Blackjack and Design

[bhsmte]

yes, i did.

are you saying this little debacle never happened?
all of the players are named.
you will find it difficult indeed to defend your position.

Well, you stick to what you need to.

It seems though, that all of your many claims on these boards have a similar theme and end up with the same results; no support and boatloads of evidence to refute them.

But, you just keep going, I know you have to.

 

[Loudmouth]

the piece was posted for 2 reasons.
to show that the "proof" of a human-ape connection is wrong, it shows no such proof.

We don't use those hybridization experiments or their results to evidence a human-ape connection, so you haven't shown it to be wrong.

We have the actual DNA sequences. The hybridization results are completely ignored.

and to show the corruptible nature of the peer review process.

When it is something you like, the article is infallible and the process of publication is unimpeachable. When you don't like the data, you claim that all scientists are liars and the entire system is corrupt.

You really need to pick an explanation and stick with it.

these scientists uncovered shady dealings of their fellow scientists.
the reviewer chooses NOT to publish that fact.

Then the other scientists should report them to their committees and granting institutions. That's how those things work.

What is wrong is claiming that all scientists are corrupt so that you don't have to deal with the evidence, which is apparently your chosen line of defense.

i especially like your statement of "fudging the data".
it happens, we all do it one time or another.
but when the review process exposes this sort of thing, then it needs to be addressed, not merely swept away like it never happened.

Can you show us the data from the chimp, human, and gorilla genome papers is corrupt?

 

[Loudmouth]

yes, i did.

are you saying this little debacle never happened?
all of the players are named.
you will find it difficult indeed to defend your position.

What does this debacle have to do with the modern data that is used to evidence a link between humans and other apes?

 

[whois]

When it is something you like, the article is infallible and the process of publication is unimpeachable. When you don't like the data, you claim that all scientists are liars and the entire system is corrupt.

You really need to pick an explanation and stick with it.

what are you talking about?
the debacle surrounding ayala?
yes, science is a highly respected source, i have no reason not to believe what was published.

Then the other scientists should report them to their committees and granting institutions. That's how those things work.

yes.
i believe the reviewers name, as along with a lot of others were mentioned.
but i do see everyones point of not posting the source.
i've had quite a few of my sources to quit working, it's the reason i started saving them instead of just bookmarking them.

What is wrong is claiming that all scientists are corrupt so that you don't have to deal with the evidence, which is apparently your chosen line of defense.

i've never claimed all scientists are corrupt.

 

[Subduction Zone]

what are you talking about?
the debacle surrounding ayala?
yes, science is a highly respected source, i have no reason not to believe what was published.
yes.
i believe the reviewers name, as along with a lot of others were mentioned.
but i do see everyones point of not posting the source.
i've had quite a few of my sources to quit working, it's the reason i started saving them instead of just bookmarking them.
i've never claimed all scientists are corrupt.

Once again by not revealing your source you make your claim less than relevant. Now since sources have been found and they have been extremely flawed it makes your claim bogus. It also makes it look like you are going out of the way to protect a bogus source.

 

[Loudmouth]

what are you talking about?
the debacle surrounding ayala?
yes, science is a highly respected source, i have no reason not to believe what was published.

Ayala saying that he was misquoted is not reason enough?

yes.
i believe the reviewers name, as along with a lot of others were mentioned.
but i do see everyones point of not posting the source.
i've had quite a few of my sources to quit working, it's the reason i started saving them instead of just bookmarking them.
i've never claimed all scientists are corrupt.

Do you think the thousands of scientists who have added to the genome DNA sequence databases for humans and other ape species are all lying?

 

[Loudmouth]

Once again by not revealing your source you make your claim less than relevant. Now since sources have been found and they have been extremely flawed it makes your claim bogus. It also makes it look like you are going out of the way to protect a bogus source.

I think it is much more likely that an ego is being protected.

 

[whois]

Once again by not revealing your source you make your claim less than relevant.

and once again i will divulge it to any moderator.

Now since sources have been found and they have been extremely flawed it makes your claim bogus.

actually only one person contested it, and they didn't use "flawed"

It also makes it look like you are going out of the way to protect a bogus source.

believe what you will.

 

[crjmurray]

Once again by not revealing your source you make your claim less than relevant. Now since sources have been found and they have been extremely flawed it makes your claim bogus. It also makes it look like you are going out of the way to protect a bogus source.

God forbid she give up the secret Italian ornithological website.

 

[Loudmouth]

and once again i will divulge it to any moderator.

actually only one person contested it, and they didn't use "flawed"

believe what you will.

Then let's throw out the hybridization data.

Do you want to discuss the actual DNA sequences of these genomes?

 

[whois]

God forbid she give up the secret Italian ornithological website.

and like i said, twice i believe, the sources you posted and the source i have are different.
the material appears to be identical though.

 

[Loudmouth]

and like i said, twice i believe, the sources you posted and the source i have are different.
the material appears to be identical though.

It's all a moot point since you can throw out all of the hybridization data and still have mountains of genetic evidence demonstrating shared ancestry between humans and other apes.

 

[bhsmte]

It's all a moot point since you can throw out all of the hybridization data and still have mountains of genetic evidence demonstrating shared ancestry between humans and other apes.

But, but..........................

 

[whois]

Ayala saying that he was misquoted is not reason enough?

judge to defendant: you are guilty.
defendant to third person: i didn't do it, really.

uh, right.

 

[crjmurray]

and like i said, twice i believe, the sources you posted and the source i have are different.
the material appears to be identical though.

That's what I would say if I was quoting a bunch of bird obsessed Italians who can't even make a decent website.

 

[Loudmouth]

judge to defendant: you are guilty.
defendant to third person: i didn't do it, really.

uh, right.

Ayala said that he was misquoted. Why isn't that good enough for you?

 

[crjmurray]

judge to defendant: you are guilty.
defendant to third person: i didn't do it, really.

uh, right.

Defendants lawyer: Here's a whole list of people that can provide evidence that my client didn't do it.

Now what's the judge do then? Stick his fingers in his ears and scream?

 

[bhsmte]

judge to defendant: you are guilty.
defendant to third person: i didn't do it, really.

uh, right.

You really need to work on your analogies.

 

[whois]

Defendants lawyer: Here's a whole list of people that can provide evidence that my client didn't do it.

Now what's the judge do then? Stick his fingers in his ears and scream?

judge: i have a knapsack full of letters condemning my actions, none of them mentions ayala.

 

[crjmurray]

Ayala said that he was misquoted. Why isn't that good enough for you?

The Ayala that said it was the real Ayala. The one that denied it is an Illuminati reptilian doppelganger.