Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Really? Was it as sad as, when being confronted with the fact that your doctoring of the Blum quote had been exposed, you simply pretended not to know what i was writing about?
Or as sad as when I demonstrated the plagiarism in the SAME GENES! rant and you simply did a Trump (doubled-down)?
THAT was a sad cop out.
Yes, he WAS a fine researcher, but NOW he is just a Chopra-pal hack. Times change, people change.
Look at Jeff Tomkins - he once ran the genetics core facility at Clemson, now, after joining the ICR, he has been reduced to, essentially, lying about actual research to try to prop up his creationist beliefs. Is he also a "fine researcher"?
So you ask for people's thoughts, then insult them when their thoughts do not conform to your own.
It is not my 'opinion' that you doctored a quote and plagiarized and misrepresented published science. I demonstrated those things.
That is the creationist way - when caught, cry foul! (or run away)
Actually, that, too is a field-wide consensus, but what would you know?
Even actual ENCODE researchers admitted that Birney's original claim was unsupported:
After I took part in an AMA (“Ask Me Anything”) on reddit, there has been some discussion elsewhere (such as by Ryan Gregory and in the comments of Ewan Birney’s blog) of what I and the other ENCODE scientists meant. In response, I’d like to echo what many others have said regarding the significance of ENCODE on the fraction of the genome that is “junk” (or nonfunctional, or unimportant to phenotype, or evolutionarily unconserved).
In its press releases, ENCODE reported finding 80% of the genome with “specific biochemical activity”, which turned into (through some combination of poor presentation on the part of ENCODE and poor interpretation on the part of the media) reports that 80% of the genome is functional. This claim is unlikely given what we know about the genome (here is a good explanation of why), so this created some amount of controversy.
I think very few members of ENCODE believe that the consortium proved that 80% of the genome is functional; no one claimed as much on the reddit AMA, and Ewan Birney has made it clear on his blog that he would not make this claim either. In fact, I think importance of ENCODE’s results on the question of what fraction of DNA is functional is very small, and that question is much better answered with other analysis, like that of evolutionary conservation. Lacking proof either way from ENCODE, there was some disagreement on the AMA regarding what the most likely true fraction is, but I think this stemmed from disagreements about definitions and willingness to hypothesize about undiscovered function, not misinterpretation of the significance of ENCODE’s results.
I think many members of the consortium (including Ewan Birney) regret the choice of terminology that led to the misinterpretations of the 80% number. Unfortunately, such misinterpretations are always a danger in scientific communication (both among the scientific community and to the public). Whether the consortium could have done a better job explaining the results, and whether we should expect the media to more accurately represent scientific results, is hard to say.
I think the contribution of ENCODE lies not in determining what DNA is functional but rather in determining what the functional DNA actually does. This was the focus of the integration paper and the companion papers, and I would have preferred for this to be the focus of the media coverage.
- Max Libbrecht, ENCODE researcher.
But I am just talking out of turn, above my station, because what do I know about this stuff - especially when I contradict creationist mantras and slogans.
Creationists don't want to know the facts, they just like the spin.
Why does your camp so often rely on doctored quotes and blatant plagiarism and mis-characterizing everything as "ad hominem attacks"? Is your camp really that desperate to prop up your beliefs that integrity and honesty and competence goes out the window?
Why does your camp immediately accept any and all "alternative interpretations" so readily?
Well, let us see the goods!
Show me where Crick, Sagan and Dawkins claim cells and atoms have consciousness.
Or are you referring to 'space bacteria' (derailing)?
Let us see where Dawkins postulates panspermia - let me guess, it will be that out of context
clip that made the rounds wherein he was answering a 'what if' question?
And Crick - from 1971 - wherein he wrote in the abstract:
It now seems unlikely that extraterrestrial living organisms could have reached the earth either as spores driven by the radiation pressure from another star or as living organisms imbedded in a meteorite. As an alternative to these nineteenth-century mechanisms, we have considered Directed Panspermia, the theory that organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by intelligent beings on another planet. We conclude that it is possible that life reached the earth in this way, but that the scientific evidence is inadequate at the present time to say anything about the probability. We draw attention to the kinds of evidence that might throw additional light on the topic.
Golly, he is TOTALLY running with it!
Or maybe you will produce a doctored quote like you did for Blum, or maybe you will link a paper claiming it shows that cells pick which mutations to keep despite the paper indicating no such thing?
Unless you don't like the opinions, then you insult.
Yes! YOU brought up the space bacteria (derailing)
as an example of why we should not consider the opinions of reputable scientists.
And I am fine with opinions as I do not take them as facts and find them fine as ideas to consider (think about, question, and so on).
LOL!
My gosh you are so desperate to never admit error, it is amazing.
I wrote:
"And some 'reputable scientists' thought life on earth came from space bacteria. And some 'reputable scientists' thought X-rays were a hoax. and some 'reputable scientists' are anti-vaccine."
HOW in the world is that a 'derailing'???
More misrepresentations.
It was and is my position that "reputable scientists" can have wacky, silly opinions on things just like anyone else, and just because you like one of their opinions does not mean that fallacious appeals to their authority make their opinions "truth."
Yes, that is exactly how you present them.... ("Yes, how dare "reputable scientists" like Crick, Sagan, and Dawkins postulate such a thing....we should not even consider it, right?" - How DARE I question these "reputable scientists!")...
No! I am actually one of the few people who actually have been corrected and admitted I was incorrect on a number of threads in various forums. I love to learn. You on the other hand????
I do not fit into your box Tas as I am not settled on this issue like you, but I suppose the few who believe it is possible (like Shapiro and Margulis) are also reputable scientists and I have not seen any evidence they are not conscious.
What about me?
show me where you have shown me to be wrong and I have not admitted it. Unlike many - especially many creationists - I do not think so highly of myself so as to pontificate on issues that I have little or no actual knowledge of, nor do I feel the need to puff up my credentials to make others 'believe me'. Nor do I rely on plagiarism or the doctoring of quotes or the misrepresentation of decades-old obscure symposia to make my points, but that is another matter.
Have they seen evidence that they are?
Where in the cell did your heroes indicate that this consciousness might be housed? Do they provide data, or just opinions?
And there you go again with "reputable scientists" - what makes THEM reputable and Lewontin not? That they espouse fringe ideas that people like you find worldview-comfort in?
What about the reputable scientists making statements within their actual areas of expertise who conclude that evolution is a well-supported fact of life?
Will you denigrate them for their tentative language? will you accuse them of using various propaganda techniques to further their cause like you already have - and bolsters these ad hominem accusations with more plagiarism and doctored quotes?
Stop playing martyr - you are not very good at it.
Weird - you totally ignored the whole ENCODE thing - something YOU brought up! - almost like you want to have plausible deniability for when you try to use ENCODE myths again!I do not believe everything this man proclaims? I do not state that what he says is a Fact or even TRUE. I offered it because it was an interesting perspective and expected many different responses (most of which are good ones). I do not believe ALL of what anyone says. For what I believe I try to separate what we can observe or experience from what people SAY these things mean.
I never once said you were proven by me to be incorrect and you would not admit it! Chubby Checker himself could not have done the twist any better..
I said when YOU accused Me of never admitting when I am shown to be incorrect that I have so admitted such a thing on various occasions (and I have)
So in THIS you ARE incorrect...
Where in the cell did your heroes indicate that this consciousness might be housed? Do they provide data, or just opinions?
They did not...YOU suggested the Nucleus (knowing you do not believe that) but nothing demonstrates that .
(in fact in some cases where the nucleus has been removed the cell continues to function until it dies)
They in fact make no speculation about WHERE consciousness resides...
And why are you still brain stuck on this one guy and your personal opinion about him? No offense but is it some sort of mental block? He was not the only scientist that suggested this possibility!
You know, the word "heroes" is plural.I agree if ONLY HIM then the possibility may not even be worth consideration but it is not only this well published peer reviewed MD...it includes OTHER reputable scientists.
Weird - you totally ignored the whole ENCODE thing - something YOU brought up! - almost like you want to have plausible deniability for when you try to use ENCODE myths again!
I did not ignore it at all...I addressed it...in post 82 I said:
The encode figure (which you brought up...the alleged 80%) the opinion was not that it was unsupported but misunderstood.
Something having a purpose as opposed to performing an active process are two different things. All parts of the genome have a function (a purpose natural to or intended for the person or thing it produces). They are there as part of what makes us what/who we are. If a number of them were removed we may no longer maintain existence as who or what we are. Many areas of the genome however are not clearly functional (in other words they do not demonstrate noticeable activity) in relation to some operation that causes an intended product. That does not mean they do not have a purpose.
Then I made the following analogy:
In our culture the red in a stop sign does nothing on its own. It does not move, or act/react, or produce anything on its own. We are trained to respond to this but to someone not so trained they may not respond as we would. Thus in that it appears to DO nothing on its own (it not being functional as acting in some way) it has a function (to elicit a response in the viewer of the colored sign). Perhaps this is just a Semantical differentiation but I believe it makes a point.
So in other words something can serve a purpose but not actively operate producing something.
Funny stuff.
I like getting back to the root of the issue.
You wrote, in your condescending best:
..and then you insult the ENCODE consortium though it is comprised of 450 well published scientists from many fields...Oh Ma,n you think more highly of yourself than you ought....
After I suggested that cells are 'conscious' only if we use ENCODE-like expansions of definitions - because it is OK for pshun to dismiss the conclusions of paleoanthropologists, molecular phylogeneticists, and evolutionary biologists in general, but if I dismiss the unwarranted and controversial statements of the ENCODE group, well golly, I am just full of myself and never mind that I, you know, quoted an actual ENCODE researcher:
Even actual ENCODE researchers admitted that Birney's original claim was unsupported:I am just full of myself.
After I took part in an AMA (“Ask Me Anything”) on reddit, there has been some discussion elsewhere (such as by Ryan Gregory and in the comments of Ewan Birney’s blog) of what I and the other ENCODE scientists meant. In response, I’d like to echo what many others have said regarding the significance of ENCODE on the fraction of the genome that is “junk” (or nonfunctional, or unimportant to phenotype, or evolutionarily unconserved).- Max Libbrecht, ENCODE researcher.
In its press releases, ENCODE reported finding 80% of the genome with “specific biochemical activity”, which turned into (through some combination of poor presentation on the part of ENCODE and poor interpretation on the part of the media) reports that 80% of the genome is functional. This claim is unlikely given what we know about the genome (here is a good explanation of why), so this created some amount of controversy.
I think very few members of ENCODE believe that the consortium proved that 80% of the genome is functional; no one claimed as much on the reddit AMA, and Ewan Birney has made it clear on his blog that he would not make this claim either. In fact, I think importance of ENCODE’s results on the question of what fraction of DNA is functional is very small, and that question is much better answered with other analysis, like that of evolutionary conservation. Lacking proof either way from ENCODE, there was some disagreement on the AMA regarding what the most likely true fraction is, but I think this stemmed from disagreements about definitions and willingness to hypothesize about undiscovered function, not misinterpretation of the significance of ENCODE’s results.
I think many members of the consortium (including Ewan Birney) regret the choice of terminology that led to the misinterpretations of the 80% number. Unfortunately, such misinterpretations are always a danger in scientific communication (both among the scientific community and to the public). Whether the consortium could have done a better job explaining the results, and whether we should expect the media to more accurately represent scientific results, is hard to say.
I think the contribution of ENCODE lies not in determining what DNA is functional but rather in determining what the functional DNA actually does. This was the focus of the integration paper and the companion papers, and I would have preferred for this to be the focus of the media coverage.
Yes and Libbrecht's opinion is well respected. And it is true that "members of the consortium (including Ewan Birney) regret the choice of terminology that led to the misinterpretations of the 80% number" because to most researchers "having function" means being active in the production of some product or outcome. But under this definition it is hard to explain "the function" that preceding and exceeding "non-functional" sequences play in the replication of "functional" sections that assure the coding of specific proteins.
It is as if the "non-functional" sequences assure the correct proteins are being made (which gives them a function though they were always considered "non-functional").
Says the fellow that claimed a paper on an enzyme that fixes G-quadruplexes supports his claim that 'cells choose which mutations stay and which ones don't'...
No that unrelated paper demonstrates how an enzyme is involved in that process, and that thread was a query not an assertion about whether or not there were enzymes or other processes involved, and IF SO what they were (as opposed to the simplified natural selection explanation) but not strange that you went so far off topic....I guess you figure if you can just discredit me you win (but there is no contest here)Says the fellow that claimed a paper on an enzyme that fixes G-quadruplexes supports his claim that 'cells choose which mutations stay and which ones don't'...
It is as if the "non-functional" sequences assure the correct proteins are being made (which gives them a function though they were always considered "non-functional").
This thread is about whether or not cells can be said to have consciousness. Apparently some reputable scientists disagree with you!
Just as higher organisms give off and receive information (processing it and acting on it) from others AND from the environment, so do cells. The Genetic Science Learning Center in “the Inside story of Cell communication” tells us that cells communicate with others and with their environment by sending and receiving signals. For higher organisms this comes through touch, taste, seeing, smelling, hearing, and seeing (ll the outward aspects in touch with their surroundings). the cell is no different as signals coming in must transverse the cell membrane (its outer self).
Sometimes (just like us) the information comes in void of the sensory receptors and in some cases only communicates through them. Just as humans only sense things within our perceptual parameters the same can be said for cells. Once inside, the information passes on its way to its ultimate destiny fulfilling its purpose or causing a response.
The authors wrote “Collectively, the proteins that relay a signal to its destination make up a signaling pathway. A signaling pathway can have few or many steps. Some signaling pathways branch out in different directions, sending signals to more than one place in the cell.” This is like our nerves which carry a similar function. Even a little information can elicit a large response just like a cell can interpret some small information signal eliciting a large response. The cell can and does respond in a number of ways (just as we do...different people respond differently to the same stimuli).
They go on to tell us that “Each cell receives a complex combination of signals which simultaneously trigger many different signaling pathways. Each step in a signaling pathway provides an opportunity for cross-talk between different signals. Through cross-talk, the cell integrates information from many different signaling pathways to initiate an appropriate response.” How is this different than an animal taking in the information variables of its community? IMO it is no different.
No that unrelated paper demonstrates how an enzyme is involved in that process, and that thread was a query not an assertion about whether or not there were enzymes or other processes involved, and IF SO what they were (as opposed to the simplified natural selection explanation) but not strange that you went so far off topic....I guess you figure if you can just discredit me you win (but there is no contest here)Says the fellow that claimed a paper on an enzyme that fixes G-quadruplexes supports his claim that 'cells choose which mutations stay and which ones don't'...
pshun:
"Here's an article that suggest the cell's role in determining which ones stay and which ones go..."
You must have read a different article than the one you linked to. That article outlines a 'natural' problem (G quadruplexes) that interfere with DNA replication, and that there is an enzyme that clears these quadruplexes (usually) and that mutations in the gene that encodes one of these enzymes is associated with certain kinds of cancer.
I did not see anything about cells determining which mutations stay or go.
Probably because such 'function' has not been found?
More old news that you seem to ignore when necessary:
Sandwalk: The truth about ENCODE
Moran (a reputable scientist) starts by posting a quote from a 2015 paper:
"...In September 2012, a batch of more than 30 articles presenting the results of the ENCODE (Encyclopaedia of DNA Elements) project was released. Many of these articles appeared in Nature and Science, the two most prestigious interdisciplinary scientific journals. Since that time, hundreds of other articles dedicated to the further analyses of the Encode data have been published. The time of hundreds of scientists and hundreds of millions of dollars were not invested in vain since this project had led to an apparent paradigm shift: contrary to the classical view, 80% of the human genome is not junk DNA, but is functional. This hypothesis has been criticized by evolutionary biologists, sometimes eagerly, and detailed refutations have been published in specialized journals with impact factors far below those that published the main contribution of the Encode project to our understanding of genome architecture. In 2014, the Encode consortium released a new batch of articles that neither suggested that 80% of the genome is functional nor commented on the disappearance of their 2012 scientific breakthrough...."
and asks the question:
"How did we get to this stage where the most publicized result of papers published by leading scientists in the best journals turns out to be wrong, but hardly anyone knows it?"
and writes later:
"The ENCODE Consortium decided to add up all the transcription factor binding sites—spurious or not—and all the chromatin makers—whether or not they meant anything—and all the transcripts—even if they were junk. With a little judicious juggling of numbers they came up with the following summary of their results (Birney et al., 2012) .. "
AND since you do not tend to post in threads other people start much, more on ENCODE:
Is junk DNA bunk? A critique of ENCODE
W. Ford Doolittle (a very reputable scientist)
Abstract
Do data from the Encyclopedia Of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project render the notion of junk DNA obsolete? Here, I review older arguments for junk grounded in the C-value paradox and propose a thought experiment to challenge ENCODE’s ontology. Specifically, what would we expect for the number of functional elements (as ENCODE defines them) in genomes much larger than our own genome? If the number were to stay more or less constant, it would seem sensible to consider the rest of the DNA of larger genomes to be junk or, at least, assign it a different sort of role (structural rather than informational). If, however, the number of functional elements were to rise significantly with C-value then, (i) organisms with genomes larger than our genome are more complex phenotypically than we are, (ii) ENCODE’s definition of functional element identifies many sites that would not be considered functional or phenotype-determining by standard uses in biology, or (iii) the same phenotypic functions are often determined in a more diffuse fashion in larger-genomed organisms. Good cases can be made for propositions ii and iii. A larger theoretical framework, embracing informational and structural roles for DNA, neutral as well as adaptive causes of complexity, and selection as a multilevel phenomenon, is needed.
Really? Do tell!
What to make of this, I wonder:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7011/full/nature03022.html?foxtrotcallback=true
ABSTRACT:
"The functional importance of the roughly 98% of mammalian genomes not corresponding to protein coding sequences remains largely undetermined1. Here we show that some large-scale deletions of the non-coding DNA referred to as gene deserts2, 3, 4 can be well tolerated by an organism. We deleted two large non-coding intervals, 1,511 kilobases and 845 kilobases in length, from the mouse genome. Viable mice homozygous for the deletions were generated and were indistinguishable from wild-type littermates with regard to morphology, reproductive fitness, growth, longevity and a variety of parameters assaying general homeostasis. Further detailed analysis of the expression of multiple genes bracketing the deletions revealed only minor expression differences in homozygous deletion and wild-type mice. Together, the two deleted segments harbour 1,243 non-coding sequences conserved between humans and rodents (more than 100 base pairs, 70% identity). Some of the deleted sequences might encode for functions unidentified in our screen; nonetheless, these studies further support the existence of potentially ‘disposable DNA’ in the genomes of mammals."
And I note that even though what I wrote was supported by evidence and thus what I wrote was TRUE, you apparently stand by your insult:
"Oh Ma,n you think more highly of yourself than you ought...."
Says the fellow that claimed a paper on an enzyme that fixes G-quadruplexes supports his claim that 'cells choose which mutations stay and which ones don't'...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?