|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why can creationists give straight answers? | |||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1902 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: That proves what, exactly? I would burn my clothes if I thought I might have touched a fundamentalist creationist. Doesn't mean 'hyssop oil' can cure me of fundaMENTALism.quote: Ah - the REAL reason... Funny how those bizarre extrapolations have a simple enough genesis.quote: Above is a chemical analysis of hyssop oil. Maybe you would be so kind as to point out the antifungal and antimicrobial agents. Should be easy, since you claim 50% of its contents have these properties.quote: [/quote] Sputter ough- EVIDENCE? ANY AT ALL???quote: Wow. It must be fun to be a creationist - just make stuff up as you see fit. Evidence? We don't need no evidence! Pathetic....
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1902 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Ah, projection from the master. I suppose that you can support this allegation, right? No, Williams, you are your own worst enemy in these 'debtes.'[quote] Even your protg Robert, who I originally went round-and-round on the SNP noise issue, did not resort to making things up, like your allegation I claimed SNPs could be removed via a single taxon DNA sequence. That was some twisting of my words. You da man! [quote]
Fred, I have the exchanges. Shall I post them? Yes, I shall: ***************************************Regarding phylogenetic analyses: R: "So, here is my question: How do you discern a difference due to fixed mutations from a difference due to accumulating SNP's in 2 respective populations?" Fred: Via molecular analysis. Again, it makes no sense to compare noise (most of which likely represents deterioration) of one species to the noise (deterioration) of another to determine how much they differ. Note that the roughly 2.1 mil SNPs represents only about .07% of the genome.******************************************** This was before Fred knew how phylogenetic analyses were done. I still don't think he has the foggiest idea now, but he later tried to cover his tracks. He is doing so now, as well, crying 'misrepresentation' and the like. The fact remains, as is borne out by the following quotes as well, that Williams conflates(ed) fixed and polymorphic sites, claimed that polymorphisms were excluded form phylogenetic analysesd (via 'genetic analysis'), had it explained to him how phylogenetic analyses work, then claimed to have known all along that SNPs could not be removed. He even tried to claim that he told ME this. This exchange: Huxter:"This of course ignores the fact that many synapomorphic changes are actually relatively large-scale insertions/deletions. " Robert: Fred, do you agree with this statement? I have to say it is likely considering what has been debated so far. Fred: It is true that insertions/deletions appear to play a role in gene activation/deactivation (they appear to be "non-random" events). But can you tell me what Huxter's point is? This blurb makes no sense in the context of my debate with Robert. So what if some synapomorphism can be attributed to insertions/deletions. Maybe he is implying that this type of mutation would cloud species comparisons. I would agree with him, but I think it would be a neglible impact." tells me that you are clueless as far as what molecular phylogentics takes into account. This all stemmed from your ignorant claims about SNPs being removed from such analyses. Indels can, in fact, be very strong indicators of descent.Do you deny this? And I don't mean after-the-fact - you INSISTED that this was the case for some time. That you might now know differently is immaterial. There was more: sumac wrote: *********************************. Fred's attempts to clarify his previous statement resulted in both of his feet becoming firmly lodged in his mouth (How exactly do scientists use "molecular analysis" to discern the relative contributions of SNPs and fixed mutations to differences between two sequences?). I showed how SNPs could not be accounted for in most sequence comparisons so that the reported differences between humans and chimps must include both fixed and unfixed differences (which has been one of huxter's points all along). Fred fooled no one, especially Robert, when he changed his position to avoid admitting his mistake. 6. Fred reasserted that it is invalid to compare SNPs across species. I showed Fred a couple of articles that demonstrate how comparing SNPs across species is not only valid, but useful in understanding how evolution proceeds. Fred called this a Red Herring. 7. Fred asserted that, even though he has changed his position, it doesn't matter because the contribution of SNPs to the total difference is insignificant. I pointed out that the contribution of SNPs could be as high as 2-3% of the total difference (or even higher if my assumptions were off). The fixed difference between species is millions of nucleotides less than the reported difference. 8. Fred declares victory, but still doesn't know when to quit. ************************************************** sumac again: Fred: I succeeded in proving my point that SNPs have nothing to do with inter-species comparisons. As noise, they can only cloud the comparisons. Fortunately (for both this debate and for our own health), this noise level is low enough as to inject no tangible effect on past inter-species comparisons.You succeeded in proving nothing. As huxter and I have repeatedly pointed out, SNPs are an integral part of interspecies comparisons because most of the time you can't recognize them for what they are and account for them. In addition (here's that Red Herring again), when you can account for them, you can include them in your analysis to gain even more information about the sequences you are comparing. **************************************************** As has become Williams' calling card, he has resorted to sinning - bearing false witness - in a sad attempt to prop up his fragile ego and his putrid beliefs. If you can't back up your 'scientific' claims, Williams, DON'T MAKE ANY. Backpeddaling, distorting, sinning, and so forth do not erase your old claims. It just demonstrates that you didn't know what you were talking about. These are basially tangents, but I ran across them looking for Fred's SNP gaffe. They supply some insight into the pseudocertain creationist mindset... **********************************Fred: "First, a clarification you asked for. My claim of 120 million base pairs assumes they are fixed.Whatever the genome base pair difference turns out to be, be it 120 mil, 30 mil, 60 mil, 10 mil,this difference must represent the difference between fixed locus.[sic] Inclusion of SNPs would distort the data. When informed evolutionists give estimates between chimp & man, they are referring to fixed differences. Trust me! " "The reason I know they are talking about fixed mutations is because I know that they are smart. If they are comparing SNPs between apes and humans, then they are simply quacks."===== R: "Do you think the 120 million mutations separating humans from chimps are fixed in their respective populations?" Fred:Yes, I've been saying this all along. ...**************************************************** Hmmm...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1902 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: I suspected that some of the compounds indicated might have such properties, however, I don't see them adding up to 50%. Sounds like the usual extrapolation and embellishment from the cretin crowd...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1902 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: I hadn't read it for about 3 years now. But now that you mention it (you have a better grasp of the issue than I) it does seem absurd to think that washing tapestries and wiping the hearth with oil would be an efficient treatment for ANYTHING, much less leprosy. But it is amazing - the Israelites had apparently been given from On High the original formula for Lysol. Surely, that cannot be a coincidence....
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1902 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
keeping it alive...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1902 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Freddie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1902 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Funny how that always seems to happen when the creationist has had his hat handed to him... Lets just hope that Williams doesn't spout his BS about polymorphisms in phylogenetic analyses again...quote: How does that support your claim that the ancient Hebrews knew about microbes? quote: And that is a strawman and a misrepresentation (whats new?). I never said such a thing at all. According to YOU, the ancient hebrews knew about microbes. Those are YOUR words. You failed to support THAT claim. It should come as no surprise that you are now trying to shift the burdena nd backtrack. I wonder - can you find some citations indicating that leprosy really can be cured by killing pigeons, as described in the bible?quote: No, but you still have yet to support your orignal argument with anything relevant.quote: Chapter and verse, please. You say "implies", I say wild, if not bizarre extrapolation...quote: Your 'core argument' is that the Hebes knew about microbes. Burning garments proves this how?quote: You claimed that 50% of what is in hyssop oil is antibacterial. Prove it or retract it.quote: Thats it, Williams. make a joke out of one of your more enduring blunders and falsehoods. Best you can do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1902 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
bump
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1902 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Still waiting for the documentation indicating that oil of hyssop is "50% antibacterial".....
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024