tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post3075199774057334435..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: RNA-Directed DNA Methylation: The Evolution of a Complex Epigenetic Pathway in Flowering PlantsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger198125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50780703862604178112016-05-06T14:14:57.708-07:002016-05-06T14:14:57.708-07:00Now, they're showing again.Now, they're showing again. Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-90929015173893931462016-05-06T14:14:29.195-07:002016-05-06T14:14:29.195-07:00Very strange. Our previous posts weren't showi...Very strange. Our previous posts weren't showing, then they showed, now they aren't showing again. Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57088913342442495642016-05-06T04:58:19.808-07:002016-05-06T04:58:19.808-07:00natschuster: Did they test every single bacteria? ...<b>natschuster</b>: <i>Did they test every single bacteria? </i><br /><br />Every single bacterium could be a single bacterium. (If you're not sure it is non-resistant, clone it several times for testing.) <br /><br />Now, we know that if you allow the bacteria to reproduce, the ancestors will eventually develop antibiotic resistance. The question is whether they are developing that resistance in response to antibiotics, or whether the are mutations random. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74035774564040077912016-05-06T04:57:55.366-07:002016-05-06T04:57:55.366-07:00natschuster: Did they test every single bacteria? ...<b>natschuster</b>: <i>Did they test every single bacteria? </i><br /><br />Every single bacterium could be a single bacterium. (If you're not sure it is non-resistant, clone it several times for testing.) <br /><br />Now, we know that if you allow the bacteria to reproduce, the ancestors will eventually develop antibiotic resistance. The question is whether they are developing that resistance in response to antibiotics, or whether the are mutations random. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75056926524639285322016-05-06T04:47:29.753-07:002016-05-06T04:47:29.753-07:00natschuster: How do they know that there were no a...<b>natschuster</b>: <i>How do they know that there were no antibiotic resistant bacteria in the batch before the experiment started? </i><br /><br />Nowadays, of course, we can sequence their genomes. But for the basic experiment, use a strain that is known to be non-resistant by testing its reaction to antibiotics. <br /><br />We know that over generations the bacteria will develop resistance. The question is whether it develops resistance due to exposure to the antibiotics, or whether the mutations are random. <br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-26816115059138847322016-05-05T04:30:04.622-07:002016-05-05T04:30:04.622-07:00Zachriel is willfully ignorant and never addresses...Zachriel is willfully ignorant and never addresses any arguments:<br /><br /><b>The Lederberg experiment did not establish that mutations are random, as in happenstance occurrences. Zachriel is lying again.</b>Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-14994303286972690602016-05-05T04:29:32.562-07:002016-05-05T04:29:32.562-07:00LoL! @ pedant- all evoTARDs are pitiful and every ...LoL! @ pedant- all evoTARDs are pitiful and every evolutionist is an evoTARDJoe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-61399852416345123302016-05-01T17:40:29.780-07:002016-05-01T17:40:29.780-07:00Pedant:
Take a course in biology, nat.
LOL! Anot...Pedant:<br /><br /><i>Take a course in biology, nat.</i><br /><br />LOL! Another evotard heard from. The insufferable pomposity of dirt worshippers is now legendary. This one calls himself Pedant to boot. How apropos?<br /><br />ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5988593674005571562016-05-01T17:09:36.174-07:002016-05-01T17:09:36.174-07:00Take a course in biology, nat.
Or logic.
Or both...Take a course in biology, nat.<br /><br />Or logic.<br /><br />Or both.<br /><br />You're pitiful.Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-86166702747624130052016-05-01T13:29:28.610-07:002016-05-01T13:29:28.610-07:00natschuster: How do thye know that there were no a...<b>natschuster</b>: <i>How do thye know that there were no antibiotic resistant bacteria in the batch before the experiment started?</i><br /><br />As noted the last time you asked, they're all clones of a non-resistant bacterium. <br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-13697923290162169822016-05-01T12:01:21.811-07:002016-05-01T12:01:21.811-07:00Zach:
How do thye know that there were no antibio...Zach:<br /><br />How do thye know that there were no antibiotic resistant bacteria in the batch before the experiment started? Did they test every single bacteria?natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-1327833490678115312016-04-30T17:40:28.489-07:002016-04-30T17:40:28.489-07:00Don't be silly, Zach.
Nic hasn't shown th...Don't be silly, Zach.<br /><br />Nic hasn't shown that he knows how to grapple with evidence.<br /><br />It's so much easier to pretend that it doesn't exist.Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84491573151847671832016-04-30T06:18:57.723-07:002016-04-30T06:18:57.723-07:00Nic: In your little world, you are never refuted. ...<b>Nic</b>: <i>In your little world, you are never refuted. </i><br /><br />Some people attempt to address argument, but you have yet to do so. As pointed out above, it's easy to see that you have never addressed the content of any of the scientific citations provided. <br /><br /><b>Nic</b>: <i>I pointed out clearly the arguments you presented did not support your position. </i><br /><br />Yes. That's what you said, but never bothered to show. You can only do that by addressing the contents of the argument, which included scientific citations. <br /><br /><b>Nic</b>: <i>you most certainly did not demonstrate how that occurs, you simply asserted it was via random mutation and selection. </i><br /><br />No. Citations to repeatable scientific tests is not mere assertion, but an appeal to evidence. To refute that you have to grapple with that evidence, something you continue to avoid. <br /><br /><br /> Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29924857477163811622016-04-30T00:32:42.588-07:002016-04-30T00:32:42.588-07:00Bill Shakespear
"I return after a couple days...Bill Shakespear<br />"I return after a couple days and notice that Cornelius is still providing asylum to the mentally and emotionally challenged."<br /><br /><br />This is rich coming from you and your side. The history of Cornelius forum comments has your side utilizing far worse content than these poster. And by the way, I agree, I wish this comment section didn't have such conduct, but that appears to be the nature of this subject and those who champion it. Atheistic/Agnostic forums dealing with the subject Evolionary theory are cesspit sewers on steroids compared to Cornelius blog comments section and you know that.<br /><br />Which brings up your side's need for cowardly anonymity and avatars from your side including you. At least with these charaters you are hypocitically trying to comdemn, everyone knows who they are in real life.<br /><br /><a href="http://lolindian.com/images/2014/March/13/fighting-on-internet.jpg" rel="nofollow">Brave Sockpuppets on the Net, but Cowards in Real Life</a><br />Chaparral Earthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00618976919417073750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-42274230029670523872016-04-29T19:07:14.483-07:002016-04-29T19:07:14.483-07:00Again:
The Lederberg experiment did not establish...Again:<br /><br /><b>The Lederberg experiment did not establish that mutations are random, as in happenstance occurrences. Zachriel is lying again.<br /><br />And if exposure induces resistance then that fits Dr Spetner's hypothesis and not Darwin's.</b>Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49757771287694227562016-04-29T18:14:00.579-07:002016-04-29T18:14:00.579-07:00Zachriel's deep deceptive nature is only surpa...Zachriel's deep deceptive nature is only surpassed by his mule-headed stupidity. Yet the dirt-worshipping evotard thinks he's smarter than everyone else.<br /><br />The superiority complex of an evotard can never be underestimated.<br /><br />ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-36456687255850311112016-04-29T15:22:00.642-07:002016-04-29T15:22:00.642-07:00Zachriel,
"You haven't refuted anything....Zachriel,<br /><br />"You haven't refuted anything. You have rejected it without argument."<br /><br />In your little world, you are never refuted. I pointed out clearly the arguments you presented did not support your position. That is what is known in the real world as being refuted.<br /><br />"You have agreed that "bacteria exposed to penicillin may develop a 'memory' of that exposure." We have provided evidence of how that 'memory' is made."<br /><br />Yes, I agree bacteria exposed to penicillin<br />can develop a 'memory' of that experience.<br /><br />No, you most certainly did not demonstrate how that occurs, you simply asserted it was via random mutation and selection. That is not evidence which I have repeatedly pointed out. However, you simply continue to make the same assertion, and it has become truly tiresome. So, if you have some evidence, please present it. Otherwise, I'm ready to move on. <br />Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-27649376049938554842016-04-29T14:37:39.793-07:002016-04-29T14:37:39.793-07:00ghostrider,
"See the Discovery Institute'...ghostrider,<br /><br />"See the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document."<br /><br />What's the problem with the Wedge Document? It simply lays out a plan of action to promote the idea of Intelligent Design, how is that dishonest?<br /><br />"Of course there's also the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial which exposed ID's breathtaking inanity and willful dishonesty."<br /><br />You mean the trial where the totally incompetent Judge Jones said he understood the question before him because he had seen the movie Inherit the Wind? Yeah, that's one brilliant jurist.<br /><br />Is that the same trial where the overly arrogant and pompous Kenneth Miller so eloquently showed all those ignorant IDiots how the left over evolutionary junk known as the beta-globin pseudogene was broken and functionless across three species and was, therefore, irrefutable proof of common ancestry? Is that the same trial? <br /><br />How did that broken and useless gene argument work out?<br /><br />"As an interesting sidenote, the company that published the infamout Creation turned ID book Of Pandas and People just went bankrupt and was purchased by the DI. Why do you suppose they'd do that?"<br /><br />I see the situation as completely irrelevant, but if you wish to know why Discovery Institute purchased a bankrupt publisher, I would suggest you ask them.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50280312316942043242016-04-29T14:30:26.629-07:002016-04-29T14:30:26.629-07:00Nic: it's called refuting the efficacy of your...<b>Nic</b>: <i>it's called refuting the efficacy of your argument. </i><br /><br />You haven't refuted anything. You have rejected it without argument. <br /><br />You have agreed that "bacteria exposed to penicillin may develop a 'memory' of that exposure." We have provided evidence of how that 'memory' is made. To refute that you have to address that evidence. <br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-9290682260633910102016-04-29T14:23:42.644-07:002016-04-29T14:23:42.644-07:00Zachriel,
"We have cited scientific research...Zachriel,<br /><br />"We have cited scientific research."<br /><br />None of which supports your claim that the formation and storage of 'memory' does not require intelligence.<br /><br />"It's called handwaving,...." <br /><br />No, Zachriel, it's called refuting the efficacy of your argument. You have not provided one iota of evidence showing intelligence is not required for the production and retention of memory.<br /><br />"It shows that the "memory" is due to a random mutation that becomes predominant in the population through selection."<br /><br />It shows nothing of the kind. How does a 'memory' originate via random processes?Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-24338857677541186352016-04-29T13:18:12.700-07:002016-04-29T13:18:12.700-07:00Nic: Again, you have failed to provide any kind of...<b>Nic</b>: <i>Again, you have failed to provide any kind of an explanation other than to assert it to be true.</i><br /><br />We have cited scientific research. In response, you have simply rejected it without commenting on the specifics. It's called handwaving because your response would have the same effect if we cited Prof. Einstein or Dr. Seuss. <br /> Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37449266522864568642016-04-29T13:09:33.053-07:002016-04-29T13:09:33.053-07:00Nic: you have yet to explain how memory or the enc...<b>Nic</b>: <i>you have yet to explain how memory or the encoding of memory does not require intelligence at some point of the process. </i><br /><br />We not only explained it, but provided an example; antibiotic resistance as in the Luria & Delbrück fluctuation test for which, in part, they won the Nobel Prize. <br /><br /><b>Nic</b>: <i>How is this evidence for the lack of intelligence in the memory creation process? </i><br /><br />It shows that the "memory" is due to a random mutation that becomes predominant in the population through selection. <br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-69169273451868353562016-04-29T12:38:10.780-07:002016-04-29T12:38:10.780-07:00Zachriel,
"Yes, the comment that starts with...Zachriel,<br /><br />"Yes, the comment that starts with a single word followed by a period, "No," the Yes or No answer you say was never provided."<br /><br />Oh you provided an answer, that's true, but you have yet to explain how memory or the encoding of memory does not require intelligence at some point of the process. <br /><br />"When it evolves through random mutation and natural selection."<br /><br />This is not an answer nor an explanation, it is simply a baseless assertion. <br /><br />"The evidence has already been provided. See Luria & Delbrück."<br /><br />How is this evidence for the lack of intelligence in the memory creation process?<br /><br />"Again, some evidence (which you denied was provided) is more convincing than waving your hands and saying "Is not." <br /><br />Again, you have failed to provide any kind of an explanation other than to assert it to be true.<br /><br />"It means that waving your hands and saying the experts in the field aren't merely wrong, but making elementary errors, while you don't bother to address the specifics of their work, is not a valid argument."<br /><br />I'm not waving my hands and saying they are wrong. I'm saying their research does not support your argument that intelligence is not involved in the encoding of memories. Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-80115484665614601192016-04-29T12:14:49.123-07:002016-04-29T12:14:49.123-07:00Nic: You mean this one?
Yes, the comment that st...<b>Nic</b>: <i>You mean this one? </i><br /><br />Yes, the comment that starts with a single word followed by a period, "No," the Yes or No answer you say was never provided. <br /><br /><b>Nic</b>: <i>How does the encoding of solutions not require intelligence at some stage? </i><br /><br />When it evolves through random mutation and natural selection. <br /><br /><b>Nic</b>: <i>How about you do that. </i><br /><br />The evidence has already been provided. See Luria & Delbrück. <br /><br /><b>Nic</b>: <i>Yes, and the researchers found that evidence so convincing they could only muster words like 'implies', 'suggests' and 'might play a role' to describe this overwhelming evidence. </i><br /><br />Again, some evidence (which you denied was provided) is more convincing than waving your hands and saying "Is not." <br /><br /><b>Nic</b>: <i>Sorry to burst your bubble, Zachriel, but so what! </i><br /><br />It means that waving your hands and saying the experts in the field aren't merely wrong, but making elementary errors, while you don't bother to address the specifics of their work, is not a valid argument. <br /> Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-58064654183474646702016-04-29T10:05:29.741-07:002016-04-29T10:05:29.741-07:00Zachriel,
"Gee whiz. See our comment from Ap...Zachriel,<br /><br />"Gee whiz. See our comment from April 25, 2016 at 6:09 AM, which started this discussion."<br /><br />You mean this one?<br /><br />Zachriel, April 25th: "No. Evolutionary algorithms in a fluctuating environment show that genomes will encode solutions for the range of that environment."<br /><br />The one where you say the genome encodes solutions? How does the encoding of solutions not require intelligence at some stage?<br /><br />"We can show the mechanism by which the experience is stored is due to random mutation and natural selection."<br /><br />Really? How about you do that.<br /><br />"There is evidence that heavy metal exposure induces resistance because the efflux of heavy metals requires many of the same facilities as the efflux of antibiotics."<br /><br />Yes, and the researchers found that evidence so convincing they could only muster words like 'implies', 'suggests' and 'might play a role' to describe this overwhelming evidence.<br /><br />"Huh? Lederberg won the Nobel Prize for research into bacteria."<br /><br />Sorry to burst your bubble, Zachriel, but so what! <br />Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.com