Hoaxes

[Loudmouth]

How would you know if you had? In what ways have you been looking for one?

Have you? Can you name one?

 

[Loudmouth]

yes, the cadet emailed koonin.
he DID NOT email koonin the quote i posted.
as a matter of fact, you can read for yourself what koonin actually said in "the origins at 150".

Perhaps you should read it.

" However, there are also major problems with prokaryotes, which fundamentally differ from eukaryotes, in that they do not engage in regular sex but do exchange genes promiscuously, so species cannot be meaningfully defined10, – and the concept of species was at the center of both the first, Darwinian, and the second, modern, syntheses of evolutionary biology."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2784144/

You keep applying concepts from prokaryotes to eukaryotes, such as rampant HGT. Koonin says prokaryotes and eukaryotes are fundamentally different, yet you refuse to accept that.

i have this paper on my hard drive but i have been forbidden to upload it.
like someone PM'ed me about this, "i'm deeply troubled about the direction this forum is taking"

It's found free online. Please stop with the faked persecution.

 

[Loudmouth]

they are.
scientist such as noble and koonin are very outspoken about the central dogmas of the modern synthesis.

i never once said she wasn't.

there is no "whatever" to it.
the answer is simple.
her research removed supporting evidence for the modern synthesis.

Please stop with the fake persecution stories.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

There is nothing else to cover in biology other than evolution

So by definition, the possibility of supernatural forces is ruled out. Silly me, I thought science was about trying to discover the truth, no matter what the cause, so ruling out the possibility of God being involved in His creation is excluding certain possible causes for the data you are receiving from your experiments. Another Biblical prophesy fulfilled then.

 

[Loudmouth]

well, how about finding one of these alleged publications and posting it.

Are you saying that she lied on her own CV? Really?

Some Parallels Between Gene Control Systems in Maize and in Bacteria
Barbara McClintock
The American Naturalist
Vol. 95, No. 884 (Sep. - Oct., 1961), pp. 265-277
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2458651?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Title
The suppressor-mutator system of control of gene action in maize.
Descriptors ↓ Top ↑
Authors
McClintock, B.
Book
Carnegie Institution of Washington. Year Book No. 57:1957-1958. 1957-1958 pp. 415-31 pp.
http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/19601601197.html;jsessionid=C5DFDB54F8E9427293F28BB732F74741

From 1964:
http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/LL/B/B/D/H/_/llbbdh.pdf

I could list a whole bunch more, if you like.

 

[Loudmouth]

So by definition, the possibility of supernatural forces is ruled out.

Not at all. There is no evidence for supernatural forces, so claims about supernatural forces are ignored. Until there is evidence for these claims, they won't be considered. It isn't the fault of science that creationists can't evidence their claims.

Silly me, I thought science was about trying to discover the truth, no matter what the cause, so ruling out the possibility of God being involved in His creation is excluding certain possible causes for the data you are receiving from your experiments. Another Biblical prophesy fulfilled then.

Notice how you have to erect a strawman version of science.

What research is science supposed to consider? If there is no science, then you can hardly blame scientists for not accepting it.

 

[Willtor]

So by definition, the possibility of supernatural forces is ruled out. Silly me, I thought science was about trying to discover the truth, no matter what the cause, so ruling out the possibility of God being involved in His creation is excluding certain possible causes for the data you are receiving from your experiments. Another Biblical prophesy fulfilled then.

You thought wrong. Science doesn't have the tools to explore that broadly. What it _can_ do is prod at natural things and develop falsifiable models as to how they work.

 

[whois]

Are you saying that she lied on her own CV? Really?

Some Parallels Between Gene Control Systems in Maize and in Bacteria
Barbara McClintock
The American Naturalist
Vol. 95, No. 884 (Sep. - Oct., 1961), pp. 265-277
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2458651?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Title
The suppressor-mutator system of control of gene action in maize.
Descriptors ↓ Top ↑
Authors
McClintock, B.
Book
Carnegie Institution of Washington. Year Book No. 57:1957-1958. 1957-1958 pp. 415-31 pp.
http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/19601601197.html;jsessionid=C5DFDB54F8E9427293F28BB732F74741

From 1964:
http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/LL/B/B/D/H/_/llbbdh.pdf

I could list a whole bunch more, if you like.

maybe you need to send an email to evelyn fox kellar and tell her the biography she wrote about mcclintock is in error.
i find it extremely hard to believe that mcclintock would allow something like this.

 

[The Cadet]

maybe you need to send an email to evelyn fox kellar and tell her the biography she wrote about mcclintock is in error.
i find it extremely hard to believe that mcclintock would allow something like this.

And yet, the research is right there before your very eyes. Your narrative is interesting, compelling, and says some very unfortunate things about the scientific establishment. It is also fundamentally wrong.

 

[whois]

And yet, the research is right there before your very eyes. Your narrative is interesting, compelling, and says some very unfortunate things about the scientific establishment. It is also fundamentally wrong.

why tell me, i'm not the one that published it.
where do you think i got this stuff from, i reached up and grabbed it out of mid air?

edit:
it seems this apparent conflict is the result of the sources by loudmouth being university specific publications.
his last link appears to be an "in house", or "department only", publication.

 

[The Cadet]

why tell me, i'm not the one that published it.
where do you think i got this stuff from, i reached up and grabbed it out of mid air?

You're the only one holding it up, apparently even after it's shown to be wrong. So yeah, it's on you, as much as you don't like that idea.

 

[whois]

You're the only one holding it up, apparently even after it's shown to be wrong. So yeah, it's on you, as much as you don't like that idea.

apparently, what barbaras biographer (and barbara) considers "published" isn't the same as what loudmouth considers "published".
the links loudmouth posted comes from university specific publications, the last one seems to be a "department only" publication.
the book is, well a book, and cannot be considered as "being published" in the peer reviewed sense.

seeing as how loudmouth makes extensive use of strawman tactics, i will go with what barbaras biographer says.

 

[The Cadet]

seeing as how loudmouth makes extensive use of strawman tactics, i will go with what barbaras biographer says.

Loudmouth could be a clone of Adolf Hitler and he would still be right, and the biographer as you have cited her would still be wrong. Your ad hominem attack is weak sauce. LOOK AT HER CV! The papers are trivial to find. Your whole narrative about this scientists is nonsense.

 

[whois]

Loudmouth could be a clone of Adolf Hitler and he would still be right, and the biographer as you have cited her would still be wrong. Your ad hominem attack is weak sauce. LOOK AT HER CV! The papers are trivial to find. Your whole narrative about this scientists is nonsense.

the only thing i can suggest is for you to go crying on the mods shoulders.
maybe they will forbid me from posting anything about barbara too, just like they did with koonin and "the origin at 150".
like the person that PM'ed me said "i'm deeply troubled in the direction this forum is taking".
it won't help you though, there are many scientists that take a dim view of the modern synthesis.

 

[Armoured]

Och, I still haven't watched that one.

BTW, unrelated note, your sig is amazing!

I'm glad you liked it

 

[Armoured]

Funny - creation scientists say more or less the same about evolution - it's [evolution] a belief system masquerading as science and leads to bad theology/atheism.

Difference is, evolutionary biologists are, you know, actual scientists.

 

[lasthero]

the only thing i can suggest is for you to go crying on the mods shoulders.
maybe they will forbid me from posting anything about barbara too, just like they did with koonin and "the origin at 150".
like the person that PM'ed me said "i'm deeply troubled in the direction this forum is taking".

it won't help you though, there are many scientists that take a dim view of the modern synthesis.

Really? How many?

 

[crjmurray]

Really? How many?

Three, but they're highly flammable.

 

[Loudmouth]

maybe you need to send an email to evelyn fox kellar and tell her the biography she wrote about mcclintock is in error.

As we have seen in the past with other papers, you may have misunderstood the biography. I have shown you papers written and published after 1953. What more do you want?

 

[Loudmouth]

apparently, what barbaras biographer (and barbara) considers "published" isn't the same as what loudmouth considers "published".
the links loudmouth posted comes from university specific publications, the last one seems to be a "department only" publication.

"Since its inception in 1867, The American Naturalist has maintained its position as one of the world's premier peer-reviewed publications in ecology, evolution, and behavior research. Its goals are to publish articles that are of broad interest to the readership, pose new and significant problems, introduce novel subjects, develop conceptual unification, and change the way people think. AmNat emphasizes sophisticated methodologies and innovative theoretical syntheses—all in an effort to advance the knowledge of organic evolution and other broad biological principles."
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/journals/journal/an.html

McClintock published a paper in AmNat in 1961:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2458651?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

seeing as how loudmouth makes extensive use of strawman tactics, i will go with what barbaras biographer says.

When you are ready to address the facts, let me know.