"Naked Twister" marker.
Left hand on blue...
Posted on 07/11/2002 9:44:50 AM PDT by ZGuy
The prominent magazine Scientific American thought it had finally discredited its nemesis—creationism—with a feature article listing ‘15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense’ (July 2002). Supposedly these were the fifteen best arguments that evolutionists could use to discredit the Bible’s account of Creation. (National Geographic TV also devoted a lengthy report to the article.)
Within 72 hours, Dr Jonathan Sarfati—a resident scientist at Answers in Genesis–Australia—had written a comprehensive, point-by-point critique of the magazine article and posted it on this Web site.
So Scientific American thought it would try to silence AiG with the threat of a lawsuit.
In an e-mail to Dr Sarfati, Scientific American accused him and AiG of infringing their copyright by reproducing the text of their article and an illustration. They said they were prepared to ‘settle the matter amicably’ provided that AiG immediately remove Dr Sarfati’s article from its Web site.
AiG’s international copyright attorney, however, informed Scientific American that their accusations are groundless and that AiG would not be removing the article. Dr Sarfati’s article had used an illustration of a bacterial flagellum, but it was drawn by an AiG artist years ago. AiG had also used the text of SA’s article, but in a way that is permissible under ‘fair use’ of copyrighted materials for public commentary. (AiG presented the text of the SA article, with Dr Sarfati’s comments interspersed in a different color, to avoid any accusations of misquoting or misrepresenting the author.)
Why the heavy-handed tactics? If AiG’s responses were not valid, why would Scientific American even care whether they remained in the public arena? One can only presume that Scientific American (and National Geographic) had the ‘wind taken out of their sails.’ Dr Sarfati convincingly showed that they offered nothing new to the debate and they displayed a glaring ignorance of creationist arguments. Their legal maneuver appears to be an act of desperation. (AiG is still awaiting SA’s response to the decision not to pull the Web rebuttal.)
G3K: Your quote does not prove the expression of the new genes. Notice the word COULD in what you posted. It is you who is being completely dishonest.I left in the last sentence to show that there wasn't some other point Gore was trying to make. Now, we'll leave aside Gore's inability to recognize that there is uncertainty in science. We will, however, point out Gore's twisting of the writer's use of the word "could." The question the writer posed was not "Could genes evolve" but rather, "How many genes could evolve ...," an entirely different question. Here is one more sentence of what he was quote-mining:
How many different genes could evolve to replace the -galactosidase function encoded by lacZ? The article in no way shows that these genes were mutants and became expressed through evolution.
How many different genes could evolve to replace the -galactosidase function encoded by lacZ? The answers to several of those questions are now known. 1264 posted on 7/23/02 8:43 PM Eastern by RightWingNillaSo the author RightWingNilla quoted even has some answers, although as he admits -- honestly -- not all. There's no dishonesty there at all! But SOMEONE on this thread dishonestly posted only a partial quote, twisted its meaning, and then called another poster dishonest!
Gore's act of "Twist 'n' Shout" has never been more nakedly exposed.
Eeeeew! Am I sorry I used that image!
Ah, on that case, I agree.
I think you're right, we're arguing past each other, really talking about different things.
Sorry for my confusion.
If our noses grew each time we lied, quoted out of context, ducked an issue, brazened out getting trapped by our own idiocy, etc., then by now a certain blue-posting creationist would have a honker that reaches to the moon and beyond.
Which greatly distresses me. I try so hard to befriend all strata of the IQ spectrum. I must reach out even more.
Not more, higher. :-)
"Naked Twister" marker.
Left hand on blue...
Yeah, thats pretty much standard Gore3000 fare. Like I said, it is amusing that he calls himself a Christian.
This was an abstract that I posted in the original SciAM thread regarding gene amplification (G3K insisted gene duplications are non-functional despite hundreds of examples in the literature). Gore3000 took this sentence and ran with it:
"It is generally assumed, but never verified, that esterase activity, and therefore resistance, is monotonically related to gene amplification."
Of course this was the objective of the study and the authors rigorously tested mosquito populations in both the lab and in the wild. The very next sentence(s):
We have analysed resistance, esterase activity and gene amplification in different laboratory strains and natural populations in order to detect variability and to infer effects of selection on these factors. We have shown that resistance, esterase activity and amplification covary, that insecticide selection is able to increase amplification levels, and that a fitness cost is probably attached to the amplification in laboratory strains, related to the level of amplification.
Basically the authors saw an increase in esterase levels in the flies that harbored the esterase gene duplications (and this conferred a survival benefit against the pesticide).
I point this out to Gore3000 and he weakly retorts: "it isn't proof".
I guess creationists are allergic to logic.
The theory of evolution takes no position on God, save in the respect that it concludes the existence of the various species can be attributed to the processes of mutation and natural selection, and does not require special acts of creation by a divine being. Gould's and Dawkins' metaphysics are of no scientific consequence. The Pope's words simply say that theories which attribute the human spirit to purely inanimate processes are incompatible with Church teaching. That has been ever since I was a small boy who learned about evolution in a biology class in a Catholic School.
And you have the temerity to suggest that I am a liar?
I have the temerity to suggest far more than that, though I don't recall the specific incident to which you're alluding. It's been a couple of weeks, and I don't think it's worth researching. Whatever. I have forty years of experience of Catholic education and of familiarity with Catholic doctrine which contradict the suggestion that the Church has any problem with evolution. If you say otherwise, you are indeed either a fool or a liar. I mean, gosh, I can cite some more encyclical material, but do either you or fChristian have the wherewithal to understand it, or the ethics to discuss it honestly?
oops...caught!
No, I was simply pointing out the clauses which were subjects to the rest of the sentence ..."are incompatible with the truth about man". I added the period because that's how we writers of English indicate the end of a sentence. YMMV.
I'm getting tired of soi-disant Christians who seem to have forgotten the seventh commandment. And if you think I mean adultery, you ain't likely to know much about the Catholic position on evolution either.
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.
I always wanted to meet the real 