RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (500) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 2, general discussion of Dembski's site< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5375
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2008,09:02   

Quote (ERV @ July 21 2008,07:32)
Good god!  Dave Scot is on his knees, licking my boots, begging me to spank him.

Janie!  What did you do to that boy???

I think he's crushing on you.

Remember in third grade when the little boys would pull the little girls' pigtails, and how it really meant they liked them?

yeah, it's a lot like that.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10080
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2008,10:13   

Quote (Lou FCD @ July 21 2008,09:02)
Quote (ERV @ July 21 2008,07:32)
Good god!  Dave Scot is on his knees, licking my boots, begging me to spank him.

Janie!  What did you do to that boy???

I think he's crushing on you.

Remember in third grade when the little boys would pull the little girls' pigtails, and how it really meant they liked them?

yeah, it's a lot like that.

I do that in the office. Stupid 'human resources'....

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10080
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2008,10:18   

Quote
...Abbie lets us know how little she understands epigenetics...


If only she had Your education, Dave.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
steve_h



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2008,10:34   

(Screwed up by editing, put my edit into DS's quote by mistake.  Starting over...)

Quote
Yes PZ, the sand on a beach is exceedingly complex. What you don’t seem to grok is that it has no specification. It doesn’t have component parts that function together in a machine that performs some specific task. There are no abstract codes in a pile of sand like there is in a strand of DNA. There is no ribosome translating those codes into instructions for assembling a protein. There is nothing like that in a pile of sand. There is no specification.


Sand piled into the shape of a person washing a car on the other hand is a machine which uses thousands of interacting  parts to carry out a specific task, and uses abstract codes and instructions for assembling a protein (or another car).

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2594
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2008,11:05   

Not quite getting the hang of this peer-review thing.

Quote
DLH: PeerGate review scandal at American Physical Society:

Quote
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley:

Dear Dr. Bienenstock,

Please either remove the offending red-flag text at once or let me have the name and qualifications of the member of the Council or advisor to it who considered my paper before the Council ordered the offending text to be posted above my paper ...Having regard to the circumstances, surely the Council owes me an apology?

Quote
Prof. Arthur Bienenstock, President of the American Physical Society:

Thank you for your message concerning the American Physical Society’s treatment of the article by Lord Monckton in the Newsletter of the Forum on Physics and Society. I am writing to discuss issues raised by some of you...

the review was an editorial review for a newsletter, and not the substantive scientific peer review required for publication in our journals... I hope that this clarifies matters for you.

Quote
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley:

Dear Dr. Bienenstock,

I have had your notice of refusal to remove your regrettable disclaimer from my paper Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered. Since you have not had the courtesy to remove and apologize for the unacceptable red-flag text that, on your orders, in effect invites readers of Physics and Society to disregard the paper that one of your editors had invited me to submit, and which I had submitted in good faith, and which I had revised in good faith after it had been meticulously reviewed by a Professor of Physics who was more than competent to review it, I must now require you to answer the questions that I had asked in my previous letter, videlicet –

1. Please provide the name and qualifications of the member of the Council or advisor to it (if any) who considered my paper (if anyone considered it) before the Council ordered the offending text to be posted above my paper;

2. Please provide a copy of this rapporteur’s findings (if any) and ratio decidendi (if any);

3. Please provide the date of the Council meeting (if there was one) at which the report (if any) was presented;

4. Please provide a copy of the minutes (if any) of the discussion (if there was one);

5. Please provide a copy of the text (if any) of the Council’s decision (if there was one);

6. Please provide a list of the names of those present (if any) at that Council meeting (if there was one);

7. If, as your silence on these points implies, the Council has not scientifically evaluated or formally considered my paper, please explain with what credible scientific justification, and on whose authority, the offending text asserts
primo, that the paper had not been scientifically reviewed, when it had (let us have no more semantic quibbles about the meaning of “scientific review”);
secundo, that its conclusions disagree with what is said (on no evidence) to be the “overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community”; and,
tertio, that “The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions”? Which of my conclusions does the Council disagree with, and on what scientific grounds (if any)? And, if the Council has not in fact met to consider my paper as your red-flag text above my paper implies, how dare you state (on no evidence) that the Council disagrees with my conclusions?

8. Please provide the requested apology without any further mendacity, prevarication, evasion, excuse, or delay.

Finally, was the Council’s own policy statement on “global warming” peer-reviewed? Or is it a mere regurgitation of some of the opinions of the UN’s climate panel? If the latter, why was the mere repetition thought necessary?

Yours truly,

Yours truly, you mendacious, prevaricating, evasive Dr. Bienenstock.

--------------
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 1950
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2008,11:35   

Quote
Alleging that a Peer of the Realm violated scientific peer review - when in fact Lord Monckton had spent substantial effort responding to the APS’s peer review - is just not done!


What? What does being "a Peer of the Realm" have to do with anything? We had a revolution to make that point clear over 200 years ago. I guess if you are a Dominionist, God sanctioned nobility equals scientific accuity.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
olegt



Posts: 1378
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2008,12:59   

DLH might benefit from taking a peek at the actual process of peer review in an APS journal, such as Physical Review Letters.  Here is an excerpt from the form a referee submits to the editors (in addition to a written report):
Quote

This form is to assist the Editors and is not a substitute for
your written report. It may be useful, however, as an outline
for your report, which should explain why the paper does, or
does not, meet our criteria.
*****************************************************************

Manuscript Code:

Title:

Author:

Date:

Referee:


I. Letters published in PRL must meet a high standard of importance and
  interest.

  a) Please judge the importance of the paper to its specific field.

          not important ( )  ( )  ( )  ( )  ( ) very important

  b) Please judge the broad interest of the paper, apart from from its
     importance to its specific field, to a wide spectrum of physicists.

        not interesting ( )  ( )  ( )  ( )  ( ) very interesting

  c) Please judge the validity of the paper.

     probably not valid ( )  ( )  ( )  ( )  ( ) probably valid

The Physics & Society editor did not evaluate any of those points.  There are two obvious reasons for that: (i) Physics & Society does not referee its articles.  (ii) The editor, Al Saperstein, is not an expert on climate.  Saperstein merely asked Monckton to edit the letter for clarity.  That's not peer review by any measure.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
Chayanov



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2008,13:21   

Quote
Sand piled into the shape of a person washing a car on the other hand is a machine which uses thousands of interacting  parts to carry out a specific task, and uses abstract codes and instructions for assembling a protein (or another car).


To the cdesign proponentist all that matters is that something looks like something else in some superficial way. For DaveScot a pile of sand that looks like a car must be every bit as complex as an actual car. Never mind that you couldn't use key-shaped sand to drive it away.

Over on the Unreasonable Kansans thread, because the head of Tiktaalik kind of sort of looks like the head of an alligator gar, to ftk this means they're both nothing more than fish. Never mind what other interesting features have been found on Tiktaalik -- it's still a fish "kind" to the creobot mind.

This is the "science" of ID: comparing photos to see what things look like other things.

--------------
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

  
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2008,13:25   

Quote (Chayanov @ July 21 2008,19:21)
This is the "science" of ID: comparing photos to see what things look like other things.

Now you're selling them short, they also look at pictures of things that look complicated, shrug and say an unspecified designer did it.

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2008,13:27   

Quote (Chayanov @ July 21 2008,13:21)
This is the "science" of ID: comparing photos to see what things look like other things.

You mean like barite and sand formed to look like a flower?



--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Henry J



Posts: 4013
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2008,13:30   

Quote
Never mind what other interesting features have been found on Tiktaalik -- it's still a fish "kind" to the creobot mind.


Maybe if one takes "kind" to mean the same as "clade"... ;)

Henry

  
JohnW



Posts: 2206
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2008,14:25   

Quote (Henry J @ July 21 2008,11:30)
Quote
Never mind what other interesting features have been found on Tiktaalik -- it's still a fish "kind" to the creobot mind.


Maybe if one takes "kind" to mean the same as "clade"... ;)

Henry

Without all that nested hierarchy business, which is the work of the devil.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
Ra-Úl



Posts: 93
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2008,14:29   

Quote (Henry J @ July 21 2008,13:30)
Quote
Never mind what other interesting features have been found on Tiktaalik -- it's still a fish "kind" to the creobot mind.


Maybe if one takes "kind" to mean the same as "clade"... ;)

Henry

I see a new revolution in baraminology being born. Years from now baraminologists everywhere will ask each other where they were 7/21/08, when the first glimpse of the New Knowledge was revealed.

--------------
Beauty is that which makes us desperate. - P Valery

  
Quidam



Posts: 229
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2008,16:15   

Dave refers to a pile of sand as being unspecified and uses these examples:
Complex unspecified sand

Complex specified sand

The question is not whether the pile of sand looks like something we recognize.  That certainly is an indicator that the sand was placed by a human intelligence, but it is of no help to recognize anything produced by non-human intelligence.  It is also of little help trying to identify historic objects where the original purpose has been forgotten.
Complex Unspecified stone or Complex specified stone?


It would also be a mistake to think that the sand dune is devoid of information.  Coded into the structure is the medium that produced the dune, the velocity (magnitude and direction) of the wind, the grain size of the sand etc.  

How do we know that the dune was not the product of an intelligent wind producing writing or a sculpture with some meaning to its kind?  

The answer is that we don't, but we can show that the assumption of such an intelligent wind is unnecessary; the micro and macro waves (ripples and dunes) can be adequately explained by natural forces.  Sorry Hopi, Aeolus, Boreas, Zephyr, Notus, Euru etc. Since there is no other evidence for intelligent winds (other than the Discovery Institute) we can confidently reject that hypothesis.

--------------
The organized fossils ... and their localities also, may be understood by all, even the most illiterate. William Smith, Strata. 1816

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2008,16:31   

Quote (olegt @ July 21 2008,12:59)
DLH might benefit from taking a peek at the actual process of peer review in an APS journal, such as Physical Review Letters.  Here is an excerpt from the form a referee submits to the editors (in addition to a written report):
 
Quote

This form is to assist the Editors and is not a substitute for
your written report. It may be useful, however, as an outline
for your report, which should explain why the paper does, or
does not, meet our criteria.
*****************************************************************

Manuscript Code:

Title:

Author:

Date:

Referee:


I. Letters published in PRL must meet a high standard of importance and
  interest.

  a) Please judge the importance of the paper to its specific field.

          not important ( )  ( )  ( )  ( )  ( ) very important

  b) Please judge the broad interest of the paper, apart from from its
     importance to its specific field, to a wide spectrum of physicists.

        not interesting ( )  ( )  ( )  ( )  ( ) very interesting

  c) Please judge the validity of the paper.

     probably not valid ( )  ( )  ( )  ( )  ( ) probably valid

The Physics & Society editor did not evaluate any of those points.  There are two obvious reasons for that: (i) Physics & Society does not referee its articles.  (ii) The editor, Al Saperstein, is not an expert on climate.  Saperstein merely asked Monckton to edit the letter for clarity.  That's not peer review by any measure.

Let's hope evil scientists never splice the DLH gene with the Andy Schlafly gene.  Woe to humanity if that kind of turbo-tard should ever be unleashed on mankind.  I shudder at the thought.

For super DLH tard take a look at what he contributes to conservapedia.  That dunce makes Dave Tard look smart.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
N.Wells



Posts: 741
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2008,19:42   

Quote (CeilingCat @ July 20 2008,08:06)
Another non-sequiter.  Yes, Professor Flew, I'm sure they treated you royally at Biola.  You're a great prize for them.  A person with an actual intellectual reputation saying something that they agree with is a great rarity indeed, scarcer than hen's teeth and definitely something to be gloated over.  I'm sure they pampered you to the max - while using you in your old age.



Philosopher Flew has changed his view
Due to faith or confusion or voodoo
Flew fled from real to illusions
So now religious delusion’s
The woo-woo Doc Flew wants to hew to

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4360
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2008,19:58   

Quote (N.Wells @ July 21 2008,19:42)
Quote (CeilingCat @ July 20 2008,08:06)
Another non-sequiter.  Yes, Professor Flew, I'm sure they treated you royally at Biola.  You're a great prize for them.  A person with an actual intellectual reputation saying something that they agree with is a great rarity indeed, scarcer than hen's teeth and definitely something to be gloated over.  I'm sure they pampered you to the max - while using you in your old age.



Philosopher Flew has changed his view
Due to faith or confusion or voodoo
Flew fled from real to illusions
So now religious delusion’s
The woo-woo Doc Flew wants to hew to

Cound't he at least do his research on Nantucket?

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Ptaylor



Posts: 879
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2008,20:33   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ July 21 2008,16:31)
For super DLH tard take a look at what he contributes to conservapedia.  That dunce makes Dave Tard look smart.

Any particular pages/articles there that you recommend?

I have noticed he (well a DLH) made an edit on the Wikipedia PZ Myers discussion page (see the stuart blessman heading) after the Expelled prescreening affair and got a pretty quick smackdown for "sloppy scholarship".

--------------
“To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today.” - Isaac Asimov

"Grow up, assface" - Joe G., grown up ID spokesperson, Sandwalk, April 2014

  
olegt



Posts: 1378
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2008,21:08   

Quote
20
DLH
07/21/2008
8:21 pm
soplo
Please review the history above.
Was not Lord Monckton entirely within his right to point out strongly unscientific and unfair disclamation singling out one side and not the other side when both sides were invited to post articles in an open debate?

There appears to have been major exaggerations about the case in blogs and a reaction against those by the APS.

By the way, he has posted nine of his other papers at the Science and Public Policy Institute

Lord Monckton and the SPPI outfit (where he serves as Chief Policy Adviser) richly deserve all of this---and much, much more.  On July 15 the SPPI issued the following press release:
Quote

Proved: There is No Climate Crisis
Written by Robert Ferguson  
Tuesday, 15 July 2008

WASHINGTON (7-15-08) - Mathematical proof that there is no “climate crisis” appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 10,000-strong American Physical Society, SPPI reports.  Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher, demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN’s climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is “climate sensitivity” (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2’s effect on temperature in the IPCC’s latest climate assessment report, published in 2007.

Of course the APS had to correct this shameless promotion by putting the disclaimer front and center.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
Frostman



Posts: 29
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2008,22:02   

Quote (olegt @ July 21 2008,12:59)
[...]
                   
Quote
[...]
  a) Please judge the importance of the paper to its specific field.

          not important ( )  ( )  ( )  ( )  ( ) very important

  b) Please judge the broad interest of the paper, apart from from its
     importance to its specific field, to a wide spectrum of physicists.

        not interesting ( )  ( )  ( )  ( )  ( ) very interesting

  c) Please judge the validity of the paper.

     probably not valid ( )  ( )  ( )  ( )  ( ) probably valid

[...]

I have nothing relevant to add, yet I cannot resist mentioning how the parenthesis above triggered in my mind a deep longing, sad and unrequited, as a beautiful girl once loved long ago but for whom circumstance was unkind, to write in Lisp once again.  And, lo, the world was overtaken by the foolish who did not understand that code is data and data is code.  XML is s-expression in a cheap tuxedo, yet in thy wicked attire we are forsaken, even unto the end of the world.

  
jeffox



Posts: 528
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2008,07:07   

Quidam wrote above:

Quote
Since there is no other evidence for intelligent winds (other than the Discovery Institute) we can confidently reject that hypothesis.


Ha ha ha this is Davetard looking for that divine intelligent wind:


  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2008,09:08   

I do so love it when Dave is on a roll...            

Quote
Common sense probably won’t tell YOU much about evolution because you think it’s the result of a random dance of molecules. However, common sense is used a lot in engineering and if you look at celluar machinery as something which was engineered by a mind it tells you a lot. Many of the same solutions that we invent have analogs in the machinery of life from aerodynamics of bird wings to the base-4 serial encoding of genes to the ribosome which reads copies of genes like a paper tape through an older computer and translates the instructions to pick & place different amino acids building them into complex parts with function and fit in at least 5 dimensions (3-spatial plus 2 electrostatic) just like factory robots work.

The next big thing the bumbling buffoons of accidental causation are going to discover is that 3 billion base pairs of DNA isn’t anywhere near enough to specify the construction of a human being complete with hard-wired autonomous operating system, exquisite sensory apparatus, instincts, a neural network that learns as it goes and models reality at levels we can only dream about with our current information processing systems, and etcetera. That you can’t specify a system of that complexity in that little storage space is a matter of experience and common sense in engineering.

Mark my words, there is at least a magnitude (I’d guess several orders) more heritable information in epigenetic form than in genetic form. The genome is little more than a really well organized and cross referenced component library which is why we share 99% of those components with chimps and 50% with bananas. And it’s also why all we really know about why a horse is a horse and not a fly is because the horse’s mother was a horse.

It might interest you to know that when nuclear transfers are done between different species development (until it aborts at an early stage) proceeds along the lines of the organism that produced the enucleated egg not the organism from which the nucleus was obtained. The Altenberg 16 are just beginning to realize how vast is the scope of epigenetic information.

Aside for ERV since I know she’ll read this:

No, Abbie, I don’t think epigenetics are magic but I will remind you of one Arthur C. Clarke’s three laws of prediction: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” A simple bacteria isn’t sufficiently advanced anymore but a complete human being still is. And shame on you for not reading Venter’s biography. I think the Venter Institute is the single most important company in the world as far as potential for delivering technology that can change the way we live more than anything else in history including fire and agriculture. The engineering opportunities in being able to program bacteria to build whatever we want with atomic accuracy, just using materials and sources of energy they already use (think of extremophiles), is mind boggling. Venter’s on the fast track towards that goal.

So my view I guess, just because as a technologist I recognize technology in the machinery of life, it’s a real science stopper. Yeah right. Now get busy. I didn’t spend 25 years making networked computers into cheap household appliances so you can squander your time bashing creationists. I did it so you can process, correlate, and share the growing mountain of information needed to reverse-engineer the simplest cells (plus the money was really really good and it was fun too). Read Eric Drexler’s “Engines of Creation” when you get a chance. That’s a roadmap to nanotechnlogy written over 20 years ago. A globe spanning hypertext network was one step along the way. The next step is what Venter is doing.


--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2008,09:12   

Quote (Ftk @ July 22 2008,09:08)
I do so love it when Dave is on a roll...            

   
Quote
Common sense probably won’t tell YOU much about evolution because you think it’s the result of a random dance of molecules.

Yeah,

Davescot discovered a new word/concept.

So what FTK?

Still, this is par for the course for you right?

Big old quote with a single sentence from you.

I bet you don't even understand what he's going on about, you are just happy that it appears to reinforce your beliefs.

Tell me FTK, why does epigenetics support intelligent design again? In your own words, if possible!

C'mon. You can't make yourself look any more foolish.


Tell me FTK, why does epigenetics support intelligent design again?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
EyeNoU



Posts: 115
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2008,09:24   

Pregnant pause while somebody is googling rapidly.......

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2594
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2008,09:27   

Quote (Ftk @ July 22 2008,09:08)
I do so love it when Dave is on a roll...            

Quote
Aside for ERV since I know she’ll read this:

No, Abbie, I don’t think epigenetics are magic but I will remind you of one Arthur C. Clarke’s three laws of prediction: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” A simple bacteria isn’t sufficiently advanced anymore but a complete human being still is. And shame on you for not reading Venter’s biography. I think the Venter Institute is the single most important company in the world as far as potential for delivering technology that can change the way we live more than anything else in history including fire and agriculture. The engineering opportunities in being able to program bacteria to build whatever we want with atomic accuracy, just using materials and sources of energy they already use (think of extremophiles), is mind boggling. Venter’s on the fast track towards that goal.

Well, let's just check out J. Craig Venter and see what he says.

Quote
Venter: We didn't evolve separately from everything else, we evolved through this effort of billions and billions of years working back from single cell organisms to more and more complex organisms.

Now, let's see what the Venter Institute is up to with their Tree of Life Project.

Quote
Venter Institute: The data from these genome sequences will then be used to improve the understanding of the complex phylogenetic relationships among major bacterial phyla to provide information and resources that will allow scientists to examine the evolutionary relationships within these poorly understood phyla in more depth than is now possible and to launch experimental studies on the biology and physiology of organisms in these phyla.




Ftk, do you remember a rather famous Victorian scientist who drew a similar diagram? It was important enough to this scientist that it was the only diagram in his opus magnum, Origin of Species. And here it is, Queen Victoria dead for more than a century, and J. Craig Venter is still drawing it.



--------------
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
stevestory



Posts: 8831
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2008,11:05   

Quote (Richardthughes @ July 21 2008,11:18)
Quote
...Abbie lets us know how little she understands epigenetics...


If only she had Your education, Dave.

Davetard honestly thinks he understands epigenetics better than a biology grad student? What a retard.

   
stevestory



Posts: 8831
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2008,11:10   

I went back and read what Davetard said and it's worse than I knew:
Quote
The Altenberg 16 are just beginning to realize how vast is the scope of epigenetic information.


He doesn't just think he knows more about epigenetics than a biology grad student, he thinks he knows more about epigenetics than 16 of the world's best biologists. That's not just dense. That's Uncommonly Dense™.

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4360
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2008,11:20   

Quote (stevestory @ July 22 2008,11:10)
He doesn't just think he knows more about epigenetics than a biology grad student, he thinks he knows more about epigenetics than 16 of the world's best biologists.

That's not just dense. That's Uncommonly Dense™.

Lines of The Year Award?

(They perfectly summarize what UD is all about!)

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2008,11:32   

Quote (stevestory @ July 22 2008,11:10)
I went back and read what Davetard said and it's worse than I knew:
Quote
The Altenberg 16 are just beginning to realize how vast is the scope of epigenetic information.


He doesn't just think he knows more about epigenetics than a biology grad student, he thinks he knows more about epigenetics than 16 of the world's best biologists. That's not just dense. That's Uncommonly Dense™.

Intelligent design predicted this.

Or at least, it will do in a few years...

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
stevestory



Posts: 8831
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2008,11:38   

Davetard said:
Quote
Now get busy. I didn’t spend 25 years making networked computers into cheap household appliances so you can squander your time bashing creationists. I did it so you can process, correlate, and share the growing mountain of information needed to reverse-engineer the simplest cells (plus the money was really really good and it was fun too).


He claims credit for the desktop computer revolution, and also says he did it to advance the field of bioinformatics? Even at UD, who would possibly believe those lies?

   
  14997 replies since July 17 2008,19:00 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (500) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]