“various species were similar” at one point and
“amphibian hypothalamic LH-RH
is identical with the mammalian decapeptide” at another, obviously NOT the same.
Darwinism man speak with forked tongue!
[[A misreading of the results of those “OUTDATED’” tests helps with the spin too.]]
Yep- the hwoel argument was based aroudn somethign pitman never even stated- the argument claimed pitman claimed hte reference stated that two species were ‘identical’ however, this was nothign more than spin and insinuation=- pitman referred to the article to show that the species were different, and no mention of the article stating the claim of identical.
So the argument was based on MISREPRESENTING what pitman was even statign to begin with, then it just became more andm ore of a spin to try to back that first accusation against pitman up- Will we see a retraction of the accusaiton of inneptitude on pitman’s part ro mthose that made the argument? Of course not- they’ll simply keep spinning on the silly argument that pitman ‘misrepresented’ an article when he infact made no such statement that was beign accredited to him- forked toungue is right- my goodness- the article pitman referenced was showing exactly what he was claiming- here’s what he actuially said, and hte article he poitned to backs this up “However, birds, reptiles, and certain fish have a different type of LHRH.” The article infact DOES refute the claims made by common design advocates because it htrows the whole phologentic tree into chaos- pitman never ocne stated that hte article he referenced claiemd identical systems- but by golly, those attackign pitman’s character are certainly goign to do everythign in their power- even misrepresenting him, to try to discredit him
Again- think we’ll see a retraction? I’m not holding my breath
We have shown that immunoreactive amphibian hypothalamic LH-RH is identical with the mammalian decapeptide in chromatographic properties and in its interaction with region-specific LH-RH antisera, while immunoreactive LH-RHs from avian, reptilian, and piscine hypothalami are structurally different (King and Millar, 1979, 1980, 1981). These structural differences of LH-RH-like peptides in submammalian vertebrates have not been determined
Here’s what Stiltis claimed to begi nthe whoel ‘argument’ off with:
“First off (and there doubtless many problems with this which I, as a laymen, am not catching, but I caught enough that it reeks...) the article Pitman cites does NOT say, “mammalian and amphibian “luteinizing hormone – releasing hormone” (LHRH) is identical.” It said (underline added): “
Nope- the article certainly doesn’t state that AND pitman NEVER stated that the article did-
It woudl appear that those who are accusign you of reading comprehension problems are the ones with the problem (unless they are just tryign to be itnentionally deceitful?)
Stultis hten goes o nto state:
“An immunoreaction assay, using only four elements against an unsequenced hormone, can’t possibly prove it’s “identical” with anything.”
And hwo is makign that claim that it can? Certainly NOT pitman- but don’t let stop him- Stultis is now claiming Pitman MUST have been insinuating that that test could- after reading what Pitman was stating however, it is CLEAR that he was not infact statign that and was stating that the tests infact throw the commonly held hypothesis into chaos
I guess when soem wish to ‘refute’ someone, it’s alright to insinuate they are sayign somethign they are NOT when defending macroevolution? And he says ‘pitman was beign deceitful’? Cripes!
I guess hte only way for htem to defend macroevolution is to simply make crap up about issues- NOWHERE was ptiman makign hte claim that hte article was pointing out two species systems’ processes as beign identical- the hwoel ‘argument’ was based on MISREPRESENTING what pitman was statign and why he was statign it!