Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

School Board Panel: Ohio Students Should Be Taught Evolution, Controversies That Surround It
Associated Press / ABC ^

Posted on 10/14/2002 4:59:49 PM PDT by RCW2001

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460461 next last
To: gore3000
(On the energetic differences between DNA nearest neighbors, which the original post in this subthread said did not exist, but which my last post showed to be substantial)

The order of DNA base pairs does not show any such predilections.

Does he have a cite for this? Is the Pope Cuban?

But note that Gore3000 is once again changing his story. The original post said there are no nearest neightbor interactions. I showed that to be wrong. Now Gore3000 is arguing the nearest neighbor interactions don't affect the sequence, which is quite different from the original argument that it's important that they not exist so that each base pair of the sequence is independent of its neighbors. His argument changes from post to post, as each succeeding claim is shown to be false.

(The rest of Gore3000's ad hominems ignored. I guess I'll never know if he finished high school)

441 posted on 10/22/2002 8:31:30 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
��5{�������� why Gore3000 thinks pulling hundred year old quotes out of wherever he stores them proves anything, but the statement he apparently takes exception to:

Parasites as a general class tend to lose the organs they don't need, and so in a sense become less complex.

...can be verified by looking at a tapeworm, a spirochete, or virtually any other parasitic organism. I have no idea why peculiar mental processes lead him to say this statement

"Shows quite well that you are either completely ignorant of what evolution is about or just plain trying to get away with a lie by insulting the messenger." <p. ...but I'm rapidly tiring of his factually unanchored, choleric, humorless, fanaticism-tinged rainbow-hued dyspeptic maunderings.

442 posted on 10/22/2002 8:40:30 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 357 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
How can evolution explain euglena - an organism which is both a plant and an animal and has an eye?

This must be a different Euglena from the one I looked at through a microscope as a student.

How can evolution explain the bat's sonar which is better than what our navy has?

It can detect submarines at 100 miles? Now why would a bat want to do that?

How can evolution explain the butterfly - an organism which is essentially born twice?

By my count, it ain't even born once.

How can evolution explain the fugu fish whose genes are so close to man that examining its genome showed us 1,000 genes in humans which the genome project had been unable to find?

I'm just dying to see what piece of legitimate piece of scientific work was twisted by a combination of creationist ignorance and tendentiousness to generate this claim.

443 posted on 10/22/2002 8:50:22 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 394 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
that link points to a slime

Not astonishingly, your lies persist. That link to my post 424 is an answer to the challenge you issued in 416: "Let's see you show an 'out of context quote' from me."

I have done so. And you continue to lie with a megalomaniacal sense of self-importance. Climb down from your cross; no Christian are you.

444 posted on 10/22/2002 8:54:40 PM PDT by Condorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 440 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
Does not seem like it since all you post is insults but never refute any scientific statements made on these threads.

That's a laugh. Gore3000 has done nothing but insult me since I started questioning the nonsense he posts on FR. I mean, not that I care; his statement that atheists can't be physicians pretty much turned him into a laughingstock in my eyes. But it's amusing that he whines about the insults of others. He dishes it out, but he can't take it.

445 posted on 10/22/2002 8:56:49 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
that link points to a slime.

Let me clarify, so that every one is absolutely aware of the situation. That link to post 424 points to a list of your own words, in context, with links to the originals.

In that sense, I will agree with you: it is slime. Your own. And that you can't face it speaks volumes.

446 posted on 10/22/2002 9:06:44 PM PDT by Condorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 440 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
I'm just dying to see what piece of legitimate piece of scientific work was twisted by a combination of creationist ignorance and tendentiousness to generate this claim.

It's here. The careful reader, a classification which eliminates certain blue people, will notice that the fugu genome people predict the existence of 1000 currently unrecognized human genes from their study of the fugu. Which, needless to say, is not the same as showing the existence of 1000 previously unrecognized human genes. I seem to recall that some patient explaining on the difference between the two has already been undertaken, but it seems to have passed without impact.

It can detect submarines at 100 miles?

I am somewhat reliably assured that you are significantly underestimating the capabilities of the Navy. ;)

447 posted on 10/22/2002 9:14:11 PM PDT by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 443 | View Replies]

To: general_re
The link you posted refers to this post:

To: gore3000
AND YOU WERE SHOWN AGAIN THAT YOU WERE WRONG
I was not wrong. You have quoted others out of context dishonestly.

What the liar Junior calls a "dishonest quote" is the summary and conclusion of the Origing of the Species posted in Post# 357

Shows the utter dishonesty of both you and Junior.

I also note that the you, being a liar, do not quote from the article on the fugu fish for your attack, because then you could not slime me. The article says:

And by comparing the sequence of genes in the fugu with those of what's known about the 30,000 or so human genes, the scientists say they have discovered nearly 1,000 in the fish that are apparently identical to previously unidentified ones in humans.
From: Humans are Three Percent Puffer Fish .

448 posted on 10/23/2002 5:59:44 AM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 447 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
Humans are 98 percent chimpanzee. This makes chimps 32-2/3 more closely related to humans than fugu fish.
449 posted on 10/23/2002 9:04:05 AM PDT by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 448 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Fugu fish placemarker.
450 posted on 10/23/2002 9:41:25 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 449 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
It answers nothing except that you cannot engage in honest discussion.

I must have missed that particular post of yours, so where have you ever been engaged in "honest" discussion?

451 posted on 10/23/2002 11:20:17 AM PDT by balrog666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 440 | View Replies]

To: gore3000; Right Wing Professor
I also note that the you, being a liar, do not quote from the article on the fugu fish for your attack, because then you could not slime me. The article says:

And by comparing the sequence of genes in the fugu with those of what's known about the 30,000 or so human genes, the scientists say they have discovered nearly 1,000 in the fish that are apparently identical to previously unidentified ones in humans.

Hmmm. Should I believe the people who are actually doing the analysis of the fugu genome when they say they "predict" the existence of 1000 new human genes, or should I believe the San Francisco Chronicle when it says they've "discovered" 1000 new human genes?

Let's all think really hard about this one....

452 posted on 10/23/2002 7:26:17 PM PDT by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 448 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Hmmm. Should I believe the people who are actually doing the analysis of the fugu genome when they say they "predict" the existence of 1000 new human genes, or should I believe the San Francisco Chronicle when it says they've "discovered" 1000 new human genes?

As usual you are using rhetoric to try to talk away the truth, here's another article:

By comparing the human and pufferfish genomes, the researchers said they have been able to predict the existence of about 1,000 human genes that had not been previously identified.
From: Genome of Pufferfish Yields Clues to Human Genes

Of course that will not be enough for you so let's look again at the site of the researchers:

News

July 26, 2002
San Francisco Chronicle: DNA help from a deadly fish Fugu genome offers clues to human life. The poisonous Japanese pufferfish, known as fugu to gourmets who risk their lives eating it, has yielded valuable new genetic information in the quest for deeper knowledge of the basics of human heredity and disease.

Associated Press: Genome of pufferfish yields clues to human genes. Sequencing the genes of the pufferfish is yielding clues to the more complex human genetic makeup.

Oakland Tribune: Meet the relatives -- the pufferfish. One enjoys seafood and wears a wan smile and has an inflated self-image in a crowd. The other walks around on two legs.

What do you know! The people who did the research endorse the articles I quoted! So yes, this project has led to the finding of 1,000 new genes in humans - that's how close the genes of the fugu are to humans and of course this is a very strong proof against evolution.

453 posted on 10/24/2002 5:37:33 AM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 452 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
What do you know!

I know how to read, which is rather more than you've demonstrated. Let's look at that article you quote from one more time, and I'll highlight a few bits for you:

By comparing the human and pufferfish genomes, the researchers said they have been able to predict the existence of about 1,000 human genes that had not been previously identified. The functions of these hypothetical genes are not yet known, but being able to sort them out from the junk DNA is a step to determining what they do, the researchers said.

Of course that will not be enough for you so let's look again at the site of the researchers:

You've got to be kidding me - you list three articles, two of which are from the Chronicle, and the third is from the Oakland Tribune. Which newspaper is the "site of the researchers again? Never knew that the Bay-area papers were performing genome research right there in the newsroom.

Let's look at the actual site of the researchers. I'll highlight the relevant part again:

Nearly 1,000 previously unrecognized human genes are predicted by comparing the two genomes.

So yes, this project has led to the finding of 1,000 new genes in humans

I don't know why I'm bothering with this - you've proven time and time again that you're just too damn thickheaded to understand the difference between discovering something and predicting something. Wallow in your own stupidity for a while - I'm done.

454 posted on 10/24/2002 6:07:46 AM PDT by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 453 | View Replies]

To: general_re
The pattern continues.

Every time a blue sentence starts with "So yes" or "So no" you are guarenteed that the conclusion to follow is a study in applied stupidity.
455 posted on 10/24/2002 10:31:56 AM PDT by Condorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 454 | View Replies]

To: Condorman
It's kind of like watching Johnny Cochran try to make a closing argument while on acid - he knows where he's supposed to be going, but can't manage to string together the chain of thought that will take him there. And you get this long stream of semi-lucid nonsense, finishing up with "So there! I'm right and you're wrong!"
456 posted on 10/24/2002 10:52:05 AM PDT by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 455 | View Replies]

To: All

Tired of the repeated bleatings, I posted a series that directly addressed the claims (detailed above) denying that quotes had ever been misrepresented, and that never had it been demonstrated otherwise:

True to form, the only response was this:


"A key clue -- with the Web we're all journalists. We all have a credibility account, which we protect by playing-straight and piss-away through dishonesty. What's the Web mean, and do, for this equation? It gives hope to new entrants -- the cost of entry is no longer ink by the barrel, just readers by the score. But it doesn't change the basic equation. Nor will it. Credibility remains the coin of the realm." Dana Blankenhorn, 1997

457 posted on 10/24/2002 11:16:12 AM PDT by Condorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 455 | View Replies]

To: general_re
I agree.
458 posted on 10/24/2002 11:17:35 AM PDT by Condorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 456 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
I agree, being in the IT industry and writing BASIC code for close to 20 years now, I can tell you that the program written won't even come close to writing Hamlet. Even if it takes an extra long time, it will have written coutless useless writings that do not make sense.

It is like saying an infinate amount of chimps hammering on typewriters would produce the complete work of Shakesphere.

It is a big lie that life happened randomly. There are no facts to back up that statement that I have ever seen that were valid on life being randomly created. If so, unlike that computer program, life would only get one cycle to become correct and live, not countless cycles.
459 posted on 01/10/2004 9:27:49 AM PST by Orion Blastar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Orion Blastar
At first I thought the program produced random letters, after reviewing it and the gosub loops I can see that it does not do this. It instead generates random numbers. My mistake, as I haven't used goto and gosub loops in a while. Modern BASIC has eliminated them.

The program is rigged to select random numbers, and not letters. If the right random number is selected it continues the loop to the next part. Instead of starting over when a wrong number is selected, it just selects another random number. The letters are hardcoded into print statements instead of being randomly selected. This is a cheat method. The program is rigged to complete the loop with programmer selected letters instead of randomly selected ones. This method is thus either flawed, mistaken, in error.

If done the right way, and selecting random letters. It will take a very long time to get close to the complete text of Hamlet, which I thought it did at first without completly looking over the whole program. Instead it just picks out "TOBEORNOTTOBE" if the right random number is selected, instead of using CHR$(X + 64) and then starting the loop all over if the string does not equal "TOBEORNOTTOBE" when the loop is finished.

Just trying to keep it honest.
460 posted on 01/10/2004 10:24:34 AM PST by Orion Blastar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 459 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460461 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson