form_srcid: argystokes
form_cmd: view_author
Your IP address is 38.107.191.97
View Author detected.
view author posts:
Retrieve source record and display it.
form_author:
form_srcid: argystokes
q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'argystokes%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC
DB_err:
DB_result: Resource id #4
| Date: 2006/01/25 14:58:00, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
Well, the only animal genomes that have been sequenced are humans, rats, dogs, chickens, and fruit flies. I'm unaware of any studies (and I'm sure your internet search is as good as mine). I don't suppose there's really any impetus for the comparison. I'd guess we're about as similar to dolphins as we are to cows, as they both belong in the same clade. The higher intelligence of humans and dolphins would be an example of convergent evolution. |
| Date: 2006/01/31 18:09:07, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| Ah, it's good to see the SW is back up to their normal quality. The article last week on Reichert and the Green River Killer was atrocious. |
| Date: 2006/01/31 19:28:12, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| Ug. I retract my statement. The writer compares the Dover plaintiffs' legal team to the Steelers' offensive line, when we've got a 3-pro-bowler O-line right here in Seattle. Sheesh. |
| Date: 2006/02/07 04:46:59, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| ####, too slow already! Maybe they realized that intelligently-designed antibiotic resistance wasn't consonant with their theology, erm, science. |
| Date: 2006/02/08 09:20:26, Link 128.95.21.138 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
A hilarious "Oh Sh!t" moment from JAD: http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/782#comments Check out comments 18 and 19 in particular. I love it so! |
| Date: 2006/02/22 15:41:27, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| Wow, Sal's used the Schrodinger equation to prove the existence of God! This, of course, has nothing to do with design detection. I'm sure it's relevant somehow. |
| Date: 2006/03/09 20:09:55, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| Silly Milly, that's (-1) points for referring to yourself in the 3rd person! |
| Date: 2006/03/14 06:33:38, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
That's right folks. Under the equal protection clause, ALL aspects of EVERYTHING have to be taught. Imagine replacing "scientists" with "historians" and see where it takes you. I hope this guy sticks around, he may be near as dumb as Red Reader. Unless I get some evidence that anyone here is dumber than Red Reader, this will be your last post -ds |
| Date: 2006/03/15 11:35:19, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Shi slides on in here and declares:
... and is now preaching to scientists about humility? Holy macirony! |
| Date: 2006/03/15 14:05:08, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
It's really too bad that science doesn't have some sort of method of review by scientific peers to make sure this doesn't happen. Also, for what reason would you doubt the common ancestry of chimps and hunams? The molecular and paleontological evidence is certainly striking. What other origin for chimps would you suggest, if they are not closely related to the other great apes such as humans and gorillas? |
| Date: 2006/03/21 13:07:54, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
Jingle Bells is most certainly not a Christmas song, but rather a "sleighing song" (or perhaps, if one is so inclined, a slaying song). Nevertheless, my sister's elementary banned it for being a Christmas song. I also noticed that the post was filed under "Intelligent Design." Is part intelligent design's scientific toolbox identifying acts designed to be non-fundiChristian? It would appear so. |
| Date: 2006/03/26 17:47:43, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| Tiax, your comment in the missing link blog is a thing of beauty. And when Dembski's Hand of Justice finds out what "dt" means, you'll join us among the banned. Congrats! |
| Date: 2006/03/26 18:54:57, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
Hello, Uncommon Descent denizens. This is the place where we gather to make mockery of your blog moderaters, and sometimes your fellow commenters. It's sort of like MST3K. If you're sick of the antics of the crowd over there, please grab a beer, sit back, and join our little forum as we take a lighthearted look at the ricockulous antics of WAD et al. |
| Date: 2006/04/04 21:04:14, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
|
Henry J- Yes, it would require two viruses in the same cell. If there are two viruses in a cell, then there are two sets of DNA (or RNA - depending on the virus) in the cell as well. While packaging up its DNA into a new viral partical, Virus A might "accidentally" pick up some DNA from Virus B as well. This is the type of scenario that is being proposed for the conversion of H5N1 from an Avian flu to a really nasty Human flu. On topic, from Michaels7 in the ACLU thread:
Yeah, if Behe had been on the stand to defend irreducible complexity, there's no way ID would have lost! |
| Date: 2006/04/12 18:36:48, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
Henry J, As I understand it, a zygote is a single cell, a blastocyst is a clump of cells, and an embryo is a clump of cells that has implanted into the uterus. |
| Date: 2006/04/26 19:06:19, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| ...and can He microwave a burrito so hot that even He can't eat it? |
| Date: 2006/05/01 17:14:55, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
I think Fross is about to go....
|
| Date: 2006/05/04 19:33:28, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Oh, absolutely. A trait has a particular abundance in a population at time point A, then has a different abundance at time point B. But it's presumed that the population evolved, cuz, you know, the population might still be the same, even though it's different. Or something. On the other hand, that laughter hypothesis does seem pretty asinine. |
| Date: 2006/05/06 19:14:15, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
On the other hand, if you ask them to mow your lawn, there's a pretty decent chance that they will. |
| Date: 2006/05/08 15:40:21, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| ... and it's gone... what was the post about? |
| Date: 2006/05/09 10:24:37, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
Hi AFDave, I'm looking forward to your thesis on why common design is a superior interpretation of the evidence than common descent. I'd like to make sure you include a section on endogenous retroviral sequences and how they factor into your hypothesis, keeping in mind that it doesn't matter whether or not ERVs have function, but only that we can recognize ERV sequences as such. |
| Date: 2006/05/12 16:36:15, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
Hi AFDave, Let me see if I can add something to the conversation. You've been arguing that what appears to be a broken GLO in primates may not be in fact broken at all, but is rather a designed stretch of DNA that performs some unknown function (we'll call this "pseudo-GLO"). You haven't stated it explicitly, but I think we can infer that this putative function has nothing to do with Vitamin C synthesis (seeing as primates and guinea pigs can't do it). That is, pseudo-GLO has a function entirely distinct from regular GLO. If pseudo-GLO has a distinct function, we could use the framework of common design (as well as common descent) to predict that pseudo-GLO would be found in organisms that have functioning GLO. This is because there is no reason to predict that a gene unrelated to Vitamin C would only be found in GLO-deficient species. So there are two possible scenarios: (1) Pseudo-GLO is found throughout the animal kingdom (either ubiquitously, randomly, or in nested hierarchies). This type of scenario, where a species has a functional gene and a pseudogene is not uncommon. (2) Pseudo-GLO is only found in species unable to synthesize vitamin C. It seems to me that a design hypothesis would only predict scenario (1), for reasons discussed above. Common descent would predict either scenario (2), or scenario (1) with nested hierarchies of Pseudo-GLO (this would be the result of a duplication of GLO followed by the inactivation of one of the copies, which still persists in the population). Seeing pseudo-GLOs (especially those that look very much alike) randomly throughout the animal kingdom would certainly be a surprise to me (I can think of a mechanism by which it might occur, but we won't get in to that). Ubiquitous pseudo-GLO would strongly imply that it has an important function, but would not really support either common descent or common design over the other. I haven't done the research to find out which is the case, but there should be sufficient online tools to find out which is the correct scenario. With the relatively low number of genomes sequenced, it is probably not possible right now (using good ole look-it-up-online methods) to differentiate between the subscenarios of scenario (1). I'm willing to look up the information for you (assuming you don't know how to do a BLAST search) if you're willing to concede that scenario (2) does not logically fit with a special creation model. So how's about it, Dave? Shall we do some science? |
| Date: 2006/05/16 05:12:16, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
AF Dave wrote:
Lack of parsimony (and remember, it's not just apes but monkees too). If you went to church and saw half a dozen kids sitting together, and all had HUGE noses (way bigger than anyone else there, except for one of the adults sitting with them), you could conclude that each kid had a separate set of parents, and just happen to all be sitting together. Or you could bust out Occam's Razor and conclude that they are siblings. Oh, they also look a lot alike aside from their noses as well. And there's no such thing as a bignose club. |
| Date: 2006/05/16 05:46:30, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Well, jeez, we've had a whole 6 thousand years for it to happen, that's how! |
| Date: 2006/05/16 06:06:42, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
So in other words, you accept the principal of parsimony only when it's convenient. Got it. |
| Date: 2006/05/16 11:32:25, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
What the phalloidin are you yammering on about now? Didn't you use the cosmic fine-tuning argument as your primary proof for God just a few days ago? Are you seriously saying that the universe is perfectly fine-tuned for life, but not fine-tuned enough for life to exist without divine intervention? ![]() |
| Date: 2006/05/16 11:35:17, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| argy stokes! |
| Date: 2006/05/16 12:02:36, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| Ha! Now I'm the author of the two most worthless posts ever, sucka! |
| Date: 2006/05/17 04:03:24, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
You believe in the diversification of hundreds of primate species in just the last few thousand years? My friend, you're a bigger believer in macroevolution than anyone else here! |
| Date: 2006/05/17 17:36:14, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
I suppose that we're living in the year 36 ABB*, then. [strike]And answer the question, superdeaddude's just looking for a number, it shouldn't take that long to type.[/strike] Aaaaaaaaand, now I'm the one lacking reading comprehension *After Beatles Breakup |
| Date: 2006/05/18 06:31:25, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
From the preamble in the first post of the thread:
So you claimed that you would show that the Bible is literally true (ie, inerrant). Go jump in a lake, Dave. Your pants are on fire. |
| Date: 2006/05/18 18:29:59, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| Thomas Neal? |
| Date: 2006/05/18 20:12:27, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
I know we're not supposed to post his comments here, but I can't resist. This is the most sensible (and awesome) thing JAD has said in decades, I'm sure. From his NEW blog:
And there's your new handle, STJ. "Hideous Spleen." |
| Date: 2006/05/21 13:56:07, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
I hope he's here to defend the stupidity documented here in this thread. I'm sick of AFDave, anyway. |
| Date: 2006/05/22 05:09:18, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Yeah! And if I want to kill my children, and I was the one who created my children, then how can you say, "No, that's wrong?" |
| Date: 2006/05/22 05:18:03, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
Wes, Can we get that post archived (1141) on the mirror site? Something tells me it won't be around for very long. |
| Date: 2006/05/22 06:43:09, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
Ah, ye olde Thylacine. Here are some videos of the last known survivor. (Wipes tear) |
| Date: 2006/05/24 08:55:42, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
OK, I just have a couple quick questions for AFDave on his Creator God Hypothesis (in bold so it doesn't get lost in all the comments) 1. Did humans have an immune system before the fall? 2. If so, why? If not, where did it come from? EDIT: If your answer is "I don't know," then what would you predict? |
| Date: 2006/05/24 17:13:03, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
For Stockwell et al, It is probably imprudent at this point to try to try and educate AFD any further on scientific matters. He's admitted he isn't interested in the science. What he wants is science's best arguments for things that contradict his literal reading of the Bible so that he preemptively teach the 6 year olds the "refutations" for the evidence. That way, when they hear the evidence at school or read it in a book, they'll think "I've heard this before, and that nice man Dave Hawkins showed me why it was wrong," without examining the evidence for themselves. Remember the very first thing he said when he came here? "Give the 5 best arguments for evolution in your own words." At this point it really is time to force Dave to come up with arguments and evidences of his "UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis," which should really be just as amusing as watching him dance around scientific explanations with deliberate obtuseness. You know, annoying Lenny style, or variations thereof. Otherwise we're just helping him lie for Jesus. |
| Date: 2006/05/25 04:43:59, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||||
Only if the kid were an idiot. The article you're quoting doesn't say that antibiotic resistant bacteria "prove" "macroevolution." Need I parse it for you? It says 1. Scientists accept evolution from a common ancestor and 2. Evolutionary change has been observed and 3. Antibiotic resistance is an example of observed evolution Now don't lie about it again. |
| Date: 2006/05/25 04:58:39, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
[sigh] I suppose that counts too, doesn't it? OK, Dave, forget all that stuff except where I told you not to repeat the lie. |
| Date: 2006/05/25 05:23:22, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| You know, the ones resistant to phage infection. I'm sure that's what he's talking about, right? What I want to know is what are "disease-eating bacteria?" |
| Date: 2006/05/25 07:15:23, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Hey, remember that part where I said, "If the answer is, 'I don't know,' what would you predict?" How about some predictions of your Creator God Hypothesis, and fewer analogies? |
| Date: 2006/05/25 15:11:25, Link 159.189.208.82 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
BWE - Pirates! |
| Date: 2006/05/25 15:43:58, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| Great Ape is anti-ID. His comment was definitely parody. |
| Date: 2006/05/25 15:54:04, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
If you really must know, learning evolution had nothing to do with me "losing my faith" (if a 9 year old can have faith). It was simply lack of evidence (no prayers answered, never any miracles occurring, etc.). And lack of evidence is still the reason for my atheism. I don't remember if I'd learned about evolution yet. Definitely knew a lot about dinosaurs at the time, though. |
| Date: 2006/05/25 16:28:02, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| Careful Steve, it would be a great shame for Godwin's Law to be invoked on the greatest thread in history. |
| Date: 2006/05/25 18:04:56, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
You know what, I think he does. And he probably really is insane. It's probably best not to egg him on at all. That'd be like making fun of the kids in the special olympics. |
| Date: 2006/05/26 07:02:12, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| Hey, Dave, about that immune system... |
| Date: 2006/05/26 07:22:42, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Yeah! He doesn't need to ape your pathetic level of detail! |
| Date: 2006/05/26 12:26:45, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
|
Eric, It's a flat circle, ie, a disc:
|
| Date: 2006/05/27 04:03:55, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
Well, Dave, when are you going to answer my question about the immune system? Also, AFDave, Just a quick question: Why AREN'T you presenting your YEC evidence? I think that these things should be answered before Incorygible gives you any more answers. Right, Incorygible? |
| Date: 2006/05/27 10:00:08, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||||
Hmm, I wonder where I got that impression?
...
Ah, so your analysis is "I dunno, I'm too lazy to look up some of the pertinant information. You look it up for me, but don't get back to me." Got it. Oh, and do you predict that humans had an immune system before the fall? If so, why, and if not, where did it come from? |
| Date: 2006/05/27 15:17:15, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Some allow the bacterium to pump the drug out of the cell. |
| Date: 2006/05/28 07:54:42, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
Yeah, I've heard this argument used before. It was by some guy called Half-Life on IIDB a few months ago. That guy actually realized (or pretended to realize) the error of his ways and freaked out a bit, then disappeared. Questions for Dave: 1. How do you know the writing is 5500 years old 2. Immune system before the fall...? |
| Date: 2006/05/29 07:25:26, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
Dave, are you going to answer my immune system question? I'm beginning to think you are insincere about your belief in your UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis. In case you forgot, Does your hypothesis predict that humans had an immune system before the fall, or not? If so, why, and if not, where did it come from? Is there something particularly embarrassing about this question that makes you ignore it repeatedly? |
| Date: 2006/06/01 06:51:24, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| I will hereby consider your silence regarding my immune system question, which I have asked half a dozen times, to be admission that your model cannot make any prediction regarding this. I won't be back. |
| Date: 2006/06/01 07:11:22, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
RGD, While I think a case could be made that AFDave's intentional deception of children and his discouragement of their critical thinking may be a form of abuse, I think accusations of molestation are over the top and inappropriate. Unless you can demonstrate that Dave derives some sexual pleasure from brainwashing the kids, you ought to stop referring to Dave as a child molestor. |
| Date: 2006/06/03 04:09:31, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| Dude, we've got a whole thread dedicated to that blog. No need to post their crap here. |
| Date: 2006/06/05 05:54:56, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Based on global prevalence, this seems to be too high by an order of magnitude. Do you have a source for this, Deadman? |
| Date: 2006/06/05 06:13:52, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
I would doubt that engineers are more likely to be creationists than most other people. I think that scientists are much less likely to be creationists, for obvious reasons. Engineers, however, often seem to think of themselves as scientists, so they feel qualified to pontificate at length as if they are an authority on the subject. I think Chris' equation fits the bill pretty nicely. |
| Date: 2006/06/05 06:21:21, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| Well, that 610,000 is for children under 15 years, not under 5, but I'll not belabor the point. |
| Date: 2006/06/05 07:16:44, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| I yield, God Damnit! |
| Date: 2006/06/05 08:54:27, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
AFD: Well, I said I was done, but since you've been answering questions today, I think I'll try again (6th time I believe): 1. Does your Creator God Hypothesis predict that humans had an immune system before the fall, or not? 2. If so, what was it for, and if not, where did it come from? |
| Date: 2006/06/05 20:04:42, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Nonsense! I heard it from Andrea Bottaro that PvM's going to try and top Steve Story's Poll with "Who is most likely to produce fertile offspring with a chimpanzee, Larry Fafarman, Dembski, or Berlinski?" And he'll also find a way to sneak in the phrase "Scientifically vacuous" or "Scientific vacuity." Well, at least one of those things is true. |
| Date: 2006/06/06 18:08:23, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
They don't. Neither does AiG. I'm not asking about them. It's your hypothesis (see the thread title?). What do you predict, disregarding outside sources. It's OK to be wrong... science sometimes is. I'm just looking for a two sentence explanation. No need for research; just pick which makes more sense to you. H311, just go with how you feel, since according to Doug Moran, that counts as evidence too! |
| Date: 2006/06/06 20:46:53, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
Arden, that's quite the facelift! Did you do it for Thordaddy? I hear he does like those smooth cheeks... |
| Date: 2006/06/06 20:52:49, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Here's another: vvv ((oo)) ---| ^| / \/ (__) /Tdad\\ (oo) | /---^^---\/ | /| || || ||------||| |
| Date: 2006/06/06 21:13:38, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Survey says: BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ |
| Date: 2006/06/07 12:09:17, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| Oh no, he's using the Chewbacca Defense! |
| Date: 2006/06/08 21:00:03, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| As Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." |
| Date: 2006/06/09 05:24:16, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Maintaining bodily integrity? In a perfect world? What does that even mean? I'll tell you. It means that Don Batten (editor), Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland are delightfully stupid. |
| Date: 2006/06/09 13:04:05, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
I for one would love the ID folks to change to IE and start including theistic evolutionists in their big tent. Then they could really send the message, "It's not science we're fighting, it's atheism!" Which would get them totally boned in every court case, as they have for the last 25 years. |
| Date: 2006/06/10 17:37:23, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
Take a look at today's post on Good Math/Bad Math. It's about geocentrism. If Paley ever finishes his model someone ought to send it to Mark. |
| Date: 2006/06/12 05:24:29, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
But you see, Dave knows 8 year olds won't know the difference, and that's all that matters for Honest Dave.
I remember that guy... I guess now we know where his name comes from! |
| Date: 2006/06/12 05:29:23, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Looks like Michaels7 might want to cut back on the smack
No, dear, that's addiction calling, not Him. |
| Date: 2006/06/12 05:42:28, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| So, Dave, are chimpanzees genetically more similar to humans or gorillas, and is this difference statistically significant? |
| Date: 2006/06/12 06:39:18, Link 128.95.21.138 |
| Author: argystokes |
| Whoops, it looks like you missed my question. AFD, are chimpanzees statistically significantly more similar genetically to humans or gorillas? I'd like to hear you answer this question directly. |
| Date: 2006/06/12 07:19:06, Link 128.95.21.138 | ||||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||||
No, that's NOT what statistical significance means, and I'm not making up new definitions for it, so you haven't answered my question. From StatSoft, Inc.
|
| Date: 2006/06/12 07:37:12, Link 128.95.21.138 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
He also deleted your conversation with him on his blog. Possibly the whole post; I don't remember what the original topic was. |
| Date: 2006/06/14 05:49:39, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
I don't think those questions are particularly vague, Dave. Let's see your calculations. |
| Date: 2006/06/14 05:53:52, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| post removed by author |
| Date: 2006/06/14 07:03:11, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
Heh, already did (yesterday). Now I'm just avoiding studying for prelims. |
| Date: 2006/06/15 08:02:43, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
Uh oh, Dave. Barton has been caught using unsourced quotes (likely made up by himself) and forced to admit it: http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=20 Of course, I know you've read this page for two reasons: (1) I pointed it out to you on your blog. Then you deleted the entire thread (why would you do that, Dave?) (2) Your description of the "higher legal standard" comes directly from the intro paragraph to the page where Barton admits the quotes are unsourced. But if Barton uses a "higher standard" for sourcing his quotes, then why do the fake ones appear in his book anyway? He is essentially arguing, "Since once in a while I source my quotes, and sometimes other academics don't source quotes, I use a higher standard of excellence in my work than them." Ridiculous. Now you have a new project: Prove that most academics use unsourced quotes to bolster their claims. Here, I'll throw you a bone:
...is a made-up quote. See, this stuff is easy to find. I'm sure you'll be able to prove that folks who write books that say the US was founded on freedom of and freedom from religion are just making stuff up, right? |
| Date: 2006/06/16 06:02:52, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
Stephen - Check out the thread on board mechanics. In short, you can find the invisible posts by changing the last number in the url. For example: CODE=02;f=14;t=1950 change to CODE=02;f=14;t=1958 |
| Date: 2006/06/19 05:15:57, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
Dave, some people say you're boring, which I just can't understand. The hilarity of conversations that go like this is just impossible to not laugh at: Dave: Here's a sentence in 3 languages to prove portuguese is french and spanish mixed! Arden: Here's 3 more languages to add. See, they all look the same. It's called a language family. Dave: My chart of 3 languages is MORE DETAILED than your chart of 6, which includes my chart! |
| Date: 2006/06/19 06:14:14, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||||
I'm talking about this:
Of course, having to synthesize two parts of a chart is very difficult, so the illustrious hairless Chatfield did it for you (see p. 74):
Are you suffering from brain rot? Yip.........Yip.....Yip...Yip...YipYipYipYipYipYip, ahhhhh huh, ahhhhhhh huh |
| Date: 2006/06/20 14:40:34, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Faid,
Beware them typos, there be quote miners in these waters... (this message will disappear upon correction of typo) |
| Date: 2006/06/22 06:45:24, Link 128.208.60.20 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Ah, Randy has finally "come out" against eating polyester and wearing shellfish:
Don't hate homos? Accept modern science? What kind of a Christian are you?! |
| Date: 2006/06/22 06:55:22, Link 128.208.60.20 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
Boh Ring! More fluddinark, please. |
| Date: 2006/06/22 07:21:10, Link 128.208.60.20 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
Personally, I'm waiting for the "I used to be an atheist, because I was angry with God" testimony. That one always gives me the giggles. |
| Date: 2006/06/22 12:06:29, Link 128.208.60.20 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Tell me Dave, what [edit: are the units of] hereditary material of organisms called? You probably learned it in elementary school. |
| Date: 2006/06/22 12:17:07, Link 128.208.60.20 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
Ah, Eric, you gave it all away! Dave, forget my last question. It's summer. Go grab a mitt and throw a baseball around with your son. Seriously. |
| Date: 2006/06/23 08:23:01, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
Here's a question, Dave. Early on in this thread you said you believed that the evidence convinced you the Bible is correct absolutely, rather than the other way around. My question is, which evidences for a young earth/implications of a young earth with flood disaster would you believe if you had never even heard of the Bible? Obviously it can't be all of them; for example, your only "evidence" for N. American Amerinds having written language is based upon the Bible. As an aside, in your opinion (since churches disagree on this matter), if one dies never having heard of the Bible or God, do they go to ####? |
| Date: 2006/06/23 09:04:59, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
![]() |
| Date: 2006/06/23 13:24:24, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||||||
I guess I was unclear. I mean which of the evidences that you have talked about over the 87 pages of comments here would you support having never heard of the Bible. A worldwide flood? Catastrophic movement of the continents? Earth created in 6 days? Common ancestry of siamangs and chimps, but not chimps and humans? Age of the earth? Age of stars? Separate creation of languages? Vapor canopies? I'm sure you can think of others.
(I'll take that as a yes). I suppose that explains the high prevalence of omnimax monotheism among peoples never introduced to the Abrahamic religions. |
| Date: 2006/06/24 04:13:51, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Looks like I got forgotten this morning. Here's my question again:
|
| Date: 2006/06/24 18:20:15, Link 128.208.60.20 | ||||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||||
Perhaps I'll try. Dave: Give a hypothetical example of an archaeological piece of data contradicting the Bible, and the specific methods used to generate that data. |
| Date: 2006/06/25 08:22:08, Link 128.208.60.20 | ||||||||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||||||||
Such is the same for the rest of Dave's sources. From AiG:
and ICR:
Of course, we atheistic scientists also have a statement of faith. From the Federation of American Graduate Schools in Science:
Fair is fair, I guess. |
| Date: 2006/06/25 09:32:53, Link 128.208.60.20 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
It's an eyewitness account by God! And who are you going to believe, scientists, or God? |
| Date: 2006/06/25 12:38:36, Link 128.208.60.20 | ||||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||||
That's not really very long. I've seen CVs over 100 pages. Of course, that requires extensive publishing in peer reviewed literature. |
| Date: 2006/06/26 04:46:41, Link 128.208.60.20 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Unless the Muslims are right. Or there's a joker God. |
| Date: 2006/06/27 09:28:49, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| Larry's brother is Dave. A sensible enough guy, it seems. I think he's an NCSE member. |
| Date: 2006/06/27 11:56:00, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
Um, Dave, that doesn't say anything about the earth being round... quite the opposite, really. Maybe it's a poor translation? |
| Date: 2006/06/28 16:47:38, Link 128.208.60.20 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
Click back a couple of pages and you'll see a couple more threads totally about 50 more pages. Ay Eff Dee-licious! oh, and, Dave, what evidence would you accept as being contradictory to genesis? Please cite both the hypothetical data and the methods used to generate the data. Please be as specific as possible I think that's about the tenth time you've been asked, by at least 3 different people. |
| Date: 2006/06/29 11:55:12, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
Read the question and answer again. Especially the parts about "data" and "methods." |
| Date: 2006/06/30 06:51:10, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
AFD...
The context of the question is what would CONTRADICT the Bible? Do I need to ask my question again, or will you just continue to not answer it? |
| Date: 2006/06/30 07:28:37, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||||
I see. It is conceptually impossible to refute anything in the Bible. One can only lack confirming evidence. Geez, Dave, since EVERYTHING is consistent with the Bible, why are you railing against evolution? |
| Date: 2006/07/01 04:19:42, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| Man, if Dave says "Scientists think the Colorado River flowed UPWARDS," I might kill myself. From laughter, of course. |
| Date: 2006/07/02 13:35:05, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Creationists hablan espanol! |
| Date: 2006/07/04 20:06:04, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
|
Dave and Deadman, I was just perusing AiG's arguments that creationists should not use, when I came across this one:
So perhaps, Dave, it is time for you to set a precise date for the flood. |
| Date: 2006/07/05 05:36:35, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
Improvius, Of course they support his view. He can't even imagine something that wouldn't. |
| Date: 2006/07/05 15:22:28, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| Eve and Adam must have both been hermaphrodites. Otherwise Eve would have been XY when created from Adam's rib. |
| Date: 2006/07/06 06:04:50, Link 128.95.11.237 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
Ah, accusing the entire mainstream science community of scientific fraud. Conspiralicious! |
| Date: 2006/07/06 09:34:49, Link 128.95.11.237 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
I think the most blatant example of an AFDave lie was when he said that the evidence convinced him the Genesis story was true, rather than vice versa. This is evidenced by the fact that he cannot even imagine what data contradicting Genesis would look like. |
| Date: 2006/07/16 08:07:45, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| Whoa! Did I read that right? One day of continental drift? VROOOOOOOOOOOOM! |
| Date: 2006/07/17 20:14:31, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
|
Alas, now I'll never get the boot with a bold-tard comment: WAD said...
Was there anything particularly embarrassing for Dembski in that thread, or was it just JanieBelle posting a bazillion comments? |
| Date: 2006/07/18 09:51:44, Link 128.95.11.237 |
| Author: argystokes |
| Looks like a photo of a book. That line on the right would be the page split. |
| Date: 2006/07/18 15:42:58, Link 128.95.11.237 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
I don't think we'll miss Dave as much as some people think. More Biblebabble, less antiACLU rants, and I suppose that means less variety. O'Leary is a sure thing to provides oodles of Bible-stupid, and Dembski's attempts at science are always hilarious. Tkae, for example,
Which PvM has already handled here.. |
| Date: 2006/07/18 18:24:05, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
DaveTard once said something very similar of me. With as much time as I waste hanging around here, I suppose it's inevitable. |
| Date: 2006/07/19 06:00:38, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
No, this analogy is wrong. A GIANT child with an assload of glue, monstrous tweezers, and big ole plastic pieces DID produce WWII battle ships. |
| Date: 2006/07/20 06:08:48, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
So no more picking on atheists, right? *sputter**cough**choke* |
| Date: 2006/07/20 06:58:01, Link 128.95.11.237 |
| Author: argystokes |
| The thought of anyone taking lessons on not being windy from Glen brings an effluence of chuckles and tears... |
| Date: 2006/07/21 07:20:13, Link 128.95.11.237 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
What's more, he normally signs his posts Dave T. |
| Date: 2006/07/21 13:46:20, Link 128.95.11.237 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
That's one to remember and use against Barry next time he asks a question on UD. Just answer, "How about, [insert irrelevant quote here]," then when called on it, say you weren't making commentary, just posting. And it's good to see Dembski posting papers having nothing to do with ID, and declaring them "ID research papers," when he clearly hasn't even read anything but the abstract. |
| Date: 2006/07/21 15:04:50, Link 128.95.11.237 |
| Author: argystokes |
| He probably had an automatic disemvoweller set up for certain IP addresses. SteveS, when you got disemvowelled, were you posting from a different location than when your comments got through? |
| Date: 2006/07/21 17:31:43, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| Did Dembski change the thread title, or did I just notice the term "unwitting?" |
| Date: 2006/07/22 13:29:25, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| So maybe you could point Puck to the answer instead of having to explain it for him? Or do you just <b>know</b> that the answer must exist? |
| Date: 2006/07/22 15:34:23, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
The next thing you know, these silly evolutionists will be saying birds are chordates! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! |
| Date: 2006/07/24 19:30:13, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Over on that Cornell blog, Sal leaves a gem (comment #22):
Hey now! Don't look at that math! Just trust me, Dembski's a genius. And when I'm really good, sometimes he lets me have a biscuit. |
| Date: 2006/07/25 15:19:18, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
That the Bible you use to form your opinions on reality isn't inerrant. |
| Date: 2006/07/25 17:12:31, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
Um, you said that you use the NKJV. That's not the original text. It's a copy. As you said, the copies are not inerrant. QED, bitch. |
| Date: 2006/07/25 17:25:32, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Hard times coming Dave; the beast is upon us. Or Nero perhaps. And you're right, I can't "admit" a perfect God, who is, as you say, unpredictable and unexplainable. It's meaningless. And that was too many commas for such a short sentence. |
| Date: 2006/07/25 17:43:13, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
I fixed it for you...
|
| Date: 2006/07/26 05:59:43, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Important scientific questions for the design movement to answer:
|
| Date: 2006/07/27 08:22:47, Link 128.95.11.237 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
Well, you see when a man and a woman love each other very much... |
| Date: 2006/07/27 19:38:59, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
Now that the original texts of the Old Testament have been found, I'm sure you'll read up and see which parts have been translated correctly to the NKJV...
Welcome back, BWE. |
| Date: 2006/08/02 18:05:00, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Nondirected. |
| Date: 2006/08/03 11:05:59, Link 128.95.21.138 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
It has. I'll see if I can dig up the paper, but this discussion deserves its own thread. |
| Date: 2006/08/03 11:21:12, Link 128.95.21.138 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
This review came out a couple of years ago. It dismisses the concept of directed mutation; that is, the idea that cells sense what area of the genome "needs" to mutate in response to its environment. The main thrust of the paper, however, is that cells can increase their overall mutation rate in response to environmental stressors, leading to an increased chance of achieving beneficial mutations. This kind of hypermutation remains controversial, and rebuttals to this article have been published. Here's the introduction; I don't want to violate any copyright laws:
Proponents of directed mutation, which seems to be a necessity for any kind of front-loading hypothesis, should also check out: Foster, P. L., and J. Cairns. 1992. Mechanisms of directed mutation. Genetics 131:783-789. |
| Date: 2006/08/03 14:51:03, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
Apollo, I've begun a new thread to discuss directed mutation. It can be found here |
| Date: 2006/08/03 16:40:57, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
Icky: I'll bet you an e-beer that Apollo at least attempts to engage the issues. I'm not getting the exteme arrogance vibes that usually accompany IDC visitors here. |
| Date: 2006/08/03 16:44:33, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| That paper looks like a good read, Chris. Perhaps I'll have some time for it later on, but for now, I'm going to spend some time with my favorite bitch. |
| Date: 2006/08/03 20:10:39, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||||
We pirates thieve for ourselves, not for others! Apollo asked:
I'm afraid I don't really understand what you're saying here. Could you clarify? I think you might be using some idiosyncratic terminology. Septic said:
Well, papers don't often say, "We have conclusively disproven Professor B's hypothesis and recommend no further research." Why doncha read the whole thing; it's not too long, and should be easily comprehensible for a biochemist. |
| Date: 2006/08/04 10:44:15, Link 128.95.21.138 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
Apollo, Thanks for not having me put hours into a detailed explanation only to have it ignored or deliberately misconstrued, as others have. Icky, That's one e-beer to you. Make it a Hale's Red Menace, straight outta Ballard. |
| Date: 2006/08/04 15:12:09, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| Hmm, that smells like poo to me... |
| Date: 2006/08/04 16:15:52, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| Finally given up, eh, Steve? Ease up on that vodka, we don't need you turning into another JAD or GHurd... |
| Date: 2006/08/05 14:46:34, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
When you're a 20 (or so) year old in a Bible Seminary, 1 in 200 probably seems like a lot. I mean, seriously, how many openly gay individuals do you think there are at that institute. I bet less than one. And that's the way he likes it! |
| Date: 2006/08/06 20:09:52, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Oh dear god. Poe's Law? |
| Date: 2006/08/07 09:42:46, Link 128.95.21.138 |
| Author: argystokes |
| Hello, Dave. Are you writing a book? |
| Date: 2006/08/08 11:38:36, Link 128.95.21.138 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
JasonTheGreek on theistic evolutionists:
This on a site where most of the commentators believe in Noah's Ark and Zombie Gods. |
| Date: 2006/08/09 06:04:41, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Oh. Dear. Grawd.
|
| Date: 2006/08/11 12:38:14, Link 128.95.21.138 |
| Author: argystokes |
| I think O'Leary's been rubbing off on Dembski. That woman makes k.e sound like HL Mencken. |
| Date: 2006/08/11 12:57:10, Link 128.95.21.138 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
I feel the exact same way. But truly, the Church Lady writes like a 9th grader. |
| Date: 2006/08/11 20:35:25, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| I'm sure it's fun to annoy STJ, but really, now. |
| Date: 2006/08/12 15:13:28, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
When it comes to research, less is more!
I suppose he imagines the immune system as comprising two types of little dudes, one who captures particles and the other who declares, "Take him away!" or "He's OK. Let him go." 6 ebeers points if anyone gets that reference. |
| Date: 2006/08/12 20:25:20, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Barry Arrington brags:
Gosh, it's so impressive that his points remain unrebutted when rebuttals are not allowed to be shown. Good ole honest Barry. |
| Date: 2006/08/15 18:28:46, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| Congratulations, Dave! You've won an award! |
| Date: 2006/08/16 06:07:50, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| Dave's comments are getting more and more Farfromreality. He used to jump from topic to topic, and actually respond to the occassional question (though rarely answering it). Now he's just stuck on repeating one nonsense thought. I half expect Dave's brother Hersey to come here and apologize for him, and for Dave to accuse his brother of being Ed Brayton in disguise. |
| Date: 2006/08/16 21:12:44, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| BOH-RING! |
| Date: 2006/08/17 07:44:30, Link 128.95.21.138 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Faid, I'm afraid you're terribly wrong.
While you may have no names to describe AFDave, he is certainly not beyond name-calling. Observe: Dave, you are a chancre on the bellend of honesty. See, it's not so difficult. |
| Date: 2006/08/17 10:54:08, Link 128.95.21.138 |
| Author: argystokes |
Meanwhile, Joel is making posts utilizing my favorite of Waldorf Story's pictures: Morans. |
| Date: 2006/08/17 13:40:49, Link 128.95.21.138 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
At first, I read this and thought it was actually pretty funny, in an intentional way
Then I read it again. And I don't understand. |
| Date: 2006/08/21 04:44:20, Link 128.208.60.20 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
I'm on the permanent shitlist at UD, but I've tried posting at O'Leary's blog a couple times. Both were comments were pointing out that she had written something factually incorrect. They never appeared. She fits right in with Dimski et al. |
| Date: 2006/08/21 05:55:42, Link 128.208.60.20 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
It's good to have the Tard back. I guess he found out that JanieBelle and Corporal Kate were Dembski and O'Leary, respectively. Anyway, here's Dave saying that dogs evolved from parasites:
It's nice to have Dave around, because it gives me a nice square meal of stupid. Stupid programming from Sal, stupid english from O'Leary, stupid random articles from Dembski, and stupid science from Otto. |
| Date: 2006/08/21 10:54:30, Link 128.95.21.138 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Whoops! |
| Date: 2006/08/21 11:49:51, Link 128.95.21.138 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
Dave, If I pray really hard to the god of your choosing, will you make the next topic Noah's Ark? Please? |
| Date: 2006/08/21 12:30:13, Link 128.95.21.138 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
You think he's been patting you on the head? |
| Date: 2006/08/24 05:28:45, Link 128.208.60.20 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
He already did! First award for this month, as a matter of fact (All time cutest fundie award). |
| Date: 2006/08/24 07:26:47, Link 128.95.21.138 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
That's a lot of nuts! Name that film for a pilsner! |
| Date: 2006/08/24 08:11:26, Link 128.95.21.138 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
AFDave: Ha! Face to foot style, how do you like it? Deadman: I'm sure on some planet your style is impressive, but your weak link is: this is Earth. AFDave: Oh yeah? Then try my nuts to your fist style! |
| Date: 2006/08/25 09:32:05, Link 128.95.11.197 |
| Author: argystokes |
| Bob, I think that comment was in the Darwin Youth thread. |
| Date: 2006/08/26 04:02:16, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| But with their roots all fanned out like they're growing? That's pretty silly, even for you, Dave. |
| Date: 2006/08/26 04:27:02, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
I can imagine them upside down, too. How many upside down trees are there? |
| Date: 2006/08/26 13:57:03, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
![]() |
| Date: 2006/08/27 07:46:21, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
I agree with this. Maybe Kitzmiller could be mentioned in a civics class, but my vote goes for C. |
| Date: 2006/08/27 15:34:55, Link 128.95.11.197 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
Jerry explains why ID isn't just an "it's too complex, so goddidit" hypothesis:
Surely, there must be more...
oh. |
| Date: 2006/08/29 06:21:16, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| comment redacted. I'll read the instructions next time. |
| Date: 2006/08/30 04:33:44, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
And please, make a donation for Christ, for blessed are the people who bail my church out of massive debt. |
| Date: 2006/08/30 04:44:28, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
Um, I think his name is Kaiser Soze. |
| Date: 2006/08/31 14:59:17, Link 128.95.11.197 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
No. I have no faith in the reasonableness of humanity, so stupidity usually serves to amuse. But don't let me dissuade you from imbibing. |
| Date: 2006/08/31 15:05:24, Link 128.95.11.197 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Thanks, Faid. I read that as "Congrats, Faid- you seem to have barely managed to fit your arse with both hands today" and got a horrible mental picture. I suppose, something like when Dave covers his ears... |
| Date: 2006/09/01 05:07:54, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
This isn't really fair. There are a lot more Christians than atheists in the US, professionally and otherwise. Even if the two views were equal, we would expect many more conversions to atheism than from it. Regression to the mean, ya know. |
| Date: 2006/09/01 06:52:53, Link 128.95.11.197 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
Ah, but don't forget: "Right on!" |
| Date: 2006/09/04 14:58:11, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Because writing appeared about 5000 years ago! Prehistory is inconceivable. We know that this is when writing appeared because radiometric dating tells us so. And Dave agrees, radiometric dating is reliable. Or something. Brain off, Tim. Brain off. |
| Date: 2006/09/06 17:30:03, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
And dern good ones, too. Mostly Lanegan. ![]() |
| Date: 2006/09/07 12:40:56, Link 128.95.11.197 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
I see you've been putting that PSoTaS to work! |
| Date: 2006/09/08 06:48:26, Link 128.95.11.197 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Here goes... 1. That's exactly right (though I'd replace "all" with "statistically significant.") They're still random in that we cannot predict the change in fitness of the organism that has a transposon event. 2. HOW DARE YOU BRING THE MOTIVATIONS OF THE DESIGNER INTO THIS? We cannot know His will, outside of a certain object involving thin slices of dead trees and ink. 3. Do transposon events happen because of selection pressure and random mutation? I don't know; it's certainly possible that certain environmental conditions would instigate a "jump," but I wouldn't bet on it. Transposons probably did originally arise by random mutation. 4. That depends on who you ask. "ID is whatever we say it is, and we don't agree." In terms of the most minimalist definitions of ID, it's almost indistinguishable from theistic evolution. But most IDist are creationists who believe in separate creation of the genera, and common descent from there as a result of the fall (as far as I can tell). Hope that helps, Grey Wolf. Erm, I mean, argy. |
| Date: 2006/09/08 07:07:13, Link 128.95.11.197 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
It's too bad he wasn't on the Indians when they had both Milton Bradley and Coco Crisp. |
| Date: 2006/09/08 11:56:11, Link 128.95.21.138 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
No, no, no, that's Stephen Elliot, our resident ex-AFDave. He's probably the only one here who thinks you aren't beyond hope. |
| Date: 2006/09/09 14:27:31, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Joseph is among several extremely dumb commenters over there, notably mung and jerry. But no one combines the arrogance of DaveTard with the cluelessness of AFDave quite like Joseph over there. He must have gotten his engineering degree from Oregon University. |
| Date: 2006/09/09 17:39:19, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Why do you hate America, Dave? |
| Date: 2006/09/10 14:08:17, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
![]() |
| Date: 2006/09/11 06:34:08, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Yeah, just people who constantly falsify data and produce fraudulent papers, and never call each other on it, even though the Truth is plain to see. But not conspirators, no! |
| Date: 2006/09/11 06:59:10, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
You have repeatedly accused scientists of throwing out discordant dates in order to make the various dating methods correlate. That's fraud, and every scientist knows it. |
| Date: 2006/09/11 13:39:00, Link 128.95.21.138 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
BarryA threatens to bury his head in the sand
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1590#comments I must admit, that's a tactic I've never seen before. I wonder if he uses it in court. BarryA: There is no separation between church and state, your honor. We won't bother with the plaintiffs' counter arguments. I don't argue for the obvious. Judge: Um, I'll be the judge of that. That's why they call me Judge. BarryA: You just wait till I get back to Uncommon Descent where I get to be Judge! |
| Date: 2006/09/12 04:09:42, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
I've always thought that Heddle should be a good ally. It's good to see him getting pissed when the IDs come after cosmology:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1592#comments |
| Date: 2006/09/12 07:11:50, Link 128.95.11.197 | ||||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||||
Hmm, if it's on a T-shirt, you may want to be sure to use right proper grammar. I believe the correct use of the subjunctive is "if the sun were made of stupid." But then again, I always get this one wrong. |
| Date: 2006/09/12 07:56:23, Link 128.95.11.197 |
| Author: argystokes |
| A'ight, forget what I said. Go with the linguist! |
| Date: 2006/09/12 16:31:32, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
I don't think this is fair at all.
He does a #### of a lot more science than PZ, and I sure don't have any reason to believe it's shoddy. I also respect that he concedes that cosmological ID is a religious and not scientific position. I don't see any real difference between someone like Heddle and Ken Miller, other than Heddle's super-sensitivity about his religion. |
| Date: 2006/09/12 16:42:40, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Ah, why not? For the worst defender of evolution, I suppose it has to be Gary Hurd, for his bizarre outbursts at other PT contributors. Although the new PvM is tempting. The best ID defender? Definitely Jesus. |
| Date: 2006/09/12 18:08:55, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Here are the results from a pubmed search for "myers pz"
I suppose that makes him a productive graduate student and postdoc, but perhaps only one paper since becoming a full professor. I don't think this is uncommon for a someone who is primary a teacher at a small liberal arts school, and he is responsible for 4 courses. Developing an undergraduate curriculum is surely time consuming, and few researchers (at least in my department) do so. That said, it seems to me he puts more effort into Pharyngula than his research program (completely unverified). |
| Date: 2006/09/13 19:47:26, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
Silly Arden. The rapture will happen long before then. Of COURSE Muslims will be the majority in 20 years, all the good Christians will be gone! |
| Date: 2006/09/14 05:27:27, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Um, it's more than one. I assume you know the difference between "exactly" and "at least?" Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the oldest known manuscript say 616? |
| Date: 2006/09/15 05:11:42, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
Pff. Well my idea of founding fathers goes all the way back to Rome! Seriously, Dave, this argument is your worst since "3 quotes is more detailed than 6, which contain all 3 quotes" back in the Portuguese discussion.
Read the passage again, and perhaps you'll understand. I'm curious, from where is your engineering degree? The Air Force Academy? |
| Date: 2006/09/15 05:31:35, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Geographically, American history goes back much longer than that. The history of the United States begins in the late 18th century. Where's that degree from, Dave? |
| Date: 2006/09/15 05:43:26, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
I have a Bachelor of Science in Cell & Molecular Biology from the University of Washington, class of 2005. I am currently a second year (as of today) graduate student studying outer membrane proteins of Treponema pallidum as vaccine candidates for syphilis. And I can answer deadman's syphilis question (although the answer is ludicrous, it's biologically feasible). And with all that information, you might even be able to figure out my real name! Would you care to reciprocate? |
| Date: 2006/09/18 19:26:07, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Ghost of Paley = William Dembski? It would be fitting to call himself "the Wizard." Or is that Berlinski? Whatever. |
| Date: 2006/09/19 08:28:15, Link 128.95.11.197 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
But what do you suppose the animals are eating now? In the US, at least, it's not like the cows are out grazing in pristine ecologically sound fields. |
| Date: 2006/09/20 09:27:26, Link 128.95.11.197 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
I'm a bit puzzled. The black dots represent individual meteorites, and are placed based on their ages calculated using Rb-Sr and Sr-Sr dating, right? What are the red dots, and why do neither the red dots nor the black dots add up to 23? |
| Date: 2006/09/20 10:44:56, Link 128.95.11.197 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
OK, so let's see if I have this right. 1) Dave is presented with data 2) Dave agrees, the data suggests that two particular dating methods have a high degree of correlation if one trusts the data presented 3) Then Dave says "What if the data looked like THIS:" and adds a bunch of red dots to the chart 4) Dave goes on to prove that the imaginary data points have very little correlation, thus proving a young earth Perhaps the term straw man should be replaced with "Red Dot." |
| Date: 2006/09/22 17:06:49, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| You could dress up as a tiger, then kidnap a 6 year old boy and go as Calvin and Hobbes. |
| Date: 2006/09/23 14:52:34, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
Plus, that's TWO StrongBad outfits in one group. Fantastic! |
| Date: 2006/09/24 19:13:53, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Not only did the designer design the HIV virus, but he cures it on demand, as well!
|
| Date: 2006/09/26 14:56:06, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
From OE:
They have a research center? Full of undergraduates? I wonder who the head PI is? |
| Date: 2006/09/27 11:58:02, Link 128.95.21.138 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Good god, look who's one step away from becoming a full blown CBEB:
EDIT: Shemps too fast for me. My eyes! |
| Date: 2006/09/27 12:09:46, Link 128.95.21.138 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
Unfortunately, Dave felt compelled to turn off comments (and erase those already there) after BWE said the poop word or something. But Dave, why did you erase all the existing comments, such as mine? |
| Date: 2006/09/27 13:17:50, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Dern, that thread just keeps getting better. From the constantly silly Mike1962:
So we've gone from "we don't need no stinkin research" to "the research is all that matters. Soon to be followed by complaining that no one understands what ID is. |
| Date: 2006/09/30 09:00:30, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
So what's your take on Glenn Morton? |
| Date: 2006/10/02 07:20:08, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Well, Dave, how similar or different do you think modern bacteria are? And how what percentage of living bacterial species do you think we have discovered (putting aside the difficulties in defining bacterial species)? |
| Date: 2006/10/02 07:36:22, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Considering the dearth of noncoding DNA in bacteria, I suspect molecular clock techniques would not be particularly useful even if we had 500 myo DNA. |
| Date: 2006/10/02 15:30:48, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Who? Hitler? |
| Date: 2006/10/02 15:52:35, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Hoo, boy, are you in for a surprise! |
| Date: 2006/10/02 20:05:21, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| Ha ha. The "Jesus Didn't Exist?" banner is back up on UD. It links to TheGodMovie. I can't imagine Dembski's happy about that. |
| Date: 2006/10/02 20:08:41, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Nice try, Steve Story. But too bad your ass got saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaacked. |
| Date: 2006/10/03 17:00:08, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
Instead, why don't you answer Mike question about what your objections are to his executive summary? He's been politely asking for days now. |
| Date: 2006/10/04 06:25:16, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
When I read that little essay, a beautiful scene emerged in my mind:
OK, it's a little violent, but keep in mind that all these people are two-dimensional images to be, so it should be imagined as cartoon-like. |
| Date: 2006/10/04 08:47:04, Link 128.95.11.93 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
k.e, it came from my brain, but I put it in a quote box to separate it from my, um, commentary on my own commentary. |
| Date: 2006/10/05 06:03:48, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Heddle has called cosmo ID an apologetic. Heddle has said apologetics are only useful in defense of Christianity, but will be unconvincing to skeptics. Therefore, he'd probably agree that non-Christians shouldn't care. But he sure does seem to be compelled to spread the Good Word. |
| Date: 2006/10/05 08:20:25, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
|
Over on OE SecondClass describes Dembski's work, referencing one of Dembski's papers
Patrick, OE moderator tells him to read the literature:
And then deletes a post by HodorH where he asks for a reference for where Dembski has calculated the CSI for a biological molecule. (can't quote it, its gone). Good grief, is the best way to become an ID blog moderator to not even know what the "prominent" ID folks arguments are? |
| Date: 2006/10/05 10:06:01, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||||
First sentence of comment by Patrick:
(A gil dodgin post) Last sentence of same post:
*Shakes head* |
| Date: 2006/10/06 06:09:21, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
Holy shit. I just popped on over to Dave's Lies4Kids site, and clicked on the word "HEART" in the top right corner. What did I get? "Children need to know God's word now, before it's TOO LATE" Very classy, Dave. Threaten the kids with eternal damnation. That's pretty sick. |
| Date: 2006/10/06 17:10:24, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||||||
Carlson (presumably our very own carlsonjok) had a beautiful takedown of uberidiot TRoutMac on OE, which will almost certainly earn him a banning and deleted comment, so I will reproduce it here:
http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe....ent-198 |
| Date: 2006/10/06 17:36:49, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Go to your local University Library. They'll have online access to most journal articles since around 1995, stacks with major journals going back to the 50s, less prominent journals going back to the 80s, and articles available in reserves upon request. |
| Date: 2006/10/09 13:26:21, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Shorter Glen D: Don't be an a-hole, stupid! |
| Date: 2006/10/09 14:12:51, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||||||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||||||
Interesting. I believe you have misunderstood the content of my brief comment. Based on your usage of the term "bullying," and your replication of the sentence structure of "Don't be an a-hole, stupid" with your own lovely characterization of my self, I believe you have confused
with
If, however, you read me right, and want to turn what I considered to be a light-hearted jab into an all-out flame war, send me a note on the bathroom wall and we'll have an all-out naked mudwrestling, erm, mudslinging contest. I bet I can insult you at a higher density than you can me (self-disparaging double entendre intended). |
| Date: 2006/10/10 07:28:47, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
With two whole comments in the last 23 hours, it's good to see OE off to a roaring start. Of course, when you ban folks willy-nilly, and all you have left is a homely graphic designer and the artist formerly known as Gumpngreen, it's hardly surprising. |
| Date: 2006/10/10 15:10:14, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Oh, Sal, where would we be without you? |
| Date: 2006/10/11 07:28:23, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
It's inevitable how that place is going to turn out, if it ever gets popular. Just another Christian Forum, with kids making the most dunderheaded "I didn't come from no munky" comments and the occassional atheist swinging by to make fun, before quickly being banned. |
| Date: 2006/10/11 17:01:46, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Psst, follow the links... |
| Date: 2006/10/12 05:59:01, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||||
Are you sure? I suspect that his last comment was enough to have Wes pull the plug:
|
| Date: 2006/10/12 17:39:05, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||||
Actually, that one might not be mined. It's from 1962! |
| Date: 2006/10/15 13:43:21, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
All over the web we're told that the designer could be anyone, including by the nauseatingly boring TRoutMac. But lo and behold, he's changed his mind and cleared things up:
And a note for the newly registered Zachriel: Dude, don't bother trying to debate over at OE. You'll get banned even faster than at UD, and the tards over there aren't as funny. |
| Date: 2006/10/16 08:56:03, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
Uh, let's not forget that using language as a metaphor to prove something is designed is rather silly, seeing as (unless I'm horribly mistaken) language itself is the product of evolution rather than design. |
| Date: 2006/10/16 13:47:21, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
From the OE:
Told ya so! |
| Date: 2006/10/17 10:15:44, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Hey, Stephen I hope you're feeling well. One of the headlines from this week's The Stranger:
On another note, one of the machines in my lab has a timer that plays "My Bonnie lies over the ocean." And yet today, when I heard it go off, what pops into my head? "The lurkers support me in email, the lurkers support me you'll see." Which one of you goons do I have to blame for that silliness? |
| Date: 2006/10/17 16:55:32, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
Archie, Your posts are all showing up on UD eventually. If you say something worth commenting on (which you have, check back a couple pages), it'll show up here. But I don't see any reason to copy/paste all your posts from a single thread onto a comment thread whose sole purpose is to, well, make fun of you. |
| Date: 2006/10/17 18:22:20, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() |
| Date: 2006/10/18 05:48:24, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
I dunno Jim. It's possible that he remembers the exact quotes. After all, Dave spent his entire childhood memorizing Bible quotes. Too bad he was never taught to read for content. |
| Date: 2006/10/18 12:57:46, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Hey, yeah! DNA that gets injected, and then invades cells and coopts the victim's cellular machinery! A perfect mix of eukaryotes, viruses, and tard! |
| Date: 2006/10/19 06:14:18, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Dave's new definition of genetic richness:
Dave, how would it even be possible for the FIRST INDIVIDUALS EVER to have a mutation? I don't think #2 makes any sense at all. And if all the multiple alleles for given genes can arise by mutation (they do), why is it necessary to postulate #1? |
| Date: 2006/10/19 08:34:52, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
It wouldn't matter unless it happened in his nuts before having kids. And even then, he'd need to have the mutations happen between fertilization events for allelic diversity to increase. So, if Adam regularly washed his kiwis with ethidium bromide, perhaps he could contribute one new allele per child he had. |
| Date: 2006/10/19 08:53:25, Link 128.95.11.93 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
OK, Dave, I have a question for you since I answered yours. How would the allelic diversity of a population of Adam and Eve's family be affected given these two scenarios: (1) Adam and Eve are both heterozygous for every gene locus in the genome. Please assume only 2 alleles in the original population exist (ie, Adam and Eve), as shown on the AiG punnet square. (2) Adam and Eve are both homozygous for every gene in the genome, but they have different alleles than each other. |
| Date: 2006/10/19 17:22:32, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||||||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||||||||
And now, time for some Deep Thoughts.
|
| Date: 2006/10/20 04:54:39, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
One more time, in case you missed it:
|
| Date: 2006/10/20 06:21:39, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
Well, aside from a minor quibble (giving two different genes the same abbreviation "M"), that's about right. So why does it matter whether Adam was "maximally heterozygous?" Your concept of genetic richness is completely meaningless. |
| Date: 2006/10/20 07:00:30, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Um, what? God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, as your scenario implies. |
| Date: 2006/10/20 13:38:03, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Well, when all you have left is two middle aged morons babbling nonsense back and forth at each other, it's not hard to see that the kids weren't drawn in. And also using the words "wacky" and "zany" on the front page probably wasn't a good idea for a site trying to attract kids older than 8. |
| Date: 2006/10/21 19:51:43, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Have you seen dave's blog? If he's an imposter, he's managed to find a pretty old picture of the real Dave Hawkins. Unfortunately, the email for Hawkins on k4t doesn't seem to work, so I can't verify. |
| Date: 2006/10/22 16:24:13, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
I think we might be getting taken for a ride. Mark Nutter doesn't exactly seem ID friendly, based on his blog. Maybe a woo woo spiritualist or something. |
| Date: 2006/10/23 15:11:55, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Amazingly enough, he hasn't (to my knowledge) brought up the SLoT argument. Maybe that one's too stupid even for him. |
| Date: 2006/10/24 03:43:04, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
Yes, sir! But then, the new Earl's has a little less flavor than the old. I prefer the College Inn myself. |
| Date: 2006/10/24 06:02:07, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| Dave, is it your position that no mutation can ever increase information? |
| Date: 2006/10/24 06:10:53, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Yes, yes, and yes. And 405 is now way worse than I-5, but obviously more direct if you're going to Chicago. |
| Date: 2006/10/24 08:16:06, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
I remember Bubble-Up from listening to When Radio Was, that show that replayed old timey radio from the 30's and 40's. Just how old are you, Deadman? |
| Date: 2006/10/24 12:26:04, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
One more time, in case you missed it |
| Date: 2006/10/24 14:42:27, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
Well, I'll ask one more time before I go to bold caps... it's a pretty simple question, requiring just 2 or 3 letters to answer. Granted, of course there will be a followup. |
| Date: 2006/10/25 17:02:08, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Dave, you little cutie, you don't need to take our word for it that Wieland is atrociously wrong. You can look it up yourself. Try googling "DNA antiparallel" and see what you get. |
| Date: 2006/10/25 18:50:16, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
Ouch, Dave. You've just been given the proverbial smackdown by both Scary and Artist, both of whom (if I'm not mistaken) came here as creationists. So why are they laying into you, Dave? Are they blind and cannot see the evidence for creationism, because they have the need for Darwin to be right? |
| Date: 2006/10/26 18:35:10, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Oh, man, you're about 4 months behind. Did you catch the first set of Kung Pow! references in this thread? So appropriate, so classic. |
| Date: 2006/10/27 06:15:02, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Dave, remember back in the spring when I was berating you about whether Adam and Eve had immune systems in the garden? Well, eventually you pointed me (or else I found on my own, but I think it was you) at an AIG article which said the immune system "maintained body integrity." Hmm, saying nothing of fighting disease. After all, there was none in the garden. So don't humans perform specified functions now that weren't performed in the past? You know, increased specificity? Does it hurt to be disemboweled constantly for 6 months? |
| Date: 2006/10/27 06:33:00, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Dave, I thought you'd given up on this being a meaningful statement. So, what's the maximum number of alleles that could have been contained by a given "kind" on the ark at a single locus? (a) 2 (b) 4 © depends on how many genes affect the trait (d) Screw Punnett! As many as I can imagine! |
| Date: 2006/10/27 06:36:27, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| OK, one more question, and then I'm done for now. If sickle cell is necessarily deleterious, why is it increasing in areas endemic for malaria? |
| Date: 2006/10/28 10:24:09, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Bwahaha! Tardmac gets told to shut up, unless he has that disease that Robin Williams had in "Jack"
Of course, I can see how one could be confused, as Tardmac certainly does express his ideas at a middle school level. |
| Date: 2006/10/29 11:41:43, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
Dave tries throwing Drew a knuckleball, and... ![]() Yet another 3 run home run. (Un?)fortunately, soft tossers like Dave never have their arms get tired. |
| Date: 2006/10/29 14:27:36, Link 128.95.11.93 |
| Author: argystokes |
| Plus, next door at the Paradox you can catch some sweet shows (I most recommend Jason Webley). And one can just head down the road to Hale's Brewery and get the best beer in the area. Ah, Ballard, how I love thee. |
| Date: 2006/10/30 03:55:31, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Really? Do you have a link for this one? Is good ole Joe G a gravity denier as well? |
| Date: 2006/10/30 06:30:29, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
Ugh. No, there is no dog worse than a dachshund. By "unaware of the fact that they are... small dogs" I assume you mean that just like most small dogs, they're always ready to bite another dog, no matter what its size. Nearly evert small dog owner I've met has said the same thing about their dog. This coupled with the fact that their owners always find it cute when their little crap dog gets nasty, so the behavior is encouraged. The only small dogs I've ever found likeable are Papillons and Havaneses. Plus, JAD has a dachshund, and so does James Dobson, which he beats. *sorry for the rant... neighbor had a dachsund which she allowed to wander around offleash, crapping in our yard and screaming furiously whenever I took my pups out. |
| Date: 2006/10/30 06:35:58, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Yes. Dachshund = Badgerhound. Brains of a hound (dumb), disposition of a terrier (nasty). And extraordinarily popular. |
| Date: 2006/10/30 07:11:06, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
*shocked silence* |
| Date: 2006/10/30 10:55:22, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Henry, It depends on whether you count archaea as bacteria. If you do, the prevailing view is that, no, archaea are more closely related to eukaryotes than the eubacteria (true bacteria), with bacteria first diverging from archaea, then eukaryotes splitting from archaea. Of course, things get really sticky when you consider that mitochondria are probably the descendents of eubacteria, making us chimera of sorts. |
| Date: 2006/10/30 11:57:18, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
OK, but don't forget that having different HLA alleles than the rest of the population is advantageous to the individual with the less common variant. Just a fair warning. And does the gain of the ability to fight disease count as an increase in specificity/information (2nd time)? |
| Date: 2006/10/31 06:23:30, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
But Dave, you already said that you can't even imagine hwat evidence contradictory to the Bible even would look like. Now, granted, that was many moons ago. Have you thought of anything? And you promised us HLA today! I'm afraid all the runners just got to advance one base. |
| Date: 2006/10/31 06:44:47, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Ha, ha, it's a fundie purgefest this week!
|
| Date: 2006/10/31 11:59:59, Link 128.95.11.93 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
Um, dudes, who was it that was pushing for a discussion of ice cores? Who was it that challenged Dave that he could beat him in an argument no matter which side he took? And the new "creationist" is named bwee? Bee dubs, come out from under that mask! |
| Date: 2006/10/31 15:07:34, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
|
Sal left this laffer over at Pharyngula: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....omments
Ah, some polling estimates. Presumeably the poll went something like this: DI Poller: What percent of kids would reject Darwinism if they saw our cool videos? Meyer: 25% Behe: 55% Minnich: 60% Gonzalez: 45% Dembski: 20%, but 90% if they buy my book. |
| Date: 2006/11/02 16:00:49, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Hmm, I guess good old fashioned darwinian mechanisms count as intelligence (they achieve and end I'd say, though not a goal). Intelligence: anything that happens. |
| Date: 2006/11/02 17:59:23, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Good grief, when I perused that first chapter, I assumed it was aimed at early highschoolers. Apparently I was wrong:
Then again, I suppose that any college that would use this tripe in their curricula would be on about the level of Pensacola Christian College. |
| Date: 2006/11/03 04:56:41, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
Someone (steve?) may want to archive this thread before it's disappeared.
Of course, we find the truth is... somewhat less fantastic. The quote Myers attributed to Wells was completely accurate. EDIT: The comment (by Franky172) pointing out Myers's response has been deleted. BWAHAHAHAHA! |
| Date: 2006/11/03 05:17:15, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
And the awesome just keeps coming. MacNeill stops by to bring the pain:
EDIT: Uh, oh, trouble at the farm. Asstastic moderator Patrick has posted PZ's scanning of the infamous pp. 35, and criticized Sal for not fact-checking! I give this thread about 20 minutes before it disappears (that's be about 8:35 PST) |
| Date: 2006/11/03 07:44:38, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Someone wondered whether TardMac was a YEC. Not only does it seem so, he's using Hovind arguments:
|
| Date: 2006/11/06 04:27:47, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Dave, this is your stupidest post since the red dots incident. Yes, the alleles that are most common in N. America have their highest incidence in... N. America. But they're still widespread throughout the globe. Mike has nothing to retract. You also still haven't answered how we got all those darned advantageous alleles to begin with. |
| Date: 2006/11/06 04:49:42, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||||
He said they were present, but he didn't say they had the same frequency. It's the presence that matters.
Uh, Dave, I thought the point of your red dots "experiment" was to say that if the scientists took a bunch more measurements, they'd come up with random points. And since you had no evidence, you just imagined some data out of thin air and then critiqued your own made up chart. I don't seem to remember anything about fossils on that chart, Dave. |
| Date: 2006/11/07 10:52:16, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| Um, OK, so all the HLA-B alleles arose between Noah's Ark and the Tower of Babel? I'm still not seeing where all these alleles come from. |
| Date: 2006/11/07 16:00:22, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||||
|
More antics from DaveScot? I report, you decide! Does Springer admit to manually delisting UD himself?
|
| Date: 2006/11/09 20:23:41, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Well, they fixed Weiland's/LeJeune's error on the creationontheweb site... sort of...
(my emphasis) The reason for the correction, however, is still totally wrong. A strand of DNA is only read in one direction (5' to 3'). The issue at hand is that DNA is double stranded, and that the strands are antiparallel (which has been known since the days of Watson and Crick). Therefore there is no objective "head" or "tail" to a chromosome. Sheesh, even when they get it right, they get it wrong. |
| Date: 2006/11/09 22:49:07, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
Actually, I don't. On either count. Please retract. You wouldn't want to lie about someone, would you? I mean, this incident has to be embarrassing for them; not even knowing how DNA is read, which is AP highschool level biology. EDIT: You still haven't said where those alleles are coming from? Good grief, I'm going to start putting up pictures of obese felines if you keep this up. |
| Date: 2006/11/09 23:15:14, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Holy shabit, something serious is coming down the pipes in the ID world!
Nah. It's probably just a memo to DO'L reminding her to learn how to write coherently before taking up yet another blog. |
| Date: 2006/11/09 23:39:52, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||||
Well, well, Dave scores his first point against the forces of ignorance:
An AiG search for "Wieland LeJeune" yields
Clicking the link...
|
| Date: 2006/11/10 11:05:46, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
61 alleles in 250 years, from a founding population of 10 and a maximum number of about 20 generations?? If mutation occurred at that rate, wouldn't we expect to see hundreds of thousands of alleles in the population today, since they should increase exponentially as the population grows? Also, Mike, it's a good thing you only have 70-500 alleles to work with, here. If there were several thousand, there's a chance their frequency would all be under 1%, and wouldn't count! On a nicer note, happy Veterans' Day to AFDave and any of you other folks who signed up for the cause. Your service is appreciated. ![]() Also, Dave, one son with a Cubs hat and one with a Cardinals hat? That's a broken family just waiting to happen. |
| Date: 2006/11/14 11:10:18, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
Dave, all these guys are asking you hard questions, so I'll ask an easy one (only 2 or 3 letters required to answer, and you already know the answer to it! Do you, or do you not, have data for this 100x carbon spike? |
| Date: 2006/11/14 12:49:04, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
And I'm having a hard time understanding why you didn't answer the question. Do you have the data, or not? |
| Date: 2006/11/15 11:33:14, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||||
'fraid I don't get what's going on here. |
| Date: 2006/11/17 18:21:32, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
Do you have a link for where GWW got banned? I could go for a good laff. |
| Date: 2006/11/17 19:50:45, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
Found the end of GWW. Not nearly as exciting as I expected. http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/02/response_to_bob.html |
| Date: 2006/11/21 00:32:10, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
It's not only in retrospect; the fraud was uncovered because Piltdown didn't fit with all the other data, and thus required further examination. The purpose of the fraud wasn't to prove evolution, it was to prove that humans evolved in England. National pride sort of thing. |
| Date: 2006/11/21 10:44:58, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
|
Uh, oh, Grandma O'Leary wags her finger... http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1798#comments
How dare someone talk to their elders and betters like that? Why, back in my day, we could execute any of the peasants who talked to the queen that way! |
| Date: 2006/11/22 00:40:15, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| This is awesome. Dave's biological gaffes are always my favorite. This whole confusion on chromosomes vs chromatids ranks up there with when he said that eukaryotic DNA is a double helix, but bacterial DNA is circular. Just when AFDave starts getting boring again, UD gets funnier. |
| Date: 2006/11/22 11:17:51, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Oh, Joel, let's take a look at the distribution of posts on your wonderful weblog, Stop Lying to Us:
Good grief, Joel. I know you're at a seminary, but I'm sure there are still plenty of hot girls your own age hanging around. This teen culture obsession is getting creepy. |
| Date: 2006/11/22 19:10:07, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
OK, Steve, admit it. You've been playing DonaldM all along:
You know, I understand that I am one of those "fundamentalist atheists" that they're always harping about. I suppose at least someone over there must realize that they are the whacko fundies, but it sure isn't Donald or Denyse. link |
| Date: 2006/11/22 19:46:58, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Jibs, I just can't think of anything snarky to add to this one:
|
| Date: 2006/11/23 01:02:06, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
Well, that was boring. Anyway, my scores:
And that picture in the beginning is totally a girl. |
| Date: 2006/11/23 13:12:32, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
But Dave, I thought you'd read all about evolutionary biology. Why would you have to ask, when you can simply recall from memory all that stuff you've learned from the major names? |
| Date: 2006/11/23 14:20:01, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
You're saying that not one of the evolutionary biologists you've read so much of haven't proposed another mechanism of population change than RMnNS? I'm thinking you haven't been doing much reading at all. |
| Date: 2006/11/24 00:35:24, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Don't think I have another proposed mechanism other than random mutation of the genetic code coupled with natural selection for generation of variation within a population? Would you like to make a wager? |
| Date: 2006/11/24 12:24:39, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||||
Since I'm the "at least one person," I'll take that as you accepting my bet. Now, how shall we judge if my mechanism is "plausible," and what are the terms of the bet? I've always liked BWE's idea of allowing a post on each other's blog. My suggestion for determining plausibility is if more than 1 modern college-level textbook mentions it as plausible. You're welcome to come up with a counter offer, but it really should be objective, rather than whether or not you find it plausible. |
| Date: 2006/11/24 14:39:54, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Some Christian love from Borne...
Wow. I'm doing infinite damage. Never knew I was so powerful, but I guess I should have known better. |
| Date: 2006/11/24 19:51:12, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||||||
Hey now, you're not going to welch are you? |
| Date: 2006/11/24 20:31:33, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
Dave, are we going to finalize the terms of our bet, or are you going to welch? And if it's the latter, at least answer this question: How would you measure whether or not a mutation is beneficial? |
| Date: 2006/11/24 20:56:09, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
And... he's gone, after sticking around for easily long enough to see my post. Hey, Dave, I thought of a commercial that both you AND your kids could star in: |
| Date: 2006/11/25 09:09:13, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
But aren't you looking forward to winning an easy bet against one of those children corrupting, atheist scientist types? Especially when the alternative is flaunting your welchishness all over the internets. |
| Date: 2006/11/28 10:07:44, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
Hmm, bad time to change the subject, Dave. I just invited a guy from Answers in Genesis to come give you some help with your hypothesis (he said he'd consider it). Pharyngula was a little too much for him, so I thought he might enjoy it here. Though I suspect he won't show. |
| Date: 2006/11/28 10:17:59, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
Hehehe...
|
| Date: 2006/11/28 12:23:19, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Daniel J. Lewis |
| Date: 2006/11/29 10:43:55, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Dave, I asked you two weeks ago about how you would measure biological information. Why don't you write a useful definition, that we can all use to determine relative amounts of information, so that the discussion can move forward? It's simply a waste to spend your whole morning writing reviews. EDIT: Note that I am asking for how you measure biological information, not a definitition of biological information. That way we don't have to spend 3 days arguing about how to measure information before you get bored and change the subject again. |
| Date: 2006/11/29 12:18:59, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
I have a nonsubjective way of measuring. I don't need to rely on my intuition. Why can't you do the same with bioinfo? |
| Date: 2006/11/29 15:33:55, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Google or wiki "Ames Test" |
| Date: 2006/11/29 17:30:46, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
You wanted a real-world example of a reversion mutation, which must represent a gain of biological information if the original mutation represents a subtraction. I gave one to you. And I'm one post late on my measure of degradation of your friend's truck. Here's one (I'll bet you can think of many more): Square inches of rust. |
| Date: 2006/11/30 01:14:01, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
A leading light of ID pipes in with some deep thoughts:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1818#comment-78540 Run for the hills! The Atheists are advocating REASON! |
| Date: 2006/11/30 10:15:21, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||||
And if you want specific examples of successful Ames tests, you could always click the links to the PDFs at the bottom of the wiki page. Or google. So, Dave. Do these mutations represent a decrease in information? What about the mutations that made it so the bacteria couldn't synthesize histidine? |
| Date: 2006/11/30 10:49:16, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
The funny thing about all of this is that I could swear that a couple of months ago I berated Dave for awhile asking him if he believed a mutation could never increase information. Eventually, he answered "no!" So if memory serves, he's been contradicting himself the last few days. I'd been waiting for months to use the Ames test example, since it represents a beneficial mutation that we can observe happening in real time, if we were patient enough to stare at an incubator all day. |
| Date: 2006/11/30 11:10:03, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Good grief. Read the sentence following the bolded ones. And then answer my questions. Oh, and yes, the loss of function mutations were engineered in. If that fact is important to you (it shouldn't be - it's still a mutation), then answer this additional question: Is this loss of function mutation a decrease in information when it occurs in the lab? What about in the wild? |
| Date: 2006/11/30 11:45:02, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| I'm not sure I can explain the Ames test more clearly than that wiki article. Why don't you tell me how you think the Ames test works, and then I can figure out where your misconception is. |
| Date: 2006/11/30 13:34:01, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Uh, YOU posted that article, Dave. The actual example showing where it works is in the PDF linked at the bottom. Do you understand how the Ames test works, or not? |
| Date: 2006/11/30 13:53:51, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
From the 1st PDF:
Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 69, No. 11, pp. 3128-3132, November 1972 Blech. Don't you like lay-friendly summaries of methods better? The thing is, Dave, that this is all old news (11 years older than me! |
| Date: 2006/11/30 17:13:55, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
|
Dave gets creamed, and then instead of admitting he was wrong, he lies about it. Yesterday:
Today:
You're the best. |
| Date: 2006/11/30 20:48:55, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
Um, what am I running away from? Did you have a question I didn't answer? EDIT: And, as I recall, it was YOU who welched on our little bet.
What the fuck is upward evolution? You keep using this term, but I don't think anyone else here has except when quoting you. Oh, and as for calling me a fool, you can be assured that my foolishness begins and ends with Seahawks football. Yours, however, apparently subsumes every subject of your interest. But hey, life's not about how smart you are, it's about how happy you are. Ignorance.. nirvana.. or something. And my wife's way hotter than yours. |
| Date: 2006/11/30 21:03:28, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
I'm looking forward to it! Do you think our resident mendacitor will even read it? I don't, but don't let that stop you. Also, any opinion on its usage for determining the carcigenicity of a compound? I think Ames himself has railed a bit against its misuse, as it has suggest that things such as coffee are ubernasty. |
| Date: 2006/11/30 23:33:46, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
So last night I was looking around for some Tom Waits stuff on the internets, and found an interview with him. And, much to my glee, he proclaimed "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy." Mike, Is this interview (some 70s show, Waits performed "The Piano's Been Drinking") the origin of your signature, or does it have a predecessor? |
| Date: 2006/11/30 23:48:01, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| Ah, right you are, King Elvishfantastic! |
| Date: 2006/12/01 09:32:50, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
|
I already answered your question, Dave. Before you asked it, actually. See here and feel free to read the whole PDF if you have any other questions. By the way, I'd like to see you answer Faid's question on information. It's another one of those easy yes/no type questions:
|
| Date: 2006/12/01 10:15:15, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
See OA, you've parsed this one incorrectly, so Dave's not lying. See,
"Which is nothing more than lying" refers to the active verb in the preceding clause, which is "enjoy." Stallwort Dave the Christian Soldier isn't enjoying himself, he's grimly meting out the justice of God's terrible swift sword. Therefore, he's not lying, at least by his own definitions. Also thanks to Faid, who by teaching me the word glossolalia, has given me the second cool new word for my vocabulary of late (Panjandrum, used by PZ and directed at Brayton, was the first). |
| Date: 2006/12/01 10:43:12, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
Or, if you prefer, from later in the paper which you say you read...
The only way to revert a frameshift mutation is with another frameshift (OK, or introduction of a complementing gene... but you have to do that yourself or pray the perfect phage has contaminated your culture). You, uh, do know what a frameshift mutation is, right? And if you don't believe I can explain the Ames test in my own words, well, you're welcome to make a bet with me. But it's generally not a good idea to do so. I don't lose often. |
| Date: 2006/12/01 11:07:14, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Eric, some organisms have a codon bias due to unequal amounts of tRNAs containing the same amino acid but different anticodons. Thus, if the organism is producing a large amount of protein, having a synonymous change could actually have an effect on the efficiency of translation because the tRNA supply begins to get exhausted. In lab, when we're using E. coli to produce large amounts of a particular protein, sometimes we optimize the sequence of the gene we're expressing in order to use E. coli's "favorite" codons. I don't imagine this sort of thing is ever much of an issue with proteins produced in normal conditions, though. Just a bit of something to look out for in the lab. Hmm, that was kind of technical. I'm happy to reexplain it with more, but less sciency words if you like. Here's another thing I agree with Dave on: Dave Hawkins is one of the most degenerate humans in the history of the planet. |
| Date: 2006/12/01 12:01:38, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
The exact opposite of what caused the original frameshift. The paper doesn't say if the original frameshifted strains were shifted by deletion or by insertion. If you dig around the literature for TA1531, TA1532, and TA1534 you might be able to find out.
At least one fourth of them will have. See Russell's post above.* Now, don't you have a backlog of questions you need to answer? *EDIT: Whoops, just realized that this is wrong. 5 points if you can tell me why. |
| Date: 2006/12/01 12:32:54, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
The reversion is selected for, but not targeted. No intelligent input necessary. And any agent could be used as the mutagen (even water). As Russell's math shows above, an increased rate of mutation is not necessary to cause the reversion. But why does any of this even matter, since you no longer believe that mutations CANNOT add information? |
| Date: 2006/12/01 16:00:56, Link 128.95.11.93 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
Dave, Why don't you explain what you think MacNeill means when he says the modern synthesis is dead? I've answered every single one of your questions, so I think this one is fair game. |
| Date: 2006/12/01 18:45:52, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Eric, don't be ridiculous. The Rapture is coming within the next 10 years, quite possibly the next 10 weeks! We don't have to worry about that kind of stuff. |
| Date: 2006/12/01 19:35:38, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| Hmm, I hope that Dembski's ascendency to the top of the phylogenist mailing list is a symbol of increased power in the ID community. Please tell me he's the new director of the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture. |
| Date: 2006/12/01 22:00:38, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Bah, he graduated with Honors (I can't say that for myself). It's the arrogance leading to the miscomprehension if you ask me. The funditude is a symptom, not the cause. |
| Date: 2006/12/02 14:09:43, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| And Dave, that's DR. Russell Durbin to you, buddy. *rolls eyes* |
| Date: 2006/12/03 01:22:42, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
Steve, I think the time to close the thread will be when everyone loses interest in talking with Dave. I mean, there is a whole lot of science learning going on here, just not by our resident Air Force vet. __ Earlier I suggested that Dave's behavior is due to his arrogance rather than his funditude. Now I think I might be wrong. Perhaps he believes that our words are directly from Satan, and thus must be lies, even when they're technically true. That would explain his inability to admit he's wrong on subjects not related to his CGH. It would also explain why he insists he "answered his own question"* of why Adam couldn't have hundreds of alleles at a locus, and he "figured out the Ames test on his own"* after beautiful explanations by Stephen Wells and Russell. It's not that he can't be wrong, it's that we can't be right. Maybe I should start up a fight with Russell on internal ribosomal entry sites, and force Dave to take a side. |
| Date: 2006/12/03 10:29:02, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Righto. I'll stick with the arrogance hypothesis. |
| Date: 2006/12/09 16:12:33, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
So you don't think the ability to digest nylon is a novel function? |
| Date: 2006/12/09 19:30:25, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| You think it was a preexisting ability? What species/kind/whatever do you think had the ability to digest nylon? And why would this be a good thing for the organism? |
| Date: 2006/12/09 21:06:01, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
So should I take that as admitting you can't answer my questions? Why thank you, I think I shall. |
| Date: 2006/12/10 01:21:35, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Um, you're the one making the claim (that nylon digestion existed before the invention of nylon). I'm not doing your research for you. Or are you afraid I'll deliver another swift knockout as I did on biological information? |
| Date: 2006/12/10 10:17:21, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||||||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||||||||
...
I suppose I can presume your misrepresentation of my quote was accidental...
When I write, Dave, I try to establish a normal continuity of thoughts. I try to achieve this by using normal sentence and paragraph structure. Now, perhaps I don't always succeed, but I don't think the quote above represents a failure to present my thoughts clearly. To me (and I suspect to most folks), a regular reading of my quote would inform the reader that "I shall [take that as admitting you can't answer my questions]," rather than "I shall [research nylon-eathing bacteria]."
Well, I was saying I figuratively knocked you out, but really, I just worked you into a corner and you knocked yourself out. Remeber?: Dave: Biological information can't increase! Shirley: What about if there's a reversion? Dave: Bah, can you give me any real-world examples of such a thing? Argy: Ames test! Dave: I don't get it. Russell and Stephen Wells: (patiently explain what it is and why it's relevant. Russell goes on to explain how the Ames test also invalidates two of your other ideas) Dave: Ah, I figured out the Ames test on my own. Also, I never said information couldn't ever increase Surely you haven't forgotten that whole exchange? It was funny. (note - I am referring to the exchange as funny, not the Ames test. There's absolutely nothing funny about testing for carcinogens) So are you going to back up your claim that nylon digestion existed before the invention of nylon, and why you think that would be a good thing for the organism? |
| Date: 2006/12/10 18:12:26, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
Um, OK. Here's all the evidence that a nylon-digesting organism existed before the invention of nylon:
I win. |
| Date: 2006/12/11 00:02:57, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
Um, what OA said. Perhaps there's no use in flogging a dead dolphin, but are you going to even attempt to back up your claim about nylon-digesting bacteria? |
| Date: 2006/12/12 00:19:02, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
VMartin, I haven't been following this thread, but what are you going on about in that last post? Honestly, I don't understand what you're trying to say. |
| Date: 2006/12/12 14:55:02, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Yes, and you've admitted such. So stop with the ubersilly. |
| Date: 2006/12/13 13:33:29, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Oh, balls yeah. I'm going to second the suggestion that Dave takes on the purpose of Plasmodium parasites, since this is an area where I can actually claim a modicum of expertise, having a coauthorship on a paper about... Plasmodium evolution. So I'll repeat... By any measure, protozoans of the Plasmodium genus are also much more complex than a watch, and perhaps even moreso than butterflies. Could you please educate us on the intent and purpose behind their design? Thanks! |
| Date: 2006/12/13 15:18:10, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
Um, like acquiring the new function of being infectious? I thought you said that kind of thing couldn't happen.
Um, maybe if there's a more general interest, but writing takes me a lot more time than it seems to take folks like Eric. And I think enough people have unanswered questions for me to hijack the thread. |
| Date: 2006/12/13 19:38:11, Link 128.95.11.93 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
Eric, what's the primary difference between a microprocessor and a sycamore? Give up? SIZE. A sycamore is WAY bigger than a microprocessor. And since we know the microprocessor is designed, then so must be the sycamore! OK, OK, a substantive post on Plasmodium is forthcoming... in a couple of hours I hope. |
| Date: 2006/12/13 21:57:02, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
|
BIG FAT POST ON PLASMODIUM Or, "Everything I Could Think of Without Doing Research." As requested by Eric and Cory. Plasmodium is a genus of protozoan parasites (what your middle school teacher would have called a ‘protist’) that causes malaria in several species across the animal kingdom, most notably humans. It is transmitted from one individual to another by the Anopheles mosquitoes, a genus of mosquito which is currently confined to tropical regions of the earth. Malaria is endemic in most regions of sub-Saharan Africa, as well as South America and Asia. It’s not a particular vicious disease, at least not compared to something like AIDS, but since it’s so widespread that it’s among the big 3 infectious diseases receiving the most attention in terms of vaccine development and new drug treatments (along with TB and AIDS). About 2 million people die every year of malaria, most of them very young children. Almost all of these deaths are attributable to infection by species Plasmodium falciparum (as opposed to the other 3 species of Plasmodium). There are some subtle differences between the life cycles of the different species of Plasmodium, but I think everything I will be describing here is applicable to all species, except where noted otherwise. Plasmodium’s life cycle can essentially be broken up into 3 stages: 1. Mosquito stage 2. Liver stage 3. Blood stage ![]() 1. Mosquito Stage The parasites within the mosquito are horny little buggers, constantly having sex and recombining their genomes and creating all kinds of diversity. They replicate and then travel to the salivary glands of the mosquito, apparently causing the insect little or no discomfort and being generally noninfectious. When a mosquito takes a blood meal from some poor African kid, these motile parasites are injected into the bloodstream and quickly swim their way to the liver. If I recall correctly, the parasites first traverse a layer of immune cells called Kuppfer cells, by quite literally charging right through the cells themselves. This allows the parasites to reach the liver cells themselves, which they invade. 2. Liver Stage During invasion, the parasite acquires part of the liver cell’s membrane, which it uses to separate itself from the rest of the cell. (Imagine blowing a bubble with some bubble gum, then pushing a rock into the bubble until the invagination closes on itself. Then the bubblegum surrounding the rock pinches off from the rest of the bubble, leaving a rock inside a bubble inside a bubble). The parasite then start to reproduce asexually, growing and dividing and stretching the limits of its envelope and the host cell itself. Eventually, through unknown mechanisms, the parasite escapes both its envelope and the liver cell itself, and shuffles its way back into the bloodstream. 3. Blood Stage The blood stage of Plasmodium is much it’s liver stage, in that cells are being invaded, the parasite resides in a host-derived envelope, divides lots and lots, and escapes the host cell. As wikipedia describes the blood stage :
As one might expect, this causes the destruction of a lot of blood cells, and leads to anemia, which in some cases can be quite severe. Some of the parasites differentiate back into the sexual form, which can be taken up when a mosquito takes a blood meal, and the cycle continues. Wikipedia also has an interesting hypothetical evolutionary scenario for the origin of this life cycle:
There is a pretty nice animation showing the whole process here: http://www.sumanasinc.com/scienceinfocus/sif_malaria.html var genes, pathogenicity, and immune evasion During any infection, the pathogen must avoid detection by the immune system until it has multiplied enough to make transmission to a new individual easy. Plasmodium accomplishes this in a pretty interesting way. Most cells have a mechanism of presenting all the little bits of its innerds to circulating immune cells. The immune cells check to see if the presented bit is host-derived or foreign. If the immune cell recognizes foreign material, it will bombard the poor infected cell with nasty chemicals, leading to the destruction of both the infected host cell and it’s freeloader (for more detailed information, wiki or google MHC Class I and Cytotoxic T Lymphocyte). By infecting red blood cells, however, the parasite avoids this arm of the immune system. Red blood cells are enucleated, and thus don’t produce any DNA, RNA, or protein. They therefore lack any kind of machinery for blowing the whistle on the parasite which is living inside them. However, living in red blood cells (RBCs) presents a different problem for the parasite. The cells are constantly circulating and must travel through the spleen, the organ responsible for destroying old and crappy RBCs. Through mechanisms which I do not understand, cells in the spleen are able to recognize infected RBCs, and destroy them. This is apparently not a total death blow to most species of Plasmodium, but it does appear to keep most infections from becoming lethal. Except when it comes to Plasmodium falciparum. P. falciparum has evolved a mechanism to evade having to go through the spleen. When the falciparum parasite is within an RBC, it produces PfEMP1 proteins. These are encoded by var genes… **** To avoid confusion, or perhaps cause it: DNA -> RNA -> Protein Var -> var RNA -> PfEMP1 **** The PfEMP1 protein is exported from inside the parasite all the way to the RBC surface. This process is extremely fascinating, as it requires the parasite to set up machinery outside of itself in order to properly transport the protein through the envelope in which the parasite resides and all the way to the RBC membrane. The parasite can’t co-opt host cell machinery, since RBCs don’t have any. This process is still being figured out. Anyway, the PfEMP1 protein is able to bind to certain receptors that are on the surface of the blood vessels. This tethers the infected RBC to the blood vessel, preventing the infected cell from reaching the spleen where it would be destroyed. PfEMP1 can also attach to uninfected RBCs, which essentially cloaks the infected RBC with uninfected RBCs, making it harder to “see.” Infected RBCs also can stick together, forming big ole clumps of cells. All this sticking is pretty bad, and becomes lethal when cells start clogging up passageways in the brain. Cerebral malaria causes hemorrhaging, and is one of the main causes of malaria-associated deaths (along with pregnancy malaria and severe anemia). So the stickiness is all well and good for the parasite, but by putting a piece of itself on the surface of an RBC, it has exposed itself once again to the immune system. Before getting into the beauty of antigenic variation, I’ll need to do a quick aside on how adaptive immunity works. **** Adaptive immunity is absolutely ridiculous. Basically, when a T cell or B cell (henceforth lymphocyte) is made, the part of its DNA that encodes the T cell Receptor or B cell Receptor undergoes recombination that is pretty much random. There are enough possible permutations of the DNA to produce proteins that just happen to be capable of binding to just about any other protein. The lymphocytes that have receptors that can bind host cells are weeded out and destroyed, while ones that can’t are allowed to get into the blood stream and look for trouble. The body cranks out enough of these cells that just about any foreign protein can be recognized by a small handful of cells in the body (and there are ways that the body uses to increase the odds of this interaction occurring, which I won’t go into). Once a lymphocyte recognizes something (hopefully a pathogen), it will start dividing and cranking out antibodies (which are soluble B cell receptors, so are very specific), and the infection can be pretty quickly cleared. Some of the lymphocytes will differentiate into memory cells, which can start the process of cranking up the adaptive immune response to the same foreign material much more quickly than if the body had to start all over again. **** Back to malaria. The falciparum parasite has about 60 different var genes in its genome, but only expresses one at a time. The immune system recognizes the PfEMP1 protein on the RBC surface, cranks up a response to it and then… the parasite switches what var gene it is expressing, and hence changes the PfEMP1 protein on the surface. And the immune system has to start all over again. The switching of var genes isn’t fully understood, but it appears to be a general low rate of switching, followed by selection for newly exposed PfEMP1s, rather than a preprogrammed sequence of gene expression (but we DO see that in Trypanosoma brucei, the African Sleeping sickness parasite… but that’s another sto-ey). This process is known as “antigenic variation,” and is found in both protozoans and bacteria. I mentioned that there are 60 different var genes in a given parasite. But it goes beyond that. Each strain of Plasmodium falciparum has a different set of var genes. If one strain is endemic in a region, eventually people’s immune systems will have figured out a good deal of the different var genes. But when a new strain enters the region, once again the immune system needs to learn a whole new set of proteins to recognize. Thus, it is beneficial to the parasite to have a different set of vars than its relatives, because it will evade the immune system more easily just by being different. Clearly, this shows a scenario where a very high proportion of mutations would in fact be good for the parasite, simply because they make the parasite look different. The Theory of Evolution easily explains why there is so much var gene diversity amongst different strains of Plasmodium. Mutation creates the diversity, and diversity is selected for. How does Dave’s UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis explain it? Were all the strains created as different kinds (and remember, these bugs had to have been on the ark, maybe in some poor hapless dinosaurs?), or did they gain all these special new abilities? Have the species of Plasmodium that lack var genes lost their ability to produce them, with God creating more lethal parasites to start with? Please, Dave, what does your hypothesis predict for the origins of this nasty parasite and, in particular, the very valuable antigenic diversity contained between different strains? |
| Date: 2006/12/13 22:19:27, Link 128.95.11.93 |
| Author: argystokes |
| And here I thought Dave was busy typing up a response to my little post. But no, 20 minutes after it goes up, he runs away. I guess it is sleepytime in MO, and I'm sure I can count on a substantive response in the morning. |
| Date: 2006/12/14 10:08:12, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||||
Dave, you didn't actually read my whole post, did you? If you had, you wouldn't have said something as silly as this:
After all, I said:
It's like the HLA thing again, Dave. Mutation-free recombination doesn't create new alleles. You do remember what an allele is, right? And you do remember admitting they arise by mutation, right? Interesting hypotheses from Dr. Bergman on the acquisition of HIV and syphilis. Here I'd been told that the most likely scenario for the SIV/HIV jump from non-human primates to humans was because of unsanitary butchering processes. Now I learned it was from hot wild monkey sex! Furthermore, it is certainly surprising that he thinks that we got syphilis from Enumclaw style sheep sex, since sheep don't get syphilis. As I expected, you couldn't answer my specific questions because you couldn't find anything to cut and paste:
I didn't ask you about Plasmodium in general, I asked you about a specific pathogenic mechanism, and what your hypothesis PREDICTS about its origin. It's OK for a prediction to be wrong - that just means that a modification of the hypothesis is necessary. But if your hypothesis makes no predictions at all, other than "I bet I can find the answer to that at AiG," then it's completely vacuous. You also haven't answered how a nonpathogenic organism can become pathogenic without gaining any function (you ought to address the PfEMP1 proteins specifically, since everyone here knows all about how they work now). Now also might be a good time to address a question I asked of you in May, since you've had 7 months to think about it: What did the immune system do in the Garden of Eden? |
| Date: 2006/12/14 13:46:15, Link 128.95.21.138 | ||||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||||
Jerry Bergman has a PhD in human biology from Columbia Pacific University. A quick google reveals:
Read the whole thing here. |
| Date: 2006/12/15 10:26:02, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
|
| Date: 2006/12/15 22:07:56, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
Um, I worked in one of the labs that produced one of the infamous papers in ye olde big f'n stack (but the paper was before my time). Uh, yes, they do evolution of the immune system there. |
| Date: 2006/12/16 08:53:47, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
|
Dave, don't you think it would be considerate to answer some of the outstanding questions before you started demanding answers to your own? EDIT: You can also bet I won't be answering your challenge until you've clearly defined what you mean by "factory" and "machine." I can smell conflation miles ahead. |
| Date: 2006/12/17 10:49:01, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||||
Hmm, it's hard to reconcile these two thoughts from afdave:
and
So, a 1000x increase in species without adding alleles. I would ask Dave to expand on this hypothesis, but I'd rather he discuss my question on parasites or get into some post-flood ecology. Of course, he won't, since he can't find the answers on AiG or ICR. |
| Date: 2006/12/18 10:14:04, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
No need. The misrepresentations are obvious. |
| Date: 2006/12/18 21:36:53, Link 128.95.11.93 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Pff. That's a simile, not a metaphor. Therefore, God. |
| Date: 2006/12/19 11:27:56, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
So that whole butterflies must be designed because they're more complex than watches argument was just a red herring? Is there any part of your "hypothesis" that isn't completely vacuous? |
| Date: 2006/12/19 12:13:57, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
I don't understand the part where Improvius is making an inference based solely on his intuition. You wouldn't want to misrepresent Him (her?), would you? So now according to you, the amount of biological information is determined based on intuition, and the amount of complexity is determined based on intuition. Bricks. Hammers. Toast. Oh, and it takes quite a bit of intentional obtuseness to follow your arguments, Dave. Psst... parasites... you said you'd be willing to discuss them. Don't tell me we're going to spend another week on arguments from analogies. |
| Date: 2006/12/19 14:05:33, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Of course, my method for detecting design says that the organism that caused this was not designed, whereas yours says it was. ![]() Maybe you should use a method which might actually be somewhat objective for determining design, rather than "because I say so." |
| Date: 2006/12/20 12:12:58, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||||
| Author: argystokes | ||||
Back when I was in Junior High, there was this peculiar fellow who had recently switched over from Christianity to atheism. He had a binder full of "Soul Contracts" which by signing you could sign your soul over to him. He'd also hollow out the "B" in EVERLASTING GOBSTOPPERS, and walk around telling people, "I'll give you a Godstopper... for your SOUL!" I held out for two. |
| Date: 2006/12/20 18:34:38, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Some guy from Seattle, I think (that's quite the trip to Florida). Word on the street is he wears a big hat to cover up the rather pointed shape of his cranium. |
| Date: 2006/12/20 19:13:40, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Why? Or, should I ask, participate in what? |
| Date: 2006/12/21 17:49:41, Link 128.208.60.40 |
| Author: argystokes |
| I'm also from Seattle. And am still here. |
| Date: 2006/12/21 18:05:47, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Or, perhaps not. You know, that model Dave put up looks an awful lot like the Type III Secretion System. Ever get cholera back in your jungle days, Dave? Wasn't that an elegantly designed infection? |
| Date: 2006/12/21 21:21:37, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Yep, finished undergrad there in 2005, now am in grad school, Pathobiology department. |
| Date: 2006/12/21 22:38:04, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
Could we do malaria instead, if it's all the same to you? |
| Date: 2006/12/22 00:44:50, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
From the Spy vs Spy taxonomy thread:
Uh, when UD contributors have more knowledge of biology than you ever will, it's time to stop holding forth as OE's biggest contributor. Or perhaps that makes him overqualified. |
| Date: 2006/12/22 10:33:57, Link 128.208.60.40 | ||
| Author: argystokes | ||
|