RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (13) < ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 >   
  Topic: Southstar's thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Cubist



Posts: 352
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2011,22:24   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 13 2011,05:28)
 
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 12 2011,16:20)
Show me a person who doesn't know what a kinkajou looks like, and I'll show you a person who wouldn't recognize a kinkajou if one was chewing on their face.
Your IDiot buddies say it's not possible for evolution to produce "novel genetic material"? Fine. What are the distinguishing characteristics of "novel genetic material" that would allow your IDiot buddies to recognize the stuff when they see it? You might want to offer up a challenge for your IDiot buddies...
Here's a nucleotide sequence:
gat tgg aag caa tag gag agg tag gga ttg gac atg gcc ggc cac tat tcg cga gga tcc gat gat cct agt ggt atc att tac caa tga
Is that sequence, or any part(s) of that sequence, composed of "novel genetic material"? Show your work.

Remeber these people hold behe's work and the bible next to each other.

Doesn't matter. If these IDiots are going to make noise about "novel genetic material", they need to have some way to tell whether or not a given chunk of genetic material genuinely is "novel", because if they don't have some way to tell the difference between "novel" and non-"novel" genetic material, they're talking bullshit.
Quote
So in the example of the lizard, they say yes it may have mutated but no new novel functions or genetic material is involved. It's just epigenics.

They can claim whatever they like, but you need to be doggedly persistent. Don't let them just handwave a question away; demand that they bloody well answer the question, and make it bloody well obvious that they don't have any answers! So your reply should be, "Oh, really? No 'novel genetic material', you say? That's a meaningless claim unless you have some method to tell whether or not a chunk of genetic material is 'novel'. So please, would you use that method to tell me how much (if any) of the nucleotide sequence gat tgg aag caa tag gag agg tag gga ttg gac atg gcc ggc cac tat tcg cga gga tcc gat gat cct agt ggt atc att tac caa tga is 'novel'?"
Quote
What they say is show us that the DNA of the original lizard and the "new" lizard has been totaly sequenced and show us where there is added information. Until you do so you are assuming that there is without a drop of proof.

If the lizards' DNA hasn't been sequenced, on what grounds can they claim that the 'new' lizard doesn't have any 'novel genetic material'? That "sorry, no data yet" gambit is a two-edged sword; if IDiots want to use it on evolution, you have every justification for using it on ID.
Quote
This is a comfortable place from them to be as DNA sequencing is expencive and they know it won't be done on a lizard. Actually Ioseb launched a challenge and said prove to me with a study that this is an example in which novel genetic matrial is added in the "new" lizard and I'll bow down to you all.

Your reply should be, "Hold it. Since the lizard's DNA hasn't been sequenced, how the heck can you be so sure that it doesn't have any 'novel genetic material' in it? You haven't even been able to show that you can tell which bits of a known nucleotide sequence do or don't qualify as 'novel genetic material', so why should anybody believe you can tell which bits of an unknown nucleotide sequence do or don't qualify as 'novel genetic material'?"

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2011,03:20   

Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 13 2011,22:24)

Quote
Doesn't matter. If these IDiots are going to make noise about "novel genetic material", they need to have some way to tell whether or not a given chunk of genetic material genuinely is "novel", because if they don't have some way to tell the difference between "novel" and non-"novel" genetic material, they're talking bullshit.


I believe they would say sequence the DNA of the original lizard population then sequence the DNA of the "evolved" lizard if there is extra stuff for creating cecal valves then that's new material.

Quote
If the lizards' DNA hasn't been sequenced, on what grounds can they claim that the 'new' lizard doesn't have any 'novel genetic material'? That "sorry, no data yet" gambit is a two-edged sword; if IDiots want to use it on evolution, you have every justification for using it on ID.


Well they turn the argument the other way round, saying since you can't prove that there is new material how can you say it's an example of evolution, it's just the same lizard that has adapted to the new diet all the morphological features are due to epigenics. Nothing new has been added.

Quote
Your reply should be, "Hold it. Since the lizard's DNA hasn't been sequenced, how the heck can you be so sure that it doesn't have any 'novel genetic material' in it? You haven't even been able to show that you can tell which bits of a known nucleotide sequence do or don't qualify as 'novel genetic material', so why should anybody believe you can tell which bits of an unknown nucleotide sequence do or don't qualify as 'novel genetic material'?"


They I assume they would reply: well you're the one who brought up the lizard in the first place as an example of evolution, but you have not shown that on a genetic level there is something new. All that you have shown are morphological differences based on genetic plasticity. We don't deny this we're just saying that it's not an example of evolution, it's adaptation of alread existing genetic material. Nothing new here, move along.

Also they have as yet not shown that they accept ID, that would leave them open to any sort of attack. They're just out to show the theory is wrong as according to them it can't be used to explain biodiversity as has been prooven in Behe's peer reviewed paper.

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2011,03:56   

Quote (qetzal @ Dec. 13 2011,16:22)
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 13 2011,14:28)
That's a damn good question, I'll bet that they say that you should look at behe's paper as to what he calls gain of function mutations.


 
Quote
Simply he states that has clearly been proven in a peer reviewed paper by Behe that there is only a very remote possibility of gain of function therefore 0 possibility for it to be the cause of biodiversity.

Behe's paper acknowledges that gain of function mutations (GOFs) happen. It claims they're rare compared to modification or loss of function mutations. Behe does not show or even argue that GOFs are too rare to explain biodiversity.

Anyone who argues "remote possibility therefore zero possibility" is either ignorant or disingenuous.

 
Quote
To this lot a second group of people on the forum have asked for: (I) appearance of brand new genes that didn't previously exist in that organism and weren't somehow introduced from an outside source.
Further to (I) they asked that it would be good that these genes had a phenotypic effect.

Then this second group is asking for proof of a nonsensical notion. Evolution doesn't work that way. It's like claiming there are cats and dogs, but to prove evolution we should produce a dat.

Quote
Behe's paper doesn't say anything about whether those gain of function mutations involve novel genetic information. Are these people saying gain of function is the same as novel genetic info?


No that's two destict requests, rather the first is a statement, they say gain of function is highly imporobable therefore how can evolution work see Behe proves it, if you don't agree with Behe you better show us a study that proves him wrong, that gain of FCT is more common.

The second request is: "you want to prove that bacteria turned into humans you're going to have to show us that new genetic info turns up at least somewhere along the line, since evolution according to you is still ongoing show us some examples of this new genetic stuff showing up, if you can't then the whole evolution thing colapses".

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2011,04:22   

New genetic info: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc....02.html

 
Quote
It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of

increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)


Case closed. Citations provided at the linked page.

And as evolution in a simulated digital environment can be directly observed, bit by bit, it might be interesting also:

http://www.pnas.org/content....63.full

EDIT EDIT: http://pandasthumb.org/archive....nt.html

Quote
Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)


--------------
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

  
k.e..



Posts: 2993
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2011,04:22   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 14 2011,11:56)
Quote (qetzal @ Dec. 13 2011,16:22)
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 13 2011,14:28)
That's a damn good question, I'll bet that they say that you should look at behe's paper as to what he calls gain of function mutations.


 
Quote
Simply he states that has clearly been proven in a peer reviewed paper by Behe that there is only a very remote possibility of gain of function therefore 0 possibility for it to be the cause of biodiversity.

Behe's paper acknowledges that gain of function mutations (GOFs) happen. It claims they're rare compared to modification or loss of function mutations. Behe does not show or even argue that GOFs are too rare to explain biodiversity.

Anyone who argues "remote possibility therefore zero possibility" is either ignorant or disingenuous.

 
Quote
To this lot a second group of people on the forum have asked for: (I) appearance of brand new genes that didn't previously exist in that organism and weren't somehow introduced from an outside source.
Further to (I) they asked that it would be good that these genes had a phenotypic effect.

Then this second group is asking for proof of a nonsensical notion. Evolution doesn't work that way. It's like claiming there are cats and dogs, but to prove evolution we should produce a dat.

Quote
Behe's paper doesn't say anything about whether those gain of function mutations involve novel genetic information. Are these people saying gain of function is the same as novel genetic info?


No that's two destict requests, rather the first is a statement, they say gain of function is highly imporobable therefore how can evolution work see Behe proves it, if you don't agree with Behe you better show us a study that proves him wrong, that gain of FCT is more common.

The second request is: "you want to prove that bacteria turned into humans you're going to have to show us that new genetic info turns up at least somewhere along the line, since evolution according to you is still ongoing show us some examples of this new genetic stuff showing up, if you can't then the whole evolution thing colapses".

oh yeah a study that proves Behe wrong....


What was it 42 days at Dover?


Behe the twit in the headlights. The git with the gaffs.

Exponding on palm readers and an imagined conversation with Le Grand Fromage Hisself.

Even Dembski didn't get in on the action he was summarily dismissed by the much vaunted ....I  can't remeber now ....defense team during discovery by Babs Forrest.

Behe swore on a stack of 50 biology books he wasn't decended from no monkeys or apes or summit.

In any case after he was thoroughly sacked, he declared victory!

The circus had moved on by then, although the creationist clowns were still stuck under a collapsed big tent.

One day when they have stopped squirting each other with fake plastic flowers they will wake up.

Behe is no more relevant than a hoola hoop.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2011,04:50   

Quote (k.e.. @ Dec. 14 2011,04:22)
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 14 2011,11:56)
Quote (qetzal @ Dec. 13 2011,16:22)
 
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 13 2011,14:28)
That's a damn good question, I'll bet that they say that you should look at behe's paper as to what he calls gain of function mutations.


   
Quote
Simply he states that has clearly been proven in a peer reviewed paper by Behe that there is only a very remote possibility of gain of function therefore 0 possibility for it to be the cause of biodiversity.

Behe's paper acknowledges that gain of function mutations (GOFs) happen. It claims they're rare compared to modification or loss of function mutations. Behe does not show or even argue that GOFs are too rare to explain biodiversity.

Anyone who argues "remote possibility therefore zero possibility" is either ignorant or disingenuous.

   
Quote
To this lot a second group of people on the forum have asked for: (I) appearance of brand new genes that didn't previously exist in that organism and weren't somehow introduced from an outside source.
Further to (I) they asked that it would be good that these genes had a phenotypic effect.

Then this second group is asking for proof of a nonsensical notion. Evolution doesn't work that way. It's like claiming there are cats and dogs, but to prove evolution we should produce a dat.

 
Quote
Behe's paper doesn't say anything about whether those gain of function mutations involve novel genetic information. Are these people saying gain of function is the same as novel genetic info?


No that's two destict requests, rather the first is a statement, they say gain of function is highly imporobable therefore how can evolution work see Behe proves it, if you don't agree with Behe you better show us a study that proves him wrong, that gain of FCT is more common.

The second request is: "you want to prove that bacteria turned into humans you're going to have to show us that new genetic info turns up at least somewhere along the line, since evolution according to you is still ongoing show us some examples of this new genetic stuff showing up, if you can't then the whole evolution thing colapses".

oh yeah a study that proves Behe wrong....


What was it 42 days at Dover?


Behe the twit in the headlights. The git with the gaffs.

Exponding on palm readers and an imagined conversation with Le Grand Fromage Hisself.

Even Dembski didn't get in on the action he was summarily dismissed by the much vaunted ....I  can't remeber now ....defense team during discovery by Babs Forrest.

Behe swore on a stack of 50 biology books he wasn't decended from no monkeys or apes or summit.

In any case after he was thoroughly sacked, he declared victory!

The circus had moved on by then, although the creationist clowns were still stuck under a collapsed big tent.

One day when they have stopped squirting each other with fake plastic flowers they will wake up.

Behe is no more relevant than a hoola hoop.

Yes don't get me wrong I'm on your side.

But consider these lines:
1) Behe's work in PLOS does not support ID it simply points to creating difficluties for evolution to work. Its a starting point in showing "see no gain of function, it's all loss". The people I'm debating with are using this paper to show that the biggest research ever carried out in the history of the planet shows that loss outweighs gain to such an extent that there is no way that evolution can work.
2) As far as I know, there is no peer reviewed paper out there that goes against this particular study. They use this fact as proof that the scientific community agrees with Behe's argument. So for them the case is closed.

That's why I thought of asking them to explain how we got from 16 alleles in Noahs ark to 700+ if Behe's work is right.

These guys are not pushing ID they're pushing "evolution doesn't/can't work"

Cheers

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4511
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2011,04:53   

k.e.:

Quote

Even Dembski didn't get in on the action he was summarily dismissed by the much vaunted ....I  can't remeber now ....defense team during discovery by Babs Forrest.


There are multiple, mutually inconsistent accounts of how Dembski came to be withdrawn as a witness for the Thomas More Law Center. Dembski claimed to be protecting the interests of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics by withdrawing, an interesting take since Dembski was the guy who precipitated pretty much all the risk their materials had. The TMLC claimed in a pleading that it was all those nasty Darwinists' fault trying to screw up their line-up of expert witnesses. And Bruce Chapman of the Discovery Institute later claimed in an interview that seeing the way the wind was blowing, he asked all the DI-associated expert witnesses to withdraw, and three out of five of them did.

Dembski attended Barbara Forrest's deposition. Forrest's supplemental expert report, submitted after Dembski's withdrawal from the case, analyzed the history of "Of Pandas and People" based on a series of drafts provided under subpoena from the Foundation for Thought and Ethics. But I'm not seeing a principal role for Forrest in Dembski's withdrawal.

Dembski withdrew three days before his deposition was to take place in Waco, TX. A number of communications concerning the deposition preceded that withdrawal. One was to be prepared to carry over to a second day of deposition-taking given the number of questions his involvement in the case raised. Demsbki was requested to bring his documentation of the review process for his book, "The Design Inference", along to the deposition. Another was that we planned to have a videographer on hand to document it. And the last communication to Dembski and TMLC prior to his withdrawal was that Prof. Jeff Shallit and I would be present to assist Pepper Hamilton lawyer Steven Harvey with his questioning.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2011,05:06   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 14 2011,04:22)
New genetic info: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc....02.html

   
Quote
It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of

increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)


Case closed. Citations provided at the linked page.

And as evolution in a simulated digital environment can be directly observed, bit by bit, it might be interesting also:

http://www.pnas.org/content....63.full



Quote
Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)

Quote
EDIT EDIT: http://pandasthumb.org/archive....nt.html


This is great, and the Picard picture lol!

Thanks
marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4511
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2011,05:09   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 14 2011,04:50)
Quote (k.e.. @ Dec. 14 2011,04:22)
 
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 14 2011,11:56)
 
Quote (qetzal @ Dec. 13 2011,16:22)
   
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 13 2011,14:28)
That's a damn good question, I'll bet that they say that you should look at behe's paper as to what he calls gain of function mutations.


     
Quote
Simply he states that has clearly been proven in a peer reviewed paper by Behe that there is only a very remote possibility of gain of function therefore 0 possibility for it to be the cause of biodiversity.

Behe's paper acknowledges that gain of function mutations (GOFs) happen. It claims they're rare compared to modification or loss of function mutations. Behe does not show or even argue that GOFs are too rare to explain biodiversity.

Anyone who argues "remote possibility therefore zero possibility" is either ignorant or disingenuous.

     
Quote
To this lot a second group of people on the forum have asked for: (I) appearance of brand new genes that didn't previously exist in that organism and weren't somehow introduced from an outside source.
Further to (I) they asked that it would be good that these genes had a phenotypic effect.

Then this second group is asking for proof of a nonsensical notion. Evolution doesn't work that way. It's like claiming there are cats and dogs, but to prove evolution we should produce a dat.

   
Quote
Behe's paper doesn't say anything about whether those gain of function mutations involve novel genetic information. Are these people saying gain of function is the same as novel genetic info?


No that's two destict requests, rather the first is a statement, they say gain of function is highly imporobable therefore how can evolution work see Behe proves it, if you don't agree with Behe you better show us a study that proves him wrong, that gain of FCT is more common.

The second request is: "you want to prove that bacteria turned into humans you're going to have to show us that new genetic info turns up at least somewhere along the line, since evolution according to you is still ongoing show us some examples of this new genetic stuff showing up, if you can't then the whole evolution thing colapses".

oh yeah a study that proves Behe wrong....


What was it 42 days at Dover?


Behe the twit in the headlights. The git with the gaffs.

Exponding on palm readers and an imagined conversation with Le Grand Fromage Hisself.

Even Dembski didn't get in on the action he was summarily dismissed by the much vaunted ....I  can't remeber now ....defense team during discovery by Babs Forrest.

Behe swore on a stack of 50 biology books he wasn't decended from no monkeys or apes or summit.

In any case after he was thoroughly sacked, he declared victory!

The circus had moved on by then, although the creationist clowns were still stuck under a collapsed big tent.

One day when they have stopped squirting each other with fake plastic flowers they will wake up.

Behe is no more relevant than a hoola hoop.

Yes don't get me wrong I'm on your side.

But consider these lines:
1) Behe's work in PLOS does not support ID it simply points to creating difficluties for evolution to work. Its a starting point in showing "see no gain of function, it's all loss". The people I'm debating with are using this paper to show that the biggest research ever carried out in the history of the planet shows that loss outweighs gain to such an extent that there is no way that evolution can work.
2) As far as I know, there is no peer reviewed paper out there that goes against this particular study. They use this fact as proof that the scientific community agrees with Behe's argument. So for them the case is closed.

That's why I thought of asking them to explain how we got from 16 alleles in Noahs ark to 700+ if Behe's work is right.

These guys are not pushing ID they're pushing "evolution doesn't/can't work"

Cheers

There is a history here.

From Judge Overton's ruling in McLean v. Arkansas:

Quote

IV(A)
The approach to teaching "creation science" and "evolution-science" found in Act 590 is identical to the two-model approach espoused by the Institute for Creation Research and is taken almost verbatim from ICR writings. It is an extension of Fundamentalists' view that one must either accept the literal interpretation of Genesis or else believe in the godless system of evolution.

The two model approach of the creationists is simply a contrived dualism (22) which has not scientific factual basis or legitimate educational purpose. It assumes only two explanations for the origins of life and existence of man, plants and animals: it was either the work of a creator or it was not. Application of these two models, according to creationists, and the defendants, dictates that all scientific evidence which fails to support the theory of evolution is necessarily scientific evidence in support of creationism and is, therefore, creation science "evidence" in support of Section 4(a).


The IDC advocates think that by settling for simply saying, "Not evolution" and leaving off "therefore, God" that nobody will notice that they are using the exact same approach (and arguments) as did the creation scientists before them. It hasn't worked, as demonstrated in Kitzmiller v. DASD in 2005.

Could you clarify what, precisely, people are taking as if the scientific community agrees? That certainly doesn't sound like it could describe the Behe and Snoke article that was the topic of part of the cross-examination of Michael Behe in 2005.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Cubist



Posts: 352
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2011,05:13   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 14 2011,03:20)
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 13 2011,22:24)

 
Quote
Doesn't matter. If these IDiots are going to make noise about "novel genetic material", they need to have some way to tell whether or not a given chunk of genetic material genuinely is "novel", because if they don't have some way to tell the difference between "novel" and non-"novel" genetic material, they're talking bullshit.


I believe they would say sequence the DNA of the original lizard population then sequence the DNA of the "evolved" lizard if there is extra stuff for creating cecal valves then that's new material.

That's nice. If they want their yammering about "novel genetic material" to be taken seriously, they simply must have some way to tell whether or not a given chunk of genetic material genuinely is "novel". Don't let them get away with leaving "novel genetic material" undefined, and don't let them get away with vague handwaving in place of a usable protocol for distinguishing "novel" genetic material from non-"novel" genetic material.
Quote
Quote
If the lizards' DNA hasn't been sequenced, on what grounds can they claim that the 'new' lizard doesn't have any 'novel genetic material'? That "sorry, no data yet" gambit is a two-edged sword; if IDiots want to use it on evolution, you have every justification for using it on ID.

Well they turn the argument the other way round, saying since you can't prove that there is new material how can you say it's an example of evolution, it's just the same lizard that has adapted to the new diet all the morphological features are due to epigenics. Nothing new has been added.

Insist on them laying out a usable protocol for determining whether or not a given chunk of genetic material really is "new", and if they can't do that, ask them how the hell they tell whether or not anything "new" has been added? Sorry, but "naah, it don't look 'novel' to me" just won't cut the mustard... and if they have no objective way to determine whether or not a given chunk of genetic material actually is 'novel', naah, it don't look 'novel' to me is all they've got!
Quote
Quote
Your reply should be, "Hold it. Since the lizard's DNA hasn't been sequenced, how the heck can you be so sure that it doesn't have any 'novel genetic material' in it? You haven't even been able to show that you can tell which bits of a known nucleotide sequence do or don't qualify as 'novel genetic material', so why should anybody believe you can tell which bits of an unknown nucleotide sequence do or don't qualify as 'novel genetic material'?"

They I assume they would reply: well you're the one who brought up the lizard in the first place as an example of evolution, but you have not shown that on a genetic level there is something new.

This word, 'new'. You keep using it, but if you don't have any way to tell whether or not a given chunk of genetic material actually is 'new', you might as well be saying that you haven't shown that on a genetic level there is something zibbleblorf.
Quote
All that you have shown are morphological differences based on genetic plasticity. We don't deny this we're just saying that it's not an example of evolution, it's adaptation of already existing genetic material. Nothing new here, move along.

Again, do not let them get away with leaving their terms undefined. If they're going to make noise about how evolution requires 'new' genetic material, insist that they define what the fuck they mean by 'new' genetic material, and insist that they explain how the fuck they can tell whether or not a given chunk of genetic material genuinely is 'new'.
Quote
Also they have as yet not shown that they accept ID, that would leave them open to any sort of attack. They're just out to show the theory is wrong as according to them it can't be used to explain biodiversity as has been prooven in Behe's peer reviewed paper.

If they can't define 'new' genetic material, their assertion that evolution requires 'new' genetic material is no more meaningful than an assertion that evolution requires 'zibbleblorf' genetic material.

Keep on asking the IDiots to determine which bits of a nucleotide sequence are 'new', and make sure nobody can ignore the fact that they haven't even been able to tell which bits are or aren't 'new'.
Also: Work up some arbitrary pairs of sequences, with Sequence B of each pair being what happens when Sequence A of the pair gets hit with a particular kind of mutation. For each pair of sequences, does Sequence B contain any 'new' genetic material, and if so, which bits of Sequence B are the 'new' bits?

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2011,05:28   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 14 2011,05:09)

Quote
Could you clarify what, precisely, people are taking as if the scientific community agrees? That certainly doesn't sound like it could describe the Behe and Snoke article that was the topic of part of the cross-examination of Michael Behe in 2005.


http://www.lehigh.edu/bio....per.pdf

This is the paper they hold next to their Bible. The claim is: this is what science believes since no scientist has ever published a paper that disprooves and or critisises Behe's "epic" work.


Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
qetzal



Posts: 309
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2011,06:47   

Once again, Marty. Behe's paper only attempts to show that gains are much less common than modifications and losses. It does not show that gains are too rare to support evolution. It doesn't even address that question. Behe's paper is irrelevant to what these people are claiming.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4511
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2011,06:50   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 14 2011,05:28)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 14 2011,05:09)

 
Quote
Could you clarify what, precisely, people are taking as if the scientific community agrees? That certainly doesn't sound like it could describe the Behe and Snoke article that was the topic of part of the cross-examination of Michael Behe in 2005.


http://www.lehigh.edu/bio........per.pdf

This is the paper they hold next to their Bible. The claim is: this is what science believes since no scientist has ever published a paper that disprooves and or critisises Behe's "epic" work.


Marty

Southstar:

 
Quote

But consider these lines:
1) Behe's work in PLOS does not support ID it simply points to creating difficluties for evolution to work. Its a starting point in showing "see no gain of function, it's all loss". The people I'm debating with are using this paper to show that the biggest research ever carried out in the history of the planet shows that loss outweighs gain to such an extent that there is no way that evolution can work.
2) As far as I know, there is no peer reviewed paper out there that goes against this particular study. They use this fact as proof that the scientific community agrees with Behe's argument. So for them the case is closed.


QRB is not PLOS. Behe's publication is not a report of research. It's a meta-review. Other people did research, Behe is merely commenting on their work, often through the medium of still others who reviewed the original research. There is no "history of the planet" here, merely a selected set of research reports and reviews. The degree to which Behe's selected set of topics reflects "the history of the planet" is quite open to question, and is certainly no basis upon which to confidently state that "loss outweighs gain".

How could there be "a" peer-reviewed paper that would counter Behe's assertion, which as you've related it concerns the statistical question of how frequent "loss" is compared to "gain"? That requires some sort of grand sampling plan far more ambitious than anything yet attempted. To what purpose? Funding agencies aren't keen on "showing up IDC advocates" as the sole prospect of a study, especially one that would likely carry a price tag in the multiple billions.

A more apropos interpretation of the scientific community's estimation of the worth of Behe's meta-review would be that it is well-cited in further research. Is that the case? Google Scholar certainly shows no sign that Behe's opus has stimulated much of anything scientifically. There are thousands of papers published every year that go on without rebuttal or significant citation; do all of them thus attain the status of settled science? To my mind, that follows only if one is completely insane.

Boudry et al. wrote a QRB piece on irreducible complexity as pseudoscience; is that equally well-esteemed by your correspondents? If not, why not?

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2011,07:00   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 14 2011,05:28)
This is the paper they hold next to their Bible. The claim is: this is what science believes since no scientist has ever published a paper that disprooves and or critisises Behe's "epic" work.


Marty

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010.......w-paper

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010.......w-paper

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010.......to-behe

Quote
I consider MB’s characterization of most molecular evolution in these experiments as point mutations and/or deletions to be accurate.  Indeed, as I told MB in my comments on his ms, I had made the same point in a recent book chapter.  We have not seen the evolution of much novelty in these lab experiments on bacteria and viruses, at least not the classic gene duplication followed by diversification into new functions.  There is, however, a literature on what is known as directed evolution that does document the evolution of novelty when strong selection is applied to large populations, but those studies focus on individual genes (e.g., on plasmids) or short nucleic acids (e.g., 50-base RNA molecules).

What surprises me is that anyone would consider this absence of novelty in experimental evolution studies to be surprising, given what we know both about evolution and about the nature of the experiments.  As Jerry Coyne (JC) commented recently, the organisms and conditions used for those studies are not amenable to many of the types of evolutionary mechanisms and selective conditions that we think operate in nature.  The natural environment for many microbes includes lots of  free ‘environmental’ DNA from many sources, produced when cells die and release their DNA.  In addition, phages abound in natural environments, providing a ready means of DNA transfer between different bacteria, but many bacteria are also capable of incorporating environmental DNA into their genomes.


Some papers linked to on this comment probably of interest too:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creatio....p634327

In essence the consensus seems to be that as a paper there's nothing particularly wrong with it, but the conclusions touted by ID supporters are not actually mentioned within or supported by the paper itself.

--------------
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

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1966
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2011,21:19   

This will bore many here, but Erick Rothschild's brilliant cross examination of Behe in Dover was my favorite part. Barbara Forest was totally awesome. But Behe, and Steve Fuller did as much, if not more, damage to the creationist position under cross examination than Forest did under direct.

My bias of course is Day 12, PM. But, I had also argued that our goal with Steve Fuller should be to keep him talking about "science" and "ID" and "Creationism," and to not mention Paul Gross, or the Sokal hoax.

Edited by Dr.GH on Dec. 14 2011,19:20

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

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

   
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2011,09:33   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 14 2011,07:00)

Quote
In essence the consensus seems to be that as a paper there's nothing particularly wrong with it, but the conclusions touted by ID supporters are not actually mentioned within or supported by the paper itself.


But isn't it skewed? I mean okay he does point out the limits of the paper calling them possible objections, but still it's all the stuff that he doesn't consider that's worring,like that the historical evidence from eukaryotes genome shows that most of the kinds of mutations that would have been important could not have occurred in the experiments.

And aren't the definitions of what is L,M,G skewed too? I mean there is no basis in the literature for these definitions so they're really arbitrary aren't they?

Lastely the law which turns to "rule of the thumb" doesn't that go overboard?

One could easily do a counter review redifine L,M,G add the stuff that Behe willingly left out and have at least a more complete paper.

Thanks
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
qetzal



Posts: 309
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2011,11:58   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 15 2011,09:33)
But isn't it skewed? I mean okay he does point out the limits of the paper calling them possible objections, but still it's all the stuff that he doesn't consider that's worring,like that the historical evidence from eukaryotes genome shows that most of the kinds of mutations that would have been important could not have occurred in the experiments.

No! Frankly, I don't understand why you and/or Ioseb keep saying this. All Behe claims to show is that G is much rarer than M+L. That is NOT THE SAME as showing that G is too rare for evolution to work, or that the kinds of mutations needed for evolution couldn't have happened.

If you want to argue that G is too rare to support evolution, you need to show that the observed rate of G is low compared to the rate needed for evolution! Comparing it to the rates of M+L is NOT RELEVANT!

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2011,12:15   

Behe can't get the maths for his own book right...
   
Quote
And yet CQ resistance by the (assumed!) "double mutation", with probability 1 in 10^20, is Behe's central measuring stick throughout the book! Incredible...

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....ehe.php

The only people that actually care are those like the people you are arguing with who think that this paper/book has disproven evolution or shown it can't work.

Everybody else took a look, shrugged, moved on.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archive....th.html
 
Quote
Behe buttresses his argument for the improbability of protein-protein binding sites with the fact that no new protein-protein binding sites arose during the evolution of CQR, but never explains why this contradicts evolutionary expectations. He apparently thinks that evolutionary theory says anything should evolve a new binding site in response to any arbitrary situation. Behe dismisses antibodies, where new sites easily evolve to bind almost anything, on the grounds that the immune system is designed, neatly inserting his conclusion into his premises, and ignoring once again the embarrasing mountain of evidence against him [1]. Microbial toxin evolution is waved aside with “it’s relatively easy to clog a system,” which ignores the fact that such proteins often have exquisitely specific binding. Snake venom shows that even vertebrates with small populations can evolve huge gene families that specifically bind diverse proteins, with massive evidence of duplication, mutation, and selection as the mechanisms, and with intraspecific variation in regulation, sequence, and specificity. Is Someone actively designing rattlesnake (Sistrurus catenatus) venom in the American Midwest [7] and fine-tuning the specificity of black mamba (Dendroaspis polylepis) toxins for subtypes of mammalian muscarinic acetylcholine receptors [8]?

It is clear that Behe is driven not by a truly scientific investigation, but instead metaphysics. He is obsessed with “randomness,” which he incorrigibly associates with “Darwinism” and cosmic purposelessness. This is one of many incorrect but blindly-held assumptions common with creationists. But randomness in evolution is no more metaphysically significant than randomness in weather systems. If creationists realized this, we might finally see the edge of creationism, if not the end of it. But if Behe is any indication, that won’t be any time soon.


He's talking out of his arse but he can pull it together and get something published, unlike say KF. This makes him invaluable for the IDers but what actual impact has this paper had on the scientific community at large, the paper that according to some destroyed our understanding of evolution?

A: None.

Sure, they'll say it's because of the science establishments bias etc etc but by now you know better, right? I.E. Behe did science, Behe got published.

If Behe writes what he wrote in the Edge in a paper, Behe no get published. If he could support his claims about his designer scientifically he would already have done so. But they go in the book, not the paper...

So even if that paper proves what they say it proves it does not mean ID get's to take over by default. There is a long way to go before that barrel gets scraped.

--------------
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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2011,12:16   

http://select.nytimes.com/preview....d=print

Quote
If correct, Behe’s calculations would at a stroke confound generations of mathematical geneticists, who have repeatedly shown that evolutionary rates are not limited by mutation. Single-handedly, Behe is taking on Ronald Fisher, Sewall Wright, J. B. S. Haldane, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Richard Lewontin, John Maynard Smith and hundreds of their talented co-workers and intellectual descendants. Notwithstanding the inconvenient existence of dogs, cabbages and pouter pigeons, the entire corpus of mathematical genetics, from 1930 to today, is flat wrong. Michael Behe, the disowned biochemist of Lehigh University, is the only one who has done his sums right. You think?

The best way to find out is for Behe to submit a mathematical paper to The Journal of Theoretical Biology, say, or The American Naturalist, whose editors would send it to qualified referees. They might liken Behe’s error to the belief that you can’t win a game of cards unless you have a perfect hand. But, not to second-guess the referees, my point is that Behe, as is normal at the grotesquely ill-named Discovery Institute (a tax-free charity, would you believe?), where he is a senior fellow, has bypassed the peer-review procedure altogether, gone over the heads of the scientists he once aspired to number among his peers, and appealed directly to a public that — as he and his publisher know — is not qualified to rumble him.


--------------
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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2011,12:27   

6,280 results for “breathtaking inanity” Behe

For balance if you search for “breathtaking inanity” madonna you get 241 results but the top couple are still about Behe at Dover.

So make of that what you will. But if that was to be my legacy I'd find a different career.

--------------
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

  
Cubist



Posts: 352
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2011,19:53   

I'd be willing to bet a substantial amount of cash that Southstar's IDiot buddies have not yet gotten around to defining what the heck they mean when they say "novel genetic material". So I have a suggestion for Southstar: Post a message which says something like I've asked the IDiots to define 'novel genetic material', to explain how the heck they can distinguish between 'novel' genetic material and non-'novel' genetic material, and so far, they got nothing. So for all that anybody can tell, the IDiot verbiage about 'novel genetic material' is meaningless babble. Therefore, in all future posts when I'm replying to an IDiot post that mentions 'novel genetic material', I'm going to change 'novel genetic material' to 'zibbleblorf genetic material', to throw a spotlight on the fact that the IDiots haven't yet bothered to explain what the heck they mean by 'novel genetic material'. I will of course be glad to stop replacing 'novel' with 'zibbleblorf' just as soon as the IDiots do get around to defining what the heck they mean when they talk about 'novel genetic material', but until then, I'm using a nonsense pseudo-word to replace an undefined term.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4511
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2011,20:52   

Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 15 2011,19:53)
I'd be willing to bet a substantial amount of cash that Southstar's IDiot buddies have not yet gotten around to defining what the heck they mean when they say "novel genetic material". So I have a suggestion for Southstar: Post a message which says something like I've asked the IDiots to define 'novel genetic material', to explain how the heck they can distinguish between 'novel' genetic material and non-'novel' genetic material, and so far, they got nothing. So for all that anybody can tell, the IDiot verbiage about 'novel genetic material' is meaningless babble. Therefore, in all future posts when I'm replying to an IDiot post that mentions 'novel genetic material', I'm going to change 'novel genetic material' to 'zibbleblorf genetic material', to throw a spotlight on the fact that the IDiots haven't yet bothered to explain what the heck they mean by 'novel genetic material'. I will of course be glad to stop replacing 'novel' with 'zibbleblorf' just as soon as the IDiots do get around to defining what the heck they mean when they talk about 'novel genetic material', but until then, I'm using a nonsense pseudo-word to replace an undefined term.

May I suggest gzorply muffnordled genetic information?

(Also used here.)

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Cubist



Posts: 352
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2011,22:58   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 15 2011,20:52)
 
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 15 2011,19:53)
I'd be willing to bet a substantial amount of cash that Southstar's IDiot buddies have not yet gotten around to defining what the heck they mean when they say "novel genetic material". So I have a suggestion for Southstar: Post a message which says something like I've asked the IDiots to define 'novel genetic material', to explain how the heck they can distinguish between 'novel' genetic material and non-'novel' genetic material, and so far, they got nothing. So for all that anybody can tell, the IDiot verbiage about 'novel genetic material' is meaningless babble. Therefore, in all future posts when I'm replying to an IDiot post that mentions 'novel genetic material', I'm going to change 'novel genetic material' to 'zibbleblorf genetic material', to throw a spotlight on the fact that the IDiots haven't yet bothered to explain what the heck they mean by 'novel genetic material'. I will of course be glad to stop replacing 'novel' with 'zibbleblorf' just as soon as the IDiots do get around to defining what the heck they mean when they talk about 'novel genetic material', but until then, I'm using a nonsense pseudo-word to replace an undefined term.

May I suggest gzorply muffnordled genetic information?

(Also used here.)

[snicker] Why not? One arbitrary string is as good as another... hmmm... You know, IDiots make use of rather more than one undefined term. Perhaps it might be appropriate to make use of several nonsense pseudo-words, one for each undefined-by-ID term that's thrown around by IDiots? Like so:

Zibbleblorf
Gzorply
Muffnordle
Gostak
Distim
Dosh
Jabberwock
Thurb
Tove
Plergb
Snark
Crottle
Greep
Potrzebie
Zorkmid
Boojum
Filfre
Sniny
Gnusto
Brillig

  
Henry J



Posts: 4098
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2011,23:33   

Not to mention these:

shazbot
nanoo-nanoo
Mxyzptlk
frak

  
k.e..



Posts: 2993
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2011,01:16   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 14 2011,12:53)
k.e.:

 
Quote

Even Dembski didn't get in on the action he was summarily dismissed by the much vaunted ....I  can't remeber now ....defense team during discovery by Babs Forrest.


There are multiple, mutually inconsistent accounts of how Dembski came to be withdrawn as a witness for the Thomas More Law Center. Dembski claimed to be protecting the interests of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics by withdrawing, an interesting take since Dembski was the guy who precipitated pretty much all the risk their materials had. The TMLC claimed in a pleading that it was all those nasty Darwinists' fault trying to screw up their line-up of expert witnesses. And Bruce Chapman of the Discovery Institute later claimed in an interview that seeing the way the wind was blowing, he asked all the DI-associated expert witnesses to withdraw, and three out of five of them did.

Dembski attended Barbara Forrest's deposition. Forrest's supplemental expert report, submitted after Dembski's withdrawal from the case, analyzed the history of "Of Pandas and People" based on a series of drafts provided under subpoena from the Foundation for Thought and Ethics. But I'm not seeing a principal role for Forrest in Dembski's withdrawal.

Dembski withdrew three days before his deposition was to take place in Waco, TX. A number of communications concerning the deposition preceded that withdrawal. One was to be prepared to carry over to a second day of deposition-taking given the number of questions his involvement in the case raised. Demsbki was requested to bring his documentation of the review process for his book, "The Design Inference", along to the deposition. Another was that we planned to have a videographer on hand to document it. And the last communication to Dembski and TMLC prior to his withdrawal was that Prof. Jeff Shallit and I would be present to assist Pepper Hamilton lawyer Steven Harvey with his questioning.

Hahahahaha .....even better.

Thanks Wes

Dembski has that many bêtes noires it's a wonder he can do any ID research....oh wait..

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
k.e..



Posts: 2993
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2011,01:59   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Dec. 15 2011,05:19)
This will bore many here, but Erick Rothschild's brilliant cross examination of Behe in Dover was my favorite part. Barbara Forest was totally awesome. But Behe, and Steve Fuller did as much, if not more, damage to the creationist position under cross examination than Forest did under direct.

My bias of course is Day 12, PM. But, I had also argued that our goal with Steve Fuller should be to keep him talking about "science" and "ID" and "Creationism," and to not mention Paul Gross, or the Sokal hoax.

Ha! Bias indeed.

I like the bit where the DI is trying to shove a satchel under the court doors without the ID lawyers knowing about it.

.... and Jones says "....some rogue cavalry come riding in here at the last instant"

classic.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2011,07:23   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 15 2011,21:52)
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 15 2011,19:53)
I'd be willing to bet a substantial amount of cash that Southstar's IDiot buddies have not yet gotten around to defining what the heck they mean when they say "novel genetic material". So I have a suggestion for Southstar: Post a message which says something like I've asked the IDiots to define 'novel genetic material', to explain how the heck they can distinguish between 'novel' genetic material and non-'novel' genetic material, and so far, they got nothing. So for all that anybody can tell, the IDiot verbiage about 'novel genetic material' is meaningless babble. Therefore, in all future posts when I'm replying to an IDiot post that mentions 'novel genetic material', I'm going to change 'novel genetic material' to 'zibbleblorf genetic material', to throw a spotlight on the fact that the IDiots haven't yet bothered to explain what the heck they mean by 'novel genetic material'. I will of course be glad to stop replacing 'novel' with 'zibbleblorf' just as soon as the IDiots do get around to defining what the heck they mean when they talk about 'novel genetic material', but until then, I'm using a nonsense pseudo-word to replace an undefined term.

May I suggest gzorply muffnordled genetic information?

(Also used here.)

very nice, i would have not guessed howard van till had such a sense of humor.  i suppose to stand as an island of reason in that sea of foolishness one must maintain high spirits!

"3 views" really has been an influential book among my more literate family members, makes for an interesting metanarrative at family get togethers (pigeonholing exercise)

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2011,07:50   

Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 15 2011,22:58)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 15 2011,20:52)
 
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 15 2011,19:53)
I'd be willing to bet a substantial amount of cash that Southstar's IDiot buddies have not yet gotten around to defining what the heck they mean when they say "novel genetic material". So I have a suggestion for Southstar: Post a message which says something like I've asked the IDiots to define 'novel genetic material', to explain how the heck they can distinguish between 'novel' genetic material and non-'novel' genetic material, and so far, they got nothing. So for all that anybody can tell, the IDiot verbiage about 'novel genetic material' is meaningless babble. Therefore, in all future posts when I'm replying to an IDiot post that mentions 'novel genetic material', I'm going to change 'novel genetic material' to 'zibbleblorf genetic material', to throw a spotlight on the fact that the IDiots haven't yet bothered to explain what the heck they mean by 'novel genetic material'. I will of course be glad to stop replacing 'novel' with 'zibbleblorf' just as soon as the IDiots do get around to defining what the heck they mean when they talk about 'novel genetic material', but until then, I'm using a nonsense pseudo-word to replace an undefined term.

May I suggest gzorply muffnordled genetic information?

(Also used here.)

[snicker] Why not? One arbitrary string is as good as another... hmmm... You know, IDiots make use of rather more than one undefined term. Perhaps it might be appropriate to make use of several nonsense pseudo-words, one for each undefined-by-ID term that's thrown around by IDiots? Like so:

Zibbleblorf
Gzorply
Muffnordle
Gostak
Distim
Dosh
Jabberwock
Thurb
Tove
Plergb
Snark
Crottle
Greep
Potrzebie
Zorkmid
Boojum
Filfre
Sniny
Gnusto
Brillig

dFCSI

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
Cubist



Posts: 352
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2011,15:30   

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 16 2011,07:50)
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 15 2011,22:58)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 15 2011,20:52)
   
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 15 2011,19:53)
I'd be willing to bet a substantial amount of cash that Southstar's IDiot buddies have not yet gotten around to defining what the heck they mean when they say "novel genetic material". So I have a suggestion for Southstar: Post a message which says something like I've asked the IDiots to define 'novel genetic material', to explain how the heck they can distinguish between 'novel' genetic material and non-'novel' genetic material, and so far, they got nothing. So for all that anybody can tell, the IDiot verbiage about 'novel genetic material' is meaningless babble. Therefore, in all future posts when I'm replying to an IDiot post that mentions 'novel genetic material', I'm going to change 'novel genetic material' to 'zibbleblorf genetic material', to throw a spotlight on the fact that the IDiots haven't yet bothered to explain what the heck they mean by 'novel genetic material'. I will of course be glad to stop replacing 'novel' with 'zibbleblorf' just as soon as the IDiots do get around to defining what the heck they mean when they talk about 'novel genetic material', but until then, I'm using a nonsense pseudo-word to replace an undefined term.

May I suggest gzorply muffnordled genetic information?

(Also used here.)

[snicker] Why not? One arbitrary string is as good as another... hmmm... You know, IDiots make use of rather more than one undefined term. Perhaps it might be appropriate to make use of several nonsense pseudo-words, one for each undefined-by-ID term that's thrown around by IDiots? Like so:

Zibbleblorf
Gzorply
Muffnordle
Gostak
Distim
Dosh
Jabberwock
Thurb
Tove
Plergb
Snark
Crottle
Greep
Potrzebie
Zorkmid
Boojum
Filfre
Sniny
Gnusto
Brillig

dFCSI

Tracy, they already are using "dFCSI", so I'd advise against using it in this context. Mind you, it could be great wicked fun to muddy the waters by using an ID nonsense pseudo-word as a placeholder for a different undefined ID concept...

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2011,02:09   

Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 16 2011,15:30)

I was wondering if anyone new why has the talk origins archive not any longer updated .

Also would it be possible to translate it into other languages? Any idea on who I should talk to?

Also I was wondering about the Bio-complexity org. I mean anyone can see that it's a fake pseudoscience journal, where the peer -reviewers are the same people as the editors. Doug Axe has writtne 3 out of the 5 articles and he's the managing director LOL. But If I mention it, people could answer well, it's just because you don't know enough, no real scientist has anything to say about this respectable institute.

Now I'm sure this is not true... do you have any links to science journals/scientists that indicate what this organisation really is...?

Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
  366 replies since Nov. 08 2011,06:46 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (13) < ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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