[Right Wing Professor]

This is a perfect example -- "LGLO" is rather dinosaur as far as understanding of comparative genomics. But because a number of years ago some prosyletite wrote up some tract with it as an example, that's about all anyone here knows about.

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.

However, we can look at the molecualr phylogeny of the sequence in detail, if you like.

[tallhappy]

I am familar with that.

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.

[tallhappy]

Shared pseudogenes is not a big deal. Especially for an unnecessary enzyme.

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.

[Ichneumon]

[This is a perfect example -- "LGLO" is rather dinosaur as far as understanding of comparative genomics. But because a number of years ago some prosyletite wrote up some tract with it as an example, that's about all anyone here knows about.]

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: