Maskaev UD12 Okhello

[AintGottaClue]

styles make fights my friend. Your logic tree there is the same as the Mayorga over Forrest, Forrest over Shane, Shane over Oscar=Mayorga over Oscar. It just doesn't work that way. Plus, Oleg did knock out Rahman in both fights but was losing most of the rounds in both fights. He might be able to catch Toney (I doubt it) but I don't think he could KO Peter who stayed on his feet against Wladimir

i guess you were responding to me, and thats not my logic tree, olegs chin seems to go on and off, but i truly think peter can put oleg down and since he has a chin it would be a good scrap but i have peter KOing him, oleg has been KOd by lance,kirk,corey sanders

and in the second fight oleg was beating rahman offically on 2 scorecards

[gattifan24]

Yes, my mistake about the official scorecards. I however, felt Rahman was winning the fight comfortably but you are correct about the cards. I still have to see Peter fight MUCH better and more disciplined against quality opposition. To me, if you combine the Wladimir and Toney fights he won about 7-8 rounds total. Granted the ones he won were either with knockdowns or rocking James but before I can give him too easy of a UD over Oleg, I'd like to see him fight better than a 260 pound Jeff Lacy

[Nautilus]

Yes, my mistake about the official scorecards. I however, felt Rahman was winning the fight comfortably but you are correct about the cards. I still have to see Peter fight MUCH better and more disciplined against quality opposition. To me, if you combine the Wladimir and Toney fights he won about 7-8 rounds total. Granted the ones he won were either with knockdowns or rocking James but before I can give him too easy of a UD over Oleg, I'd like to see him fight better than a 260 pound Jeff Lacy

who do you mean by "260 pound Jeff Lacy"?

[gattifan24]

I mean that he is a heavyweight version of Lacy in that his power overwhelms most of the division but he lacks the skills to defeat the elite. Peter didn't improve his skills much after the loss to Klitschko as Lacy didn't appear (injury understood) to alter his attack much afte the Calzaghe fight

[Nautilus]

I mean that he is a heavyweight version of Lacy in that his power overwhelms most of the division but he lacks the skills to defeat the elite. Peter didn't improve his skills much after the loss to Klitschko as Lacy didn't appear (injury understood) to alter his attack much afte the Calzaghe fight

well, he did well against Toney -- particularly when he threw combinations...

[Nautilus]

im still pulling for oleg because he's asian and he is a hardworker

It is true -- he is Asian. His father is a Mordva. Mordva are Asian people that have been almost completely assimilated by the Russian people.

Russians are 25% Asian.

[!!Captain]

I would much rather see the Maskaev/Klitschko fight and then the winner of that fight Toney (who I think will win). That would answer a lot of questions and would be an awsome fight.

[plhare]

I'll also take Maskaev over either Toney or Peter. Both of them are putting a lot of mileage on their careers by fighting such brutal 12 rounders.

Also, what is your point about Russians being 25% Asian? Take a blonde haired Scandinavian and he will share 15-18% of the same DNA as an African.

Inter-racial mixing is not knew in human history,and it is bound to happen as man migrates from place to place and shares the same proximity with different races.

[Nautilus]

Take a blonde haired Scandinavian and he will share 15-18% of the same DNA as an African.

i see the point, i meant to say that Russians are truly Euro-Asians.

here is some trivia re DNA sharing:

... every human shares 99.99999% of the same DNA as another humam...

... every human shares 99.6% or more of the same DNA as a shimpanzee or an orangutang.

... every human shares 90% or more of the same DNA as a warm.

[Nautilus]

Chimps are human, gene study implies
22:00 19 May 2003
NewScientist.com news service
Jeff Hecht

Tools





Related Articles
Human-chimp DNA difference trebled
23 September 2002
Oldest hominid skull shakes human family tree
10 July 2002
Scientists sort the chimps from the men
11 April 2002
Search New Scientist
Contact us
Web Links
Morris Goodman, Wayne State University
Sandy Harcourt, University of California at Davis
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
The latest twist in the debate over how much DNA separates humans from chimpanzees suggests we are so closely related that chimps should not only be part of the same taxonomic family, but also the same genus.

The new study found that 99.4 percent of the most critical DNA sites are identical in the corresponding human and chimp genes. With that close a relationship, the two living chimp species belong in the genus ****, says Morris Goodman of Wayne State University in Detroit.

The closeness of relationship between chimps and humans has become an important issue outside taxonomy, becoming part of the debate over the use of chimps in laboratory experiments and over their conservation in the wild.

Traditionally chimps are classified with the other great apes, gorillas and orangutans, in the family Pongidae, separated from the human family Hominidae. Within Hominidae, most paleoanthropologists now class virtually all hominid fossils in three genera, ****, Australopithecus, or Ardipithecus.

On the basis of the new study, Goodman would not only put modern humans and all fossils back to the human-chimp divergence into ****, but would also include the common chimp (Pan **********s) and the bonobo (Pan paniscus).

"The third chimpanzee"
It is not the first time such a suggestion has been made - in 1991 physiologist and ecologist Jared Diamond called humans "the third chimpanzee". But subsequent genetic comparisons have yielded varying results, depending on how the genotypes are compared.

Goodman compared published sequences of 97 genes on six species, including humans, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, and Old World monkeys. He looked only at what he considered the most functional DNA, bases which cannot be changed without a consequent change in the amino acid coded for by the gene.

Among these, he found that 99.4 percent were identical in humans and chimps. He found a lower correspondence for bases that could be changed without affecting the amino acid, with 98.4 percent identical for chimps and humans and the same for the "junk" DNA outside coding regions. Goodman believes the differences are larger for non-coding DNA because their sequences are not biologically critical.

Split date
His correlations are much higher than the 95 per cent similarity reported in 2002 by Roy Britten of the California Institute of Technology. Goodman does not disagree with those results, he told New Scientist, but points out that the differences analysed by Britten are not important to gene function because 98 percent of the DNA did not code for proteins.

The small difference between genotypes reflects the recent split between chimps and humans, says Goodman, who dates the divergence to between five and six million years ago.

But Sandy Harcourt, an anthropologist at the University of California at Davis, believes chimps and humans split six to 10 million years ago. "That's an awful long time to be in the same genus," he told New Scientist.

Classifying chimps as human might raise their conservation profile, but Harcourt hopes that is not the only way to get people to worry about them. "I'd prefer to go the other way, and consider more things that aren't human" as important for conservation, he says.

Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1232172100)