Joined: Sep. 2006
It's nice to be remembered.
|Thought Provoker: BTW, Zachriel's high crime was "Trolling and Insipidity"?|
He had been posting on TT for over three years. Did you guys just finally get tired of him? Or was it that Zachriel's extracurricular activities over at ATBC that finally got to be too much for Bradford?
See The Banned List.
|Guts: Pretty much everyone who has debated Zachriel had the same complaint, including me. It's rather unlikely that this is a coincidence. Thats why we banned him. |
No. No, it's not a coincidence! Not at all!
As for insipidity, Zachriel always tried to add new content to a thread. It can be difficult when the same fallacies are constantly introduced, but it was certainly our intention. For instance, this is from our last thread on Telic Thoughts.
|Daniel Smith: Here's a prediction I made back in 2007 …|
|Embedded and overlapping coding will be found to be more prevalent than previously thought.|
Zachriel: Way back in 2007. That's probably where these researchers picked up the idea.
Blencowe, Alternative Splicing: New Insights from Global Analyses, Cell 2006.
Modrek & Lee, A genomic view of alternative splicing, Nature Genetics 2002.
Smith, Patton & Nadal-Ginard, Alternative Splicing in the Control of Gene Expression, Annual Review of Genetics 1989.
Chow et al., An amazing sequence arrangement at the 5' ends of adenovirus 2 messenger RNA, Cell 1977.
Snarky, yes. But not trolling. And to the point.
We made several other comments on the thread, cited additional literature, and it became increasingly apparent that their inability to comprehend Deciphering the splicing code was due to equivocation on the word 'code.' Indeed, the authors of the paper used scare-quotes around 'code' to avoid any confusion on their use of the term.
What they fail to realize is that commenting in detail requires effort and time, especially when trying to remember and locate appropriate support. It is a sign of respect to take the time to answer their queries, especially when their views are so soundly rejected by the vast majority of scientists, and their arguments were hackneyed a century or millennium or more ago.
Here's our last comment:
|fifth monarchy man: Do you expect at least two codes? multiple codes within codes? No expectations one way or the other? |
Zachriel: We expect a hierarchy of relationships, similar to terrestrial life. It is doubtful that the depths of those complex relationships has been fully plumbed in terrestrial life.
Fifth monarchy man can't understand this, because —even after it was explained to him— a code normally just means a (x-to-one) correspondence between sets. As there may be something akin to a power-law distribution of gene relationships, you wouldn't measure it with a simple scalar.
Despite our best efforts, fifth monarchy man became frustrated and confused. Hence, the accusation of trolling.
But it's still nice to be remembered.
You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.