Yip, yip, yip!
Posted on 08/23/2005 10:39:22 AM PDT by woodb01
Which article are you refering to? The one titled "Golden calf on fire?" or something to that effect?
You'll note my only comment on it concerned the properites of gold.
I have little patience to read gibberish and did not read it.
I didn't just rehash it, I added my own perspectives to it and helped explain it to an audience which has even less science background than Theobald's target audience. This seems to annoy you for some reason, though, you've harped on it several times now.
What's the matter, jealous that I write a lot of lengthy technical treatments of material, and your posts are just short snippy missives? If you're as smart as you obviously like to think you are, feel free to compose an actual argument with analysis and citations and evidence sometime, for once, instead of your constant implications and innuendo which never manage to actually present any specific material which can be checked or examined.
You have not addressed an error in part 4 of Theobald's work where he states
I haven't "addressed an error in part 4" because there isn't one.
(which you aped in what you said "are my own writings")
They are my own writings. I find your obsession with the fact that I have composed my own coverage of the subject, and your repeated implications that they're somehow less than my own words, to be odd, at the very least. There are medications for that sort of thing.
wherein it is stated: this process [retroviral integration] is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry.
Retroviral integration is not random, nor fairly random.
If you want to try to claim or imply anything as stupid as the proposition that retroviral integration is non-stochastic, you are welcome to present your evidence which contradicts the actual research in this field.
More likely, however, you just want to play rhetorical word games over layman's terms such as "fairly random", in a way that dishonestly implies that retroviral insertion is somehow likely to occur at the identical locus in separate infection events, when that is very much *NOT* the case.
Do you think the conclusion that "finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry" is weakened given non-random retroviral integration?
No, I don't, because I know the behavior of the process under discussion, and your vague implications to the contrary don't change that. If you actually had findings which truly *did* undermine the shared endogenous retrovirus evidence, you would have presented it (*AND* been guaranteed prominent journal and a great deal of professional recognition).
Lacking that -- since you add nothing but innuendo and no citations or evidence of any kind which actually contradicts the material -- it's instead clear that you're just dishonestly bluffing. I don't know why you keep trying to pull this kind of BS, you *always* get caught at it.
Or does the random nature or non-randomness of the integration not effect the conclusion.
Not in the specific manner in which retroviral integration is less than 100% uniformly random, no.
A seven-count may be a much more likely outcome of a pair of rolled dice than a two-count, but that *still* doesn't mean that if you find someone rolling twenty sevens in a row, the dice aren't rigged in some way.
Yes, retroviral integration points are less than "totally" random (as Theobald openly states), but they are not so "non-random" as to make it likely that identical insertion points of matching retroviral fragments have occurred by independent events, *especially* when *most* shared ERVs match across lineages. *One* such match among hundreds of non-matching ERVs would reasonably indicate that it might just be a lucky fluke, but when the actual state is that *most* shared ERVs match and only a few exceptions show signs of being independent events (which *don't* match in location and sequence), then it's ludicrous to try to use innuendo such as yours to falsely imply that a) insertion locii are deterministic enough to make accidental matches likely and b) there isn't a lot of *additional* evidence confirming the paradigm of "matching shared ERVs marks common ancestry."
If you've got a case to make to the contrary, just MAKE it and show us the evidence, but drop the dishonest empty innuendo and the disingenuous talk about "errors" that aren't there.
Try again when you can be intellectually honest.
Quite your whining and go call somebody an "RA #125"....
;-O
"What you gonna play that on? Your pitiful, portable, picnic player? Come with Uncle Alex, and hear Screaming Angels and Devil trombones; you are invited!"
[Que up-tempo synthesized version of the "William Tell Overature" HERE]
Your picture shows the wrong end of the animal.
But his obsession with my essays is really pathological, isn't it? He seems embittered by the fact that I have read numerous sources over the years, researched the subject in depth, and then (gasp!) dared to write my own layman's introduction to the material and specifically crafted it to the current audience and included my observations on how it relates to the arguments on these threads.
He keeps trying to dismiss that as "reshash", as if it's just one step removed from direct plagiarism. It's hard to tell if he's actually so stupid as to believe that, or if he knows better and is just purposely being an a-hole because he can't actually rebut the material.
Either way, it's pathetic. But even so, it's typical AECreationist behavior. I suppose I can't blame them too much, though -- if *my* presumptions were being overwhelmed by mountains of evidence and I was unable to make a case against it, I'd probably be bitter and petulant too.
Well said. :-)
I can't tell you the mix of disappointment and amusement when I scrolled down and saw that FN1 discusses what a corollary is.
"if *my* presumptions were being overwhelmed by mountains of evidence and I was unable to make a case against it, I'd probably be bitter and petulant too."
No, you would probably just change your presumptions, something about the scientific method....
Well I didn't want to get banned. ;^)
So then, to summarize the pretty pictures and the silliness.
The Retrovirus is god! After all, it is the great "maker" of the DNA strand!!!
Okay, I think it get it now! Retrovirus "magically" gets DNA from the supernatural nether region, then breaks pieces off that create new species...
Got it!!!
"So then, to summarize the pretty pictures and the silliness.
The Retrovirus is god! After all, it is the great "maker" of the DNA strand!!!
Okay, I think it get it now! Retrovirus "magically" gets DNA from the supernatural nether region, then breaks pieces off that create new species...
Got it!!! "
That must be the single lamest response I've ever seen to serious scientific argument. Congratulations!
These religious texts look pretty nice. I noticed in carefully reading them that with all of these cute diagrams and pictures there are MOUNTAINS of ASSumptions. You know, unproven (and mostly unprovable) GUESSES!
Evolution's secular fundamentalist bible's looking like it's getting pretty well developed.
The Holy Text of evolution is definitely getting posting nicely here. Interspersed with so many "magical" used car salesman "JUST TRUST ME" ASSumptions that it's amazing!
Keep up the great work~!!!
I don't know, the world looks more than a little disorderly from where I sit. For that matter so does this website, FR. And this thread.
Probably no coincidence that the author titles his essay in biblical terms.
These religious texts look pretty nice. I noticed in carefully reading them that with all of these cute diagrams and pictures there are MOUNTAINS of ASSumptions. You know, unproven (and mostly unprovable) GUESSES!
Are you old enough to drive?
I've learned to cringe when I hear "OK, I think I get it now" from some people.
No, I don't,
Interesting. Why then was the random nature of the insertion included in the argument if it makes no difference if it is random or non-random? And, given that a statistical analysis was presented with an assertions of odds based upon the assumption of random integration, I think one must conclude that you do not understand basic math or statistics either.
And since you are backing down on the erroneous assertion that retroviral integration is random, that issue becomes moot. I have provided you with the at least one evidence for the targetted viral integration and will refer you to recent articles if you would like though, as a favor to a friend.
The Gospel Of Evolution
| You wanna see sin of the wickedest kind? Here it is! You wanna see virtue left behind? Here it is! Sodom was vice And visa-versa You wanna see where the vice is worser? Here it is! I mean, here it is! You wanna live life in the rottenest way? Here it is! Women and whiskey, night and day? Here it is! You wanna embrace the golden calf? Ankle, and thigh, and upper half? Here it is! I mean, here it is! [Refrain] Ev-o-lution Ev-o-lution The Lord don't like it much Ev-o-lution Ev-o-lution The Atheists' favorite crutch Ev-o-lution Ev-o-lution Here's what he's gonna do God'll send out fixers With text-book stickers And there's nothing you can do Will you go to heaven? Will you go to hell? Either repent, or fare thee well God will take care of Ev-o-lution Comes the end, worse than pollution Here it is! I mean, here it is! Here it is! I mean, here it is! Here it is! I mean, here it is! Amen! |
Rest asured I never dounbted or meant to imply those were anything other than your word. That was obvious.
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.