Posted on 02/12/2006 10:32:27 AM PST by PatrickHenry
I didn't know the acronymn.
I don't pretend to know something if I don't.
Your assumption that everyone should know about this is biased and wrong.
Back in high school, one guy in my circle of friends was always "joking", but his idea of humor always involved ridiculing, insulting, or belittling someone else. He kept accusing us of having "no sense of humor". He considered himself a great wit, but everyone else considered him a major asshole.
It's a big deal to you because it was promoted as some sort of big finding relating to evolution by the subculture of religious evolutionites.
In my observation, "common sense" is more often than not at best cultural tradition (or "received wisdom") rather than anything approaching independently acheived products of uncomplicated rationality or thought. Often enough, "common sense" is actually rather stupid.
so, as should have been clear before you asked: yes, there are concepts and notions which can be and are referred to as "common sense" - and these concepts and notions, when extended beyond the most mundane situations (good common sense: Don't stick your hand in a fire - odds are you'll get burned), are often quite erroneous (example of incorrect but REAL common sense: The sun moves around the Earth, based on observing that it rises and sets - an understandable error stemming from perspective and ignorance) when they are not outright cultural-bias nonsense (see previous examples).
Who have I insulted today who did not begin with an insult on me?
losing?
battle?
odd.
the contents of your #308 is clear evidence of your lack of knowledge of and interest in the subject matter.
how refreshingly honest of you
Five minutes ago you didn't know what it was. Now you're pretending to have enough knowledge of it to claim it's old hat and passé. You can see, surely, why your credibility is, ahem, somewhat risible.
*That's* gonna leave a mark...
Also, lest we lose track of "tallhappy's greatest screwups" whenever he beats his chest about how he understands these topics far better than us mere mortals, let's not forget this great blast from the past where I caught him making *two* utterly bone-headed, totally elementary mistakes in the same sentence:
[Me, responding to tallhappy:]I stand by my point-by-point examination of your anal nitpicking and its followup.
It was shortly after that when you went off the rails and tried to falsely and ludicrously claim that there were "only nine integrations" in a nine-patient gene-therapy study when in fact, there were TENS OF MILLIONS of treated cells (thus a similar magnitude of integrations) PER PATIENT, as anyone actually familiar with gene-therapy would know, and you also ludicrously claimed that the troublesome LMO2 integrants were at "the same site", when in fact they were on OPPOSITE SIDES of Exon1 of the gene, oriented in OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS, nearly FIVE THOUSAND BASEPAIRS apart.
In light of size of this amazing flub, it's *really* funny that you loftily proclaim, "I am completley correct in relaying the most detailed understanding [...] retroviral transduction and insertion". If so, why did you f*** it up so badly on such elementary points?
You're either incompetent or a liar, I don't care which. But neither option inspires confidence, and neither justifies your pathetic bluster:
If I wanted to deny their implications, I'd say that. That is, if I weren't a scientist.
Especially for an unnecessary enzyme.
Join the genomic era. Stop living in the previous centuries.
See 453.
Just cause you read something written on TO a long time ago doesn't make it Gospel. To you it does, but you just don't understand biochemistry, virology or chromosomal structure nor are up to date on the literature and thinking.
No insult, just a nice comment.
this thread is one for the ages.
entertaining from pre-dawn to post-dusk.
"No one has proved that everything came naturally from nothing."
Evolution doesn't say it did.
"I have a record of straight A's in Science from grade school through college."
I'm sure this is supposed to mean something.
yanno, if there was no such thing as wikipedia and google, it'd be entertaining to test your claims of scientific acumen with a few pointed questions.
Wow, what a *lame* retort... My identification of your two incredibly bone-headed errors regarding the gene-therapy trial had nothing whatsoever to do with any material from Talk.Origins. It simply identifies two amazingly naive/ignorant errors you made, and documents that they are contradicted by a) the most basic and elementary knowledge of how gene therapy is done, and b) the contents of the journal articles themselves which deal with the gene-therapy trial you were making the bizarre claims about.
If this is the best "defense" you can muster, I don't know why you even try, unless you *want* to make yourself appear a pathetic and clumsily blustering buffoon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.