serious doubts about their competence. I also have to wonder where they thought they were getting that information from, given that it proved to be so wrong.
How would Noah's Ark accomodate mitochondrial DNA diversity? Quote
01-29-2014 , 06:01 AM
You could similarly say that prior to Darwin everybody was wrong about how biological entities came to be the way they are.

I don't know this is actually true as I don't know pre darwinian biology but whatever the point remains.
How would Noah's Ark accomodate mitochondrial DNA diversity? Quote
01-29-2014 , 06:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dereds
You could similarly say that prior to Darwin everybody was wrong about how biological entities came to be the way they are.

I don't know this is actually true as I don't know pre darwinian biology but whatever the point remains.
crying_lucretius.jpg

(but yeah)
How would Noah's Ark accomodate mitochondrial DNA diversity? Quote
01-29-2014 , 06:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotReady
But my main controversy with evolutionists, which will continue even if macro is established 100%, is the idea that it somehow contradicts the Bible or lessens the probability that God exists.
Leaving aside the evidence stuff as there's no point banging my head against a wall, this argument is completely hypocritical of you. You believe that the lack of scientific explanation for certain phenomena increases the probability that god exists e.g. fine-tuning argument. If lack of scientific/mechanistic explanations for phenomena increase the probability that god exists, then the existence of scientific/mechanistic explanations necessarily decreases the probability of god existing.

If you want to claim that mechanistic explanations and/or lack of has no effect on the probability that god exists, that's ok, but you can't eat your cake and have it.
How would Noah's Ark accomodate mitochondrial DNA diversity? Quote
01-29-2014 , 09:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dereds
You could similarly say that prior to Darwin everybody was wrong about how biological entities came to be the way they are.

I don't know this is actually true as I don't know pre darwinian biology but whatever the point remains.
Ok, but I don't see how this conflicts with what I'm saying. Religions are considered an ultimate, unimpeachable authority, unlike any other organisation that I'm aware of, in that respect.

When someone like Hawking says 'I got it wrong about black holes', that's fine, I expect scientific theories to change and improve, as we learn more, and no credible scientist would ever claim that there are indisputable facts. But when a church says 'god did this', they do it as an unimpeachable source of information about their God. So when it turns out that god didn't do that, I would hold them to the same standard and not consider them unimpeachable anymore. So, why do theists seemingly turn a blind eye to the horrendous mistakes that religions make when claiming to know what their various gods have done, and allow those organisations to direct them on these issues?

This is not an argument for or against there being gods.
How would Noah's Ark accomodate mitochondrial DNA diversity? Quote
01-29-2014 , 09:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zumby
Leaving aside the evidence stuff as there's no point banging my head against a wall, this argument is completely hypocritical of you. You believe that the lack of scientific explanation for certain phenomena increases the probability that god exists e.g. fine-tuning argument. If lack of scientific/mechanistic explanations for phenomena increase the probability that god exists, then the existence of scientific/mechanistic explanations necessarily decreases the probability of god existing.

If you want to claim that mechanistic explanations and/or lack of has no effect on the probability that god exists, that's ok, but you can't eat your cake and have it.
That's a good point.
How would Noah's Ark accomodate mitochondrial DNA diversity? Quote
01-29-2014 , 09:56 AM
so while I agree with zumby the can't have your cake thing and eat it tilts me

what good is it otherwise?
How would Noah's Ark accomodate mitochondrial DNA diversity? Quote
01-29-2014 , 09:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyboosh
Ok, but I don't see how this conflicts with what I'm saying. Religions are considered an ultimate, unimpeachable authority, unlike any other organisation that I'm aware of, in that respect.
Who considers religions as ultimate unimpeachable authorities?
How would Noah's Ark accomodate mitochondrial DNA diversity? Quote
01-29-2014 , 09:58 AM
@dereds...

Notice I used the original and more clear phrasing: Can't eat your cake and have it

In other words, you can't both eat your cake, and still have your cake. Once you eat the cake it's gone and you no longer have it.
How would Noah's Ark accomodate mitochondrial DNA diversity? Quote
01-29-2014 , 10:00 AM
Ah I noticed your phrasing but failed to see the relevance till now. TBF it's only slightly tilting and I really just wanted to post as black again.
How would Noah's Ark accomodate mitochondrial DNA diversity? Quote

      
m