|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: SIMPLE common anscestors had fewer but MORE COMPLEX systems: genomics | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6504 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: ++++++++++++++ While you may have found the titles of SLPx threads offensive, what about the content? I thought the blood clotting argument he posted in particular is interesting. I deleted my post in that thread on the assumption the thread would be deleted. Will that thread continue? cheers,M
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fedmahn Kassad Inactive Member |
I hesitate to ever call anyone a liar, but you, Fred Williams are either a liar or you have a serious short term memory problem. Allow me to demonstrate.
Earlier, you made the following claims in post 54:
quote: You are clearly claiming here that cheetah speciation occurred due to some loss of information. Of course the fact that you continue to avoid providing a definition of information has not been lost on me. Please give me an example of a new species arising as a result of a loss of information, and tell me how it was determined that information was lost. In your latest reply to me, post 66, you say:
quote: FK: I don’t know what to say, other than your statements clearly contradict your earlier claims. That is what happens when you make inconsistent arguments.
quote: FK: Perhaps the reason it is not so straightforward is that you are avoiding like the plague my request that you provide a definition of information. You just seem to hand wave away all examples without providing a consistent criteria for measuring information.
quote: What the expert said and the way you are trying to use it to bolster your argument is entirely inconsistent. Did the expert say that cheetahs have lost diversity, or that some earlier ancestor lost diversity, leading to cheetahs? The latter is your claim, but is not supported by what your expert said. You are grasping at straws here, and making unsupported claims. Also, you previously stated that loss of gene segments was a loss of information. On the other hand, you claim that gaining segments would not be a gain. You have yet to satisfactorily explain this dilemma. Let me put this is very simple terms, so that you might be able to understand it. Consider the following example: The cheetah population, via a point mutation, loses the last surviving allele in the cheetah population. According to Fred Williams’ criteria, this is a loss of information. But let’s do a thought experiment. Let’s say that later, another point mutation restores the function of this allele in a descendent. According to Fred Williams’ criteria, this would not be a gain of information, as the change did not benefit the entire population. Yet we are right back where we started from. But if we apply the Fred Williams’ criteria, there has been a net loss of information. Please address this, or consider your argument trashed.
quote: FK: I savvy that you are once again making up things without any scientific evidence of any kind. Please cease this ridiculous practice, or ante up some evidence.
quote: FK: Nice straw man. But what I am proposing is that you give us your definition of information so that we can determine what an increase would look like. After all, according to your definition a new allele resulting in a disease might very well qualify as new information. The problem is that you haven’t provided a definition. The reason is obvious — you would then no longer be able to hold onto your delusions.
quote: FK: No, your blinders are on so tight that you are asserting that 1+1=1. You, sir, are the one claiming that information can’t increase. I certainly recognize when a quantity increases.
quote: FK: That straw man continues to grow. Please don’t attribute arguments to me that I did not make. I understand that you are having trouble with the argument, but your desperation shows as you continue to build up your straw man.
quote: That all depends on the metric you are using, now doesn’t it? It is very clear why you won’t commit to a definition. You know that as soon as you do, the game is over. As long as you don’t commit, you can just continue to declare any given example as a decrease, based on your mysterious personal criteria. From the posted comments, everyone here sees right through you. Personally, I believe you are intentionally playing games.
quote: Translation: I can’t support this argument. I threw out some Biblical verses as a smoke screen, but when pressed for details I realized I couldn’t provide them. Please begin supporting your arguments with something other than personal assertion, and stop insulting me whenever you contradict yourself. FK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fedmahn Kassad Inactive Member |
quote: I guess that in addition to being a jealous and angry God, we are very fortunate he is not also a forgetful God. Can you imagine if he had not remembered Noah? I can just see him wistfully passing the time for a few hundred years, and suddenly going Doh! Forgot about Noah and crew. That might have been an embarrassing moment indeed. FK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7694 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
dear Dr PAge,
You write:Indeed. It appears that El Retardo is applying some sort of molecular clock, which I believe he earlier had some big problems with. It is amazing how these imbeciles can so handily and almost boastfully apply and utilize such obvious double standards and simplistic 'science' when it suits their needs. I also find it funny that ElRetardo is actually trying to play the 'authority' game with me... Reading through Williams' and Borgers' posts, I am more convinced than ever that creationists suffer from a common mental defect. And I am not just writing that to be clever, I truly believe this. No rational, sane person could write such contradictory, simple-minded gibberish and actually think that they have 'scored' some sort of victory. It boggles the mind. I say:THERE IS NO BETTER PROOF AGAINST EVOLUTIONISM THAN DR PAGE's LETTERS. PLEASE KEEP POSTING THEM. You evolutionists are in bad company. Dr Page IS the best reason I've ever encountered to become/stay anti-evolutionism. Best wishes,Peter [This message has been edited by peter borger, 11-26-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6504 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: ++++++++++++++++++++ If Page is your "proof" against evolution and your "reason" for your unwillingness to inform youself about it then your scholarship is truly poorer than I could ever have imagined. What next? You will change your field of disciplines and not "believe" in gene expression because you don't like Rudolph Jaenisch? Great criteria.... [This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-27-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7694 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear Mammuthus,
You say: "If Page is your "proof" against evolution and your "reason" for your unwillingness to inform youself about it then your scholarship is truly poorer than I could ever have imagined. What next? You will change your field of disciplines and not "believe" in gene expression because you don't like Rudolph Jaenisch? Great criteria...." You also say (#309 thread: mol gen evidence for a MPG): "I was making fun of you...but I see you are incapable of understanding even that...and I thought the Germans were tight asses..guess the Dutch trump them." I say: What about you, Mammuthus? How tight is it? Dr Page is also proof for the MPG. He obviously lost the how-to-be-polite genes. Best wishes,Peter [This message has been edited by peter borger, 11-27-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6504 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
deleted by M due to duplication
[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 11-28-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6504 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
What about you, Mammuthus? How tight is it?
M: You hitting on me there big boy? Actually very loose..drank some spoiled milk and well..you know what happens next PB:Dr Page is also proof for the MPG. He obviously lost the how-to-be-polite genes. M: But he has extra copies of the actually-support-his-claims-genes Creationists seem to be homozygous deletion mutants.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: LOL..... ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mammuthus:
[B] quote: ++++++++++++++++++++
[/quote] And yet the entire quoted message remains.. How odd...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Indeed. Apparently, I also lost the "make up numbers when they don't exist to prop up your favorite fantasy" genes. Must be linkage disequilibrium.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
quote: The deletions of the quotations have nothing to do with content. What I am trying to do is cut down on redundant text. What I have done to the quotations, was done because the quotation meerly repeated the content of the entire previous message. My actions are intended to condense down page lengths and cut down on server storage demands. Perhaps I should have explained my actions in greater detail, but I really don't want to be eliminating text, only to replace it with a bunch of text of my own creation. Admittedly, my efforts have been pretty minor and insignificant, and the places I choose to do them are most highly hit and miss. It is my personal feelings, that the quote content of the various strings has gotten badly out of control, since Admin set the "Quote Reply" function to include nested quotes. How often do you see a message; Then the next message is the previous message quoted, with something added; repeat process for more messages. Soon you have a big chunk of nested quotations taking up much of the page space. I have previously made some other comments on quotation problems at:http://EvC Forum: New Features -->EvC Forum: New Features . I would certainly like to see some feedback from others, on this quotation quagmire, at the above cited topic. Adminnemooseus ------------------{mnmoose@lakenet.com} [This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-28-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7694 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What about you, Mammuthus? How tight is it? M: You hitting on me there big boy? Actually very loose..drank some spoiled milk and well..you know what happens next PB:Dr Page is also proof for the MPG. He obviously lost the how-to-be-polite genes. M: But he has extra copies of the actually-support-his-claims-genesCreationists seem to be homozygous deletion mutants. PB: And all in accord with the MPG hypothesis (see letter #1) CheersPeter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6504 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024