Hoaxes

[Willtor]

why should it be fraught with problems?
honest research, such as barbaras should NEVER be ostracized like it was.

It's better now than it was then, and it'll be better tomorrow than it is now. We're working on that.

Again, it doesn't change the fact that it is now generally accepted and that she won a Nobel Prize for it.

 

[joshua 1 9]

"Only"? We do make up the bulk of all Christianity in the world, you know.

Rev 7 9 After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands.

 

[whois]

It's better now than it was then, and it'll be better tomorrow than it is now. We're working on that.

one of the biggest problems is that science has become influenced by money.
research will follow the money.

Again, it doesn't change the fact that it is now generally accepted and that she won a Nobel Prize for it.

true, but for her, and her research, to be ostracized like it was, was uncalled for.
honestly, what would be the reason for this?
she had the proof.
it was ignored.
why?
because it was THOUGHT to not occur in animals.
this implies there wasn't any real evidence for this scepticism, except that darwinist simply didn't want to believe it.

another reason could be:
The mechanisms of transposable elements illustrate one of the important breaks with the central dogma of molecular biology.
Retrotransposons are DNA sequences that are first copied as RNA sequences, which are then inserted back into a different part of the genome using reverse transcriptase.
DNA transposons may use a cut and paste mechanism that does not require an RNA
intermediate. As Beurton et al. (2008) comment, ‘it seems that a cell’s enzymes are capable of actively manipulating DNA to do this or that.
A genome consists largely of semi-stable genetic elements that may be rearranged or
even moved around in the genome thus modifying the information content of DNA.’ The central dogma of the 1950s, as a general principle of biology, has therefore been
progressively undermined until it has become useless as support for theModern Synthesis.
(Werner, 2005;Mattick, 2007; Shapiro, 2009)

 

[Loudmouth]

one of the biggest problems is that science has become influenced by money.
research will follow the money.

true, but for her, and her research, to be ostracized like it was, was uncalled for.

Cry me a river. She kept working and kept publishing. That's what every scientist does. It is what creationists don't do. Creationists don't do any research.

These constant red herrings are simply uncalled for. Please get back on topic.

 

[lasthero]

one of the biggest problems is that science has become influenced by money.
research will follow the money.

What do you expect? Research costs money.

true, but for her, and her research, to be ostracized like it was, was uncalled for.

She wasn't ostracized. She was a celebrated member of the scientific community even before it became apparent that she was correct on this particular subject. You're taking this one little tidbit and blowing it WAY out of proportion.

honestly, what would be the reason for this?

I don't know. Let's make up things until we find out.

this implies there wasn't any real evidence for this scepticism

It implies no such thing. You're just assuming they had no reason, based on nothing. Do you seriously think they just said something akin to 'We don't have any good reasons to reject your conclusions, but we're going to do it anyway, because it makes us feel icky.'?

And they DID eventually accept her research in light of new data. It didn't even take them all that long, really.

except that darwinist simply didn't want to believe it.

And that's why they eventually believed her, and heaped so much praise on her. They were just so mad.

 

[Willtor]

one of the biggest problems is that science has become influenced by money.
research will follow the money.

This is the problem in pharma. But it is a problem that researchers in that field complain about, constantly. Why aren't they complaining in genetics and evolution? Probably, there is no conspiracy. Probably, in those fields, money is simply not causing people to violate their ethical standards.

true, but for her, and her research, to be ostracized like it was, was uncalled for.
honestly, what would be the reason for this?
she had the proof.
it was ignored.
why?
because it was THOUGHT to not occur in animals.
this implies there wasn't any real evidence for this scepticism, except that darwinist simply didn't want to believe it.

another reason could be:
The mechanisms of transposable elements illustrate one of the important breaks with the central dogma of molecular biology.
Retrotransposons are DNA sequences that are first copied as RNA sequences, which are then inserted back into a different part of the genome using reverse transcriptase.
DNA transposons may use a cut and paste mechanism that does not require an RNA
intermediate. As Beurton et al. (2008) comment, ‘it seems that a cell’s enzymes are capable of actively manipulating DNA to do this or that.
A genome consists largely of semi-stable genetic elements that may be rearranged or
even moved around in the genome thus modifying the information content of DNA.’ The central dogma of the 1950s, as a general principle of biology, has therefore been
progressively undermined until it has become useless as support for theModern Synthesis.
(Werner, 2005;Mattick, 2007; Shapiro, 2009)

She is a darwinist (assuming "darwinist" means "proponent of evolution").

Eventually, the field couldn't progress until it accepted her results. Whatever the politics, whatever the reasons they didn't accept them when they first came to light, whatever they were thinking, the field came around because it had to do so. It was forced to accept the reality because it couldn't make progress against it. It worked, even when individuals didn't. And in the end, she got a freaking Nobel Prize for it! That's a bit of alright, if you're a scientist.

 

[whois]

Cry me a river. She kept working and kept publishing.

she quit publishing her work on transposons in 1953 as a direct result of the scepticism she recieved from the science establishment.

 

[Loudmouth]

she quit publishing her work on transposons in 1953 as a direct result of the scepticism she recieved from the science establishment.

Her CV says otherwise:

http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/LLBBGZ.pdf

She has many papers on maize and transposons post-1953. Please, get acquainted with the facts.

 

[whois]

Why aren't they complaining in genetics and evolution?

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

She is a darwinist (assuming "darwinist" means "proponent of evolution").

i never once said she wasn't.

Whatever the politics, whatever the reasons they didn't accept them . . .

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

 

[joshua 1 9]

Of course creationists state that. Evolution is a threat to their personal theology, what other choice do they have, then to engage their defense mechanisms?

Your projecting again. Evolution is no threat to creationists at all. Why would it be? It is just science and there is no conflict between science and the Bible. God gave us the Bible and God gave us Science, so there is no way that God can contradict Himself.

 

[whois]

Her CV says otherwise:

http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/LLBBGZ.pdf

She has many papers on maize and transposons post-1953. Please, get acquainted with the facts.

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

 

[Willtor]

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

Didn't someone in another thread actually email Koonin to find out if this was so? I'll look for the link, but if someone else has it handy...

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.

Then it should be surprising that she was a proponent of the modern synthesis.

 

[The Cadet]

Didn't someone in another thread actually email Koonin to find out if this was so? I'll look for the link, but if someone else has it handy...

Also, are we seriously going to play the "persecution" card with regards to a scientist who published work, had it confirmed and universally accepted within her lifetime, never stopped getting research grants, and won a nobel prize for her research? Really? You might as well say Einstein was persecuted because people didn't just immediately shower him with recognition. This whole conversation is ridiculous.

 

[whois]

Didn't someone in another thread actually email Koonin to find out if this was so?

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".
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"

 

[Willtor]

View attachment 162775 View attachment 162776

Many thanks.

 

[crjmurray]

Didn't someone in another thread actually email Koonin to find out if this was so? I'll look for the link, but if someone else has it handy...



Then it should be surprising that she was a proponent of the modern synthesis.

That was me and The Cadet. I also contacted, Ayala, and Sepkoski. Pretty much everyone whois quotemines has been contacted and we have posted the emails where they state that he is misrepresenting them. Yet here we are.

 

[lasthero]

her research removed supporting evidence for the modern synthesis.

How?

 

[bhsmte]

Your projecting again. Evolution is no threat to creationists at all. Why would it be? It is just science and there is no conflict between science and the Bible. God gave us the Bible and God gave us Science, so there is no way that God can contradict Himself.

Judging by the creationists on this board, the threat appears quite real.

 

[bhsmte]

That was me and The Cadet. I also contacted, Ayala, and Sepkoski. Pretty much everyone whois quotemines has been contacted and we have posted the emails where they state that he is misrepresenting them. Yet here we are.

Yep, here we are, and the fun continues.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

We have not found a supernatural cause for anything.

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