Posted on 09/13/2006 3:52:47 PM PDT by DannyTN
Odd, then why is he nailing your hide to the wall and exposing a great many of your screwups and misrepresentations? He looks to be doing quite well form my seat in the audience.
If you expect any more grant money you will definitely need an attorney or a word-smith and I'm going to make sure you are on the $h|+ list, OK.
Ooh, a threat of vindictive retaliation *and* an example of your weird fixation on "grant money" -- I've lost count of the number of times I've seen you leap to wild conclusions about how nearly everyone who disagrees with you must be applying for some sort of research grant. It's really bizarre, and bespeaks a strange mental obsession on your part.
No, not this time. I try to, but don't always succeed due to time pressures.
You and I have probably not gone over this material before ~ this time I didn't attack the evolutionists for being nice little true believers who posit the existence of a supernatural being called Natural Selection.
I don't believe we have. Neither your screen name nor you posts set off alarm bells. I did note that in the post and pages I did read that this was a remarkably civil Crevo thread.
Well, my apologies for offending you, but the fact is, what you stated is an untruth. The proper definition of an untruth, is a lie.
The way you stated it, made it an outright lie, because you stated it as fact, when you most likely know, because if you had taken a cursory glance at the subject, it would have been obvious that what you stated was not at all factual.
It is impossible not to know the actual truth, if you had just done a small objective, cursory examination of the subject.
Are you saying that you are unable to be objective?
If you are unable to be objective, then OK, it is not a lie, it is your personal fantasy, and you have my apologies, but a personal fantasy on your part, does not make it a fact on sciences part. Sorry.
Here is a direct link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1437264/posts?page=52#52
So why don't you get off your high horse and pay attention to what folks are actually saying some times.
You know very well that until recently (a mere handful of years) the idea of common descent didn't include viruses. You also know that "evolution" didn't mean merely "change" in the genome.
Even non-technical types can understand that detailed research of our genome raised questions without easy answers, and the language used in the good old days (1980s, tops) is no longer adequate to the task of assisting everyone to understand what's going on.
This board and the discussions of the Creo/Evo crowd has been going on long enough that we all remember when the most learned of our body were denouncing the idea that the centriole in each cell had anything at all to do with anything more advanced than holding chromosomes in place!
Certainly you remember those days like they were yesterday. I recall them ~ you were laughing at Dr. Penrose and his associates for having proposed the centriole as some sort of device that communicated something meaningful to chromosomes.
Then, what was it, just 2 months ago (July 25) we had a thread about the discovery of a higher level code involved in directing which genes are used for various purposes ~ this was the article in Nature by Eran Segal of the Weizmann Institute in Israel and Jonathan Widom of Northwestern University in Illinois and their colleagues.
It's pretty obvious to the non-technicians that knowledge on this matter is evolving, and the truths you knew yesterday, are just so much irrelevant mishmash on the cutting floor today.
It's barely a year since it was found that DNA will carry an electric current ~
We could go on and on with these advances in knowledge that put the sword to certainty behind all that has gone before. Even DNA Methylation, an easy enough concept for any computer programer to understand, and with no more than highschool chemistry and an ability to spell, he or she could probably add to the understanding of how that affects cellular information flow, has as it's earliest reference on the net 10 pages in a reference book published in 1987. (See: Freiefelder, D., (1987). Molecular Biology. Jones and Bartlett: Boston, pgs 550-559). Today it is recognized as a process that may account for more differences in the expression of the genome than any other factor ~
Anyway, Ichy, people can read. People can study. And with the internet, your job as high priest of biology has been downgraded to biological engineer.
So, be nice ~ there are a few more rungs to slide down.
It's all simple enough even a layman can understand.
Actually, that's who it's designed for, and by folks who know what they're talking about.
With all due respect to our northern neighbor, the wealthiest spot on earth at the moment may be Keathley Canyon offshore area, 250 miles southwest of New Orleans.
Another sand-into-oiler, I see >:^)
Almost too quiet this time.
Why would Darwin have been aghast?
It was another notch in the theory of evolutions belt, the evidence left behind by the virus changing the genetic markers in our genome has helped us timedate the transitions.
Far from being hurtful to the theory of evolution, it was an incredible piece of evidence that has helped confirm the theory.
The biggest problem with the word "lie" is that it carries with it a meaning far beyond "misstatement" ~ to "intent to deceive".
Since I have no intention to "deceive" you or anyone else, it's simply not possible for me to utter a "lie". In any case, in a discussion/debate situation, the illumination of the primary questions may require assertions that can be, in fact, wide of the mark. Those are not "lies", and to call them that means that you are not willing to debate or argue ~ that you will be a decent person on the thread if and only if we all bow down to your Stalinesque principles of decorum.
Obviously we'd rather toss you from an airplane in flight than to do that ~ capice?
My advice to you is to simply avoid the word "lie" or "misrepresentation" and satisfy yourself with the myriad of polite terms we've come up with so we don't needlessly anger others.
What a miserable post.
What I find amazing is that with modern communications technology we have experts from every field virtually at our fingertips. In previous generations, such contact would require lengthy written correspondence or expensive tuition. For the layman in previous generations, access was limited by economic and social factors.
Today, though, the story is very different. On this very website we have highly trained experts in nearly every field imaginable. Not only are they here reading our questions, but they are willing and able to answer questions, correct people's misconceptions. Truly, the information age is upon us when anyone may ask a rocket scientist or a geneticist a question and have it answered in near real time.
What do you do with this marvelous technology?
Call people drunks.
Almost.
;^)
You'd have spent a bit of time explaining viruses to Darwin. He didn't know any of this stuff.
OK, we've gotten past step 1.
How refined are these steps to be? It took several million years for that transition to take place which of course means millions of potential steps.
How much of an impact on the fossil record are you willing to accept for the difficulty in producing fossils? How often do you believe a fossil forms? How likely do you feel it is that we find a specific fossil?
BTW, there are technical experts in the use of language, and no one was called a drunk. You're reading that into a very clear statement that wasn't pointed at anybody.
LOL, but of course!
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.