|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,916 Year: 4,173/9,624 Month: 1,044/974 Week: 3/368 Day: 3/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: molecular genetic evidence for a multipurpose genome | |||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1906 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Hello? Information theory expert Williams? Whats the matter? Do you get more mileage trying to insult me than you would actually applying your vast and unrecognized superintellect of yours to your pet areas?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1906 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Indeed.... I see that despite your calm and congenial posting style (and I mean that), Fred has gone on the 'attack'. So much for his implication that he is only a jerk to folks that give him a hard time...quote: Indeed. I have probably been a bit too harsh with TB. Unlike Borger, at least he seemed a bit humble and admitted that his interpretations were bible-based.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1906 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Let me guess - this "thorough" definition of information is the one espoiused by creationist information tehnologist Gitt in which it is comically asserted that information can only come from a 'conscious mind'?quote: Who 'sends' the impetus for mutational change? quote: Oh, thank you thank Massa Expert! Now if only you would address the scenrios I laid out with your clear expertise in Information and how it applies to biological systems!
quote: I guess the flood story has to be a myth, by your standards...
quote: Funny - I recently read somewhere that Williams refers to me as an 'ad hom expert' or some such projection....quote: What contains more specific information - the original dog-kind or a red fox? And why?What contains more specific information - an entire set of encyclopedias or page 126 of Volume 3? And why? Thanks.
quote: At least I do not present amyself as being expert in areas that I am not. I cannot say the same for the creationist that lacks even the ability to know how wrong they are. quote: And you know this because you ARE an expert, right?quote: Almost as ludicrous as claiming that oil of hyssop is "50% antibacterial".quote: Why don't you ask Tom Schneider what he thinks of your take on information and how it applies to biology?quote: The arrogance of ignorance strikes again!quote: Maybe he went to the Wally "Kuckoo" ReMine and Williams school of sience? Has Wally bagged that Laotian chick yet? The one that he let live in his apartmet - wherein he conveniently left a copy of his book to... impress... her? Yeah, Fred, you have some odd idols...quote: Rings hollow, coming from the King of Vitriol and insults.quote: LOL! No, wait, um... er... it is ashortcoming of the medium... Yeah.. thats it.. I never REALLy thought that SNPs are removed form phylogentic analyses... yeah.. right.. thats it... It was the medium
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1906 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Fred:
Please describe the flow of "information" in the following scenarios: 1. A gene duplication results in an altered phenotype 2. An insertion (a mutation) results in increased gene expression, producing pesticide resistance. 3. Random mutations result in a gain of additional substrate specificity while retaining specificity for the original substrate. Please explain for each: Whether information was lost, gained, or remained the same and how. How the end result can be explained by your explanation for the above. How this impacts the iunformation arguments against evolution. And please answer these questions: Which has more specific information, an entire encyclopedia set of a certain page of a certain volume; a "dog kind" or a fox terrier.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1906 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
But he doesn't know better-- he is a zoologists-- so he can be forgiven}
I will remember this gem....
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1906 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Yes, you know all about those "informed evos", don't you? Unfortunatly, you are dodging my questions/challenges, which is no surprise. Do you consider Kimura an "informed evo"? I will have to conclude that your inability/refusal to address my questions/challenges is an implicit concession. In the end, this whole 'new information' schtick is moot. Address the scenarios I mentioned, and I will address yours.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1906 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
delete double post
[This message has been edited by SLPx, 11-06-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1906 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Hey look! It is Fred Williams long-lost love child! But tell us all, Pete, what that has to do with referring to an exon as a gene? And do you have a soure for your definition? You see, maybe you just don't know better-- you are an asthma researhcer-- so you can be forgiven}...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1906 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Do you really need to ask?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1906 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: What a joke... Just another example of an overemphasis on internet discussion board posts by the cretin, and utter hypocrisy. Posts are, at least mine are, not designed to be easily transferred to a professional manuscript. I write them on the fly - between classes, at lunchtime, those ocasions that I am caught up on my work and have some time to kill... Typos? Lots. Odd sentences? Plenty. Incorrect word usage? Sometimes. Gasp - errors? On occasion. I don't write - or set out to write - impeccable proclamations on science, and I don't expect it of anyone else, either, though it seems pretty obvious that the average creationiost believes their every utterance has scientific merit... What I do expect is that one - on any side of a discussion - realize this and not harp on minutiae. I can hear the 'rebuttals' now - "Thats all Page does blah blah blah!" Well, in a sense, I do - but not on one-time statements. I 'harp on' repeated unsupported assertions. I bring up obvious and blatant errors that are never corrected. I reiterate my objections to pompous assertions regarding how 'informed evos' know this and that, when such a claim is idiotic (but repeated). I point out large-scale back-peddaling. Etc... When I first started posting to these boards (about 5 years ago), I did take the time to 'research' my posts. To fully address the claims of the creationist. But I soon discovered that if I brought up 10 points, creationists would focus on one and claim victory. Or not respond at all. And if the creationist brought up 10 points and I responded to each of them, they would bring up 10 more. I discovered that creationist censors would merrily simply delete posts that damaged the arguments of their friends or heros, or pointed out the incompetence of professional creationists. Too many times did I have multi-page posts gutted or outright deleted. So I said F*** it - why do all that work when the cretin will ignore, obfusate, dodge, twist, or edit and delete? Why not just point out their ignorance? It is easier to do, faster, and one does not have to worry about making errors! Of course, that gets me branded, but I don't care. I don't mind running blocker for those evolutionists out there that were born with much higher levels of patience than I... But as for this schtick about not publicly chastizing/correcting a fellow evolutionist... that is just plain old projection. I have been correted many a time, and I have corrected others. It is the creationist that tends not to do this. Just look at what I recently mentioned - Luke Randall. He came on thr OCW site some time ago, boasting about how he knew evolution was wrong because he had a PhD in microbiology and genetics, and how the human genome had 3 billion codons. Silence from creationists (including Fred). I correct this, and the cretin (Randall) tells me to "get my science straight" before daring to try to correct a creationist scientist. I prove he is wrong, and he gets indignant, I get attacked by creationists for 'scariug away' a real PhD holding creationist. Later I see that Fred links to Randall's site, rferring to it as "excellent"... Last time I checked, randall still had numerous errors on his pages, including the ones I pointed out (I had pointed out several more before he tucked tail and ran). So, not only does the creationist rarely - if ever - 'correct' an error made by a fellow creationist, they actually seem to embrace their idiocy! By the way - I will nbever correct you in public... You do the same for me, OK pal?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1906 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fred Williams:
[B] quote: See post to Quetzal. I'm not interested in wasting time. You made a specific claim. I agreed it would be an example of increased genetic information.[/quote] You did?quote: No, Moderator 3, I have examples, I just wnated to see you address my scenarios (which you didn't, not in this thread, anyway). If creationism were true, you would not have to lie, backpedal, co-opt, and misrepresent so much. Where are your examples of "directed mutation"? WEhere is your evidence for the number of "kinds' on some ark? Where is your evidence FOR this ark?quote: So sayeth the post abandoner, the scenrio ignorer, the repeated-assertion-IS-evidence-monger, the master of Projection. You don't want to 'waste your time' supporting your claims. That is pure cretin propaganda. Its the best the idiot has. Bye bye Scheisskopf. So long cretiniam. In the words of Mike Behe, if you can't publish, you should perish. Cretinism perished decades ago, but the brainwashed religious zealots refuse to koin the Reality Club.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1906 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Well, I'm done. The gloves are coming off...
Borger:
quote: Ignoring for now the fact that Borger is just arguing from (pseudo)authority - which, according to Jonny Sarfati at AiG is a no-no - let's take a look at Boger's idiocy. Yes, I received a degree from the department of Anatomy and Cell Biology. CELL BIOLOGY, Borger. The CELL BIOLOGY part seems to have escaped you. The text we used for our CELL BIOLOGY courses? "MOLECULAR BIOLOGY of the Cell", Alberts et al. What was my research in? The MOLECULAR PHYLOGENY of primates: "The Molecular Phylogenetics of Catarrhine Primates as inferred from Two Unlinked Nuclear Loci" Am I also an anatomist? Yes. That is why I understand the significance of the position of the foramen magnum in a skull. Trained on human cadavers. Also studied embryology. You? My minor was Physical Anthropology. So one again, the creationist's shallow attempt at one-upsmanship is sunk before it leaves port. Of course, if you are so well-versed in molecular biology, one has to wonder why it is that you have such a hard time understanding: 'random' as it pertains to genetics; 'hot spots'; what is really expected in phylogentics; etc. Just another blow-hard prattling on in areas outside his field of knowledge...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1906 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: I am still wondering where your amazing 'article' on the 'large cache of evidence' for "non-random mutations" and how they help solve the post-ark hyperspeciation devastation... That you said you were working on... Over a year ago...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1906 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: I am still wondering where your amazing 'article' on the 'large cache of evidence' for "non-random mutations" and how they help solve the post-ark hyperspeciation devastation... That you said you were working on... Over a year ago...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1906 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
PB: Again, you do not respond to my statements. You are starting to behave like Dr Page. He's got a degree in elusiveness.
Well, Pete, maybe you can tell what I have tried to elude? I am still waiting for some evidence that evolutionists believe that all gene trees should match not only each other but all species trees, too, AND that apparently elusive 'scineitific discipline' that is devoted to reconciling incongruent trees... AND the rationale for claiing that evidence against non-random mutations is really evidence for them... That sort of thing... [This message has been edited by SLPx, 11-09-2002]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024