|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Oh Good - Bart is back | |||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1902 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1902 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
In the now closed thread, Bart writes:
"Evolutionist and Professor G.A. Kerkut stated in his book 'Implications of Evolution', concerning the horse series:" Now, is this the book that Kerkut wrote in 1960? You may want to read this: http://www.soton.ac.uk/~gk/scifi/evolves.htm "1. When I wrote "The Implications of Evolution" in 1960, I firmly believed in Evolution but thought that the missing pieces were being glossed over and that students should see the points that required further research. (see my www entry Implications of evolution under "Evolutionary chat by Gerald"). Advances have been made over the intervening 40 years and we now know a lot more. " Emphasis mine. The reader should wonder why the creationist feels the need to quote such out of date sources? I know, of course, but does the reader? Of course, there is this from Kerkut's web site: http://www.soton.ac.uk/~gk/scifi/evol.htm "The best evidence for Evolution comes from the way that new species are still evolving after geographical isolation. The next best evidence is the 99% similarity of the DNA genome in, for example, Man and Chimpanzees. " Huh... Imagine that. I wonder when creationists will begin quoting that? [This message has been edited by SLPx, 01-31-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1902 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Indeed. Instead, we have denials of counter-evidence, refusals to accept refutations, etc. All part and parcel of the creationist bag-o-tricks. It is interesting, however, that the creationist so often sees the pointing out flawed 'debate' techniques, such as using 40 year old opinions of an individual that has altered them since, as a "personal attack."
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1902 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Ignoring for now the fact that creationist Borger is posting inflammatory and irrelevant nonsense as well as setting up Strawmen, I have a simple reply. Apparently, Borger did not bother to find out what Tob and Cap are. Tob is Trachypithecus obscurus. T. obscurus is an Old World primate. That is, it lives in africa (and asia). Cap is Cebus apella. C. apella is a New World primate, that is, it lives in South America. Biogeographical, fossil, and molecular data indicate that New and Old world primates diverged some 40 million years ago. Is a split of 40 million years sufficient to explain the "sudden transition" to you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1902 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Your precognitive skills are impressive....
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1902 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Chirp chirp...
Must be that genetic redundancy and the creatons....
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1902 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: How could I 'review' what does not exist? http://EvC Forum: Oh Good - Bart is back -->EvC Forum: Oh Good - Bart is back What I can review is your naivete and ignorance based overconfidence. I give that an A+. [This message has been edited by SLPx, 02-14-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1902 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
And this has what to do with your supposed 'papers' that question my methods?
And where are the papers dealing with creations? I will look at the paper, however, considering your performance on such things as the citations disproving NRMs and Dr.Caporale's book, I have little reason to believe that this paper in any way supports any of your many disjointed claims.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1902 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
You will have to be more specific. I just searched Pubmed for Gu 2003 and got nothing in Nature.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1902 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
From the abstract, emphases mine:
quote: Comments: Borger implies that this demonstrates the "redundancy" implicit in his made-up gibberish. But is it?Not really. First of all, if the MPG already had all the "information" it needed, why would there be singletons at all (singletons being single-copy genes)? Does it not stand to reason that redundancy is worthwhile only if all the systems were redundant? Why only some?The abstract also mentions that in yeast, about 1/4 of deleted genes wiht no phenotypic effects are compensated for by duplicate genes. What about the rest? And does this apply to multicellular eukaryotes as well? Also of note - the compensatory gene will have a high sequene similarity to the deleted gene. That is, it will express a similar (and probably identical in function) protein. No big surprise there. All in all, it looks as though this is another wild extrapolation. I will coin a new term - the word "borger". 1. To "borger" something means to ascribe a meaning not indicated by the data.(Although planetary weather data indicate that the predictions of "global warming" are coming to pass, anti-global warming advocates simply borger the data and claim that it shows that global warming is not occurring.) 2. To "pull a borger" means to conclude something not implied by the data, or to come to contrary conclusions in spite of the evidence. (The consensus of the panel was that nicotine is addictive, but the scientists employed by Big Tobacco pulled a borger and claimed that it is not.) 3. To "borger it", as in "borgered the data", means that data are wildly extrapolated or twisted to fit one's preconceived notions. Similar to 1. above, but more forceful. (The data clearly indicated the suspect's guilt, but his lawyer borgered it to make it appear that the data actually indicated that the victim had committed the crime.) This is fun and easy. ====================================================================="There are only two groups of people that I can't stand: Those who hate groups of people based solely on their heritage or culture, and the Dutch." -Nigel Powers
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1902 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
I take it that Borger has an aversion to comedies.
Nigel Powers is a fictional character, father of Austin Powers. It was meant in jest. Pity that Borger is so humorless. Of course, this matches his inability to produce logical conclusions premised on science. Then, one should wonder why Borger deigned not to reply to anything I had written pertaining to his latest "MPG-friendly" article... [This message has been edited by SLPx, 02-18-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1902 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
I am still waiting for Borger to borger the paper indicating that in fact the alpha actinin genes show good evidence of arising via duplication and subsequent mutation, or any of the substantive issues I brought up above.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1902 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Borger did not ask for such information. It is simply the creationists deceptive way of trying to wiggle out of a tight spot. Of course, Borger previously claimed to have read my and Goodman's 'stuff". If this were so, he would know what the "phylo-tree" is and what the codes stand for. I have to conclude that Borger lied about having read any of my stuff. That or he simply did not understand it. In addition, I have previously provided a link to another alignment which contained the codes used. Looks like Borger has been getting advice from Sarfati and crew.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1902 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote:BWAAAHHAAAAAHHHAAAAA!!!! Thats rich! Thats a keeper!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1902 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
This just keeps getting better - Borger says that he will explain things when he gets the data, but he ALREADY HAS IT!
THAT is where he made his laughable Tob/Cap gaffe - it was IN THE DATA! This is just a comedy, now, and Borger is the fall guy. Incredible.... I guess I HAVE to conclude that Borger lied when he said that he had 'read my stuff.' He is also continuing to lie when he refers to the data I linked to - data that he claimes not to have yet takes information from it and declares it supportive of his fantasy - as my "ultimate proof" of common descent. His repetition of this knowingly false claim puts Borger in the esteemed company of Wally "Kuckoo" ReMine, Freddy "1 chance in 32 means that the 32nd one is the winner" Williams, Henry "polyploidy means gene duplication" Morris, etc. Good creationism, Petey old boy!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024