Stirring that old DNA crockpot!

[Bob Keeter]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/04/020418073440.htm

Interesting article!

Regards bk

[Firstjois]

"Bob Keeter" <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:B8E4FDED.BB7A%rkeeter@earthlink.net...
:
:
: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/04/02041807-
: 3440.htm
:
: Interesting article!
:
: Regards bk
:
Phew, at first reading I thought your subject was "Stirring
that old DNA crackpot."

Jois

[Firstjois]

"Bob Keeter" <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:B8E4FDED.BB7A%rkeeter@earthlink.net...
:
:
: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/04/02041807-
: 3440.htm
:
: Interesting article!
:
: Regards bk
:

This article says:

" * An earlier origin for primates makes it very likely that
continental drift played an important part in initial
geographical subdivisions within primates."

So have I got this right, even though continental drift is
sooooo very slow that any number of animals could have been
"stuck" on both continents that eventually split apart then
environment and adaptation fine tuned which animals (plants)
survived and prospered? It might be possible to find LCA in
the fossil record of either continent: one where it did not
continue and one where it did?

Just wondering, Jois

[Jim McGinn]

"firstjois" <firstjoisyikes@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VSMv8.87858$%l3.7659125@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...

> Phew, at first reading I thought your subject was "Stirring
> that old DNA crackpot."

Me too. (I was thinking Bob was trying to stir P.D.)

[Bob Keeter]

in article
VSMv8.87858$%l3.7659125@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com, firstjois
at firstjoisyikes@hotmail.com wrote on 4/18/02 11:16 PM:

>
> "Bob Keeter" <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:B8E4FDED.BB7A%rkeeter@earthlink.net...
> :
> :
> : http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/04/0204180734-
> : 40.htm
> :
> : Interesting article!
> :
> : Regards bk
> :
> Phew, at first reading I thought your subject was "Stirring
> that old DNA crackpot."
>
> Jois
>
>

Is it too late for me to claim a typo?

Its getting bad, REALLY bad, when I have to depend on others
to find the opportunity for a little jest! 8-)

Now that you mention it though. . . . . . . . ;-)

Seriously, this was "straight up and honest" I did not even
imagine the opportunity that lay there waiting for me to
pick it up! 8-( Must be those 14 hr days getting the best of
lil ole me!

Did you read the article anyway?

Regards bk

[Bob Keeter]

in article
VwBw8.117654$3L2.10587598@bin7.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com,
firstjois at firstjoisyikes@hotmail.com wrote on 4/21/02 11:11
AM:

>
> "Bob Keeter" <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:B8E4FDED.BB7A%rkeeter@earthlink.net...
> :
> :
> : http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/04/0204180734-
> : 40.htm
> :
> : Interesting article!
> :
> : Regards bk
> :
>
> This article says:
>
> " * An earlier origin for primates makes it very likely that
> continental drift played an important part in initial
> geographical subdivisions within primates."
>
> So have I got this right, even though continental drift is
> sooooo very slow that any number of animals could have been
> "stuck" on both continents that eventually split apart then
> environment and adaptation fine tuned which animals (plants)
> survived and prospered? It might be possible to find LCA in
> the fossil record of either continent: one where it did not
> continue and one where it did?
>
> Just wondering, Jois
>

I think that you have to define what the two branches are for
the LCA determination. I.e. if we are talking about the LCA
between humans and chimps, Id bet the mortgage that this
particular primate would be found in Africa and not S.
America. If you are talking about the LCA between humans and
lemurs, well, it might well be a tossup.

I think that the "earlier origins" stuff is starting to get
really interesting not just with the hominid line but with all
of the mammalian species. LOTS of different lineages look to
be traceable back beyond the 65mya point (where the dinos bit
the big one!). To me that fact, and the idea that there was a
diverse set of mammals, coexisting with the dinos, (instead of
the more classic picture of a few little furry possum-like
critters eeking out an existence while scurring around in the
underbrush), is very intriguing. Would also drive another
stake into the heart of that idea that the mammals somehow
"outperformed" the dinos and killed them off.

Regards bk