Mihos Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are both incorrect and suffer from smugness
> inherent to those that stand behind cattle.
>
> I have provided a dearth of information.
True:
"Dearth".... defined as an "acute INSUFFICIENCY".
> You are
> the percecutors its your burden to prove me wrong
> with the materials I have provided.
We have. We showed that your "materials" didn't prove your case & were generally irrelevant to boot.
> Don't just sit
> there and smoke your smug pipe.
> I asked where the blue egg came. You cant answer
> it.
From hybrid chickens the Spanish introduced to South America IN POST-COLUMBIAN TIMES.
> In every one of these references there are
> discussions supporting the foundations of the
> issue. THere is genetic homology and their is
> genetic diversity. There are assumptions and there
> are facts.
> I have a very large list of references as I
> subscribe to the chicken genome mapping mail
> service and contribute when needed.
> Theoretically speaking you have not disproven any
> theory that domestic fowl NOT CHICKENS arrived in
> SA before Europeans.
Cites supporting your "theory"?
> ANd since you still think we
> are talking about chickens you missed the irony.
> Europeans never brought the original stock back to
> Europe it never survived the trip.
Cites?
> Hybrids called Araucana did.
The Araucana has conventional chicken mtDNA. You've NOT supplied any data re it's genetics. And all accounts state that the Araucana is of pure "South American" ancestry, being a cross between two POST-COLUMBIAN chicken breeds possessed by local Chilean tribes.
> The South American stock, the Ponape NOT Pitcairn
> as I mistakenly typed earlier my apologies.
> and the Rapanui were originally described as
> Megapodes, Scrub Fowl or a new species of
> junglefowl. The Colloncas of South America was
> originally described as a Tinamou.
> You havent even heard of a tinamou have you?
You haven't heard of "Cites".... or "evidence".... or "logic"..... have you?
Kenuchelover.
