|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2009 : 20:26:45 [Permalink]
|
Jesus, Bill. Of course the snake has a leg! In the same way, I had a pair of wings the other day.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 09/22/2009 : 03:21:58 [Permalink]
|
Actually it had four legs, cleverly concealing three of them within it's body in the guise of a dead lizard.
Kinda funny, really. Were it not for Bill wanting to take a swing at PZ, for who knows what reason, this thread might have gone maybe 20 posts or so, then terminated with a brief, rather dull blurt from me concerning serpent digestion, lizard upper body strength, and non-constrictor, Colubrid gluttony.
But Bill has saved it from that dread fate with a fairly nasty ad hom aimed at Dr. Myers. Now, I really don't care about that; PZ can take care of himself. I just question the purpose of taking a topic in here so far afield to do it.
Bill, are you actually attacking PZ or are you trying to piss us off because you know that we admire him for his science as well as his out-spoken atheism? If the former, you are wasting your time; PZ'll never know it. If the latter, you are again wasting your time because nobody's gonna buy into it far enough to get even a mild rise in blood pressure. In short, it's an exercise in futility.
Sometimes, my friend, you causes me to wonder.....
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
 Posted - 09/23/2009 : 08:11:15 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| Nice story. To bad PZ was wrong. |
So where is your evidence that PZ was wrong, Bill? |
In his blog.
| But you can't even say why he's wrong, you just blurt out words like "windbag" in ignorance of biology, and/or try to childishly make us choose between PZ and filthy when who's right and who's wrong is actually beside the point. |
No, it's the point.
Category: Development • Weirdness
Posted on: September 16, 2009 9:45 AM, by PZ Myers
Look at the interesting snake found in China — it's got a leg. |
In a silly game of semantics I will give you Dave that the snake has a leg. It looks to be the leg of another animal, but yes, the snake has a leg. I know PZ thinks the leg was created by the snake and so do you. But this is semantics, your one trick pony.
How can this happen? Genes are pleiotropic — they tend to have lots of different functions. The genes involved in making a limb are also expressed in other places; for instance, the Hox genes that specify identity along the length of the body are also reused in specifying identity along the length of the limb. What that means is that when the snake evolved limblessness, it didn't do so by simply throwing away a collection of leg genes — it couldn't, not without also destroying genes that functioned in generating its body plan. Instead, it evolved genes or modified the regulation of genes to actively suppress limb development…but the genes to build a limb are still in the genome, and still functional, and still actively working in other ways.
What most likely happened here is that some environmental agent suppressed the suppressor, allowing the old developmental program for a limb to be re-expressed. The retention of such programs is, of course, evidence that this animal evolved from limbed ancestors.
It would be interesting to know what triggered this change. It's not likely to be genetic (the asymmetry suggests that), but is probably a consequence of some pollutants that disrupt development. It's not a good sign, anyway. |
Clearly PZ does not even consider the fact that the snake might have got the leg from his lunch, but rather comes to the dogmatic conclusion in his ramblings that the snake evolved this leg somehow. In fact he is so dogmatic about his conclusion that he goes right to his blog with his dream of how the snake grew the leg. It was not until his blog was posted and he had got back some comments that we see any evidence that PZ has rethought his conclusion. Really, he didn't consider all possibilities before posting his blog? In fact the title of his post was:
Clearly demonstrating how he claims the snake got the leg. He was wrong. But not before he rambled off some dogmatic conclusion about how the snake might have got the evolved leg that it did evolve.
Some good suggestions from the comments: it may not even be a teratogenic deformity. It could just be a poor lizard that punched a claw through the abdominal wall as it was being digested, and the snake was briefly trundling about in pain from the injury.
We need to do a dissection! |
So only after he posts his blog, with a full explanation on how the evolved leg may have evolved by the snake, he now considers other options for how the snake got the leg? This is just typical dogmatic behavior by PZ and his likes. In such a hurry to rush to print their conclusions that they don't even wait to get the full story. He speculates on how the leg might have evolved, but in the context of his blog, he clearly demonstrates that he believes the leg did evolve. It is not until his blog is posted and comments come in that PZ then considers that this could be the leg of another animal and that my friends is what is known as a dogmatic conclusion. Sad, and not very scientific or skeptical. Shame on you PZ.
I know you are having trouble coming to grips with these facts because, after all, this is PZ. But PZ has clearly demonstrated himself to be a dogmatic blowhard/windbag here. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 09/23/2009 08:14:17 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2009 : 09:19:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by Dave W.
So where is your evidence that PZ was wrong, Bill? |
In his blog. |
There were a lot of things you could have said which would have made me think that perhaps you were beginning to understand the real question here, but "In his blog" wasn't one of them.| But you can't even say why he's wrong, you just blurt out words like "windbag" in ignorance of biology, and/or try to childishly make us choose between PZ and filthy when who's right and who's wrong is actually beside the point. |
No, it's the point. |
No, the point was to discuss something interesting about biology, and whether that's pleiotropy or how snakes can survive injuries from their food, the point is made.| In a silly game of semantics I will give you Dave that the snake has a leg. It looks to be the leg of another animal, but yes, the snake has a leg. I know PZ thinks the leg was created by the snake and so do you. But this is semantics, your one trick pony. |
It's not a game of semantics. The interesting question is "how did the snake get a leg?" That's always been the question. Your question, of whether the snake got a leg, is answered by looking at the photo of a snake with a leg.| Clearly PZ does not even consider the fact that the snake might have got the leg from his lunch, but rather comes to the dogmatic conclusion in his ramblings that the snake evolved this leg somehow. |
"Dogmatic" using the phrase "most likely." So anytime someone says, "most likely, Jesus was a real person," they are being dogmatic in your eyes, Bill?| In fact he is so dogmatic about his conclusion that he goes right to his blog with his dream of how the snake grew the leg. |
Pleiotropy isn't a dream, Bill.| It was not until his blog was posted and he had got back some comments that we see any evidence that PZ has rethought his conclusion. Really, he didn't consider all possibilities before posting his blog? In fact the title of his post was:Clearly demonstrating how he claims the snake got the leg. He was wrong. But not before he rambled off some dogmatic conclusion... |
Bill, even if you're right, so what? What does it matter? Why is it so important to you that PZ be seen as "dogmatic" and "wrong?"| ...about how the snake might have got the evolved leg that it did evolve. |
Liar. But you wouldn't understand that, because you've got no clue as to what "pleiotropy" means even though you've read PZ's blog post a zillion times by now. PZ did not, and would never, claim that the snake "evolved" that leg.| So only after he posts his blog, with a full explanation on how the evolved leg may have evolved by the snake, he now considers other options for how the snake got the leg? |
Sure! Why not? You would prefer that he ignored other options that he didn't think of? Of course you would, because then you could call him dogmatic and it would be a slam-dunk.| This is just typical dogmatic behavior by PZ and his likes. |
That's the opposite of dogma, Bill. But you can play your silly semantic games, in which you redefine "dogmatic" to "being open to different opinions" as you see fit, of course.| In such a hurry to rush to print their conclusions that they don't even wait to get the full story. |
"The full story" is something that science can never "get."| He speculates on how the leg might have evolved... |
Nonononono: you said he posted a "dogmatic conclusion," which precludes it being speculative. Pick one or the other, and then, Bill, admit you were wrong.| ...but in the context of his blog, he clearly demonstrates that he believes the leg did evolve. |
No, he thought it was pleiotropic.| It is not until his blog is posted and comments come in that PZ then considers that this could be the leg of another animal and that my friends is what is known as a dogmatic conclusion. |
Only in your pathetic little world, Bill.| Sad, and not very scientific or skeptical. Shame on you PZ. |
Good for you, PZ, for allowing comments which disagree with your speculation on the source of the leg, and even updating your original blog post to point out those differing opinions openly and honestly! The best way to teach a scientific and skeptical way of life is to lead by example, and PZ's doing a fantastic job of it.
You obviously don't understand this at all, Bill, because you think that proper skeptical behavior is to remain silent until all possible data is in hand, in which case nothing would ever be decided at all. Of course, you refuse to follow such a course (Ted Kennedy, ACORN, global warming, transitional fossils, etc.), but call yourself "skeptical" anyway, showcasing your hypocrisy.| I know you are having trouble coming to grips with these facts because, after all, this is PZ. |
I know you have a hard-on for PZ being wrong and all, the only question here at SFN is why, Bill. Why is this so important to you that you neglect the questions asked of you in other threads here?| But PZ has clearly demonstrated himself to be a dogmatic blowhard/windbag here. |
Only if your re-define the words "clearly," "demonstrated," "dogmatic," "blowhard" and "windbag." But that's your schtick, Bill, so apparently you are correct (using your own personal definition of "so," "apparently" and "correct"). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2009 : 09:24:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Clearly demonstrating how he claims the snake got the leg. He was wrong. But not before he rambled off some dogmatic conclusion about how the snake might have got the evolved leg that it did evolve.
|
 Dogmatic and might have in the same sentence. Sounds like you are speaking with a great deal of uncertainty, Bill.
edited to fix link |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
| Edited by - moakley on 09/23/2009 09:25:41 |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2009 : 09:45:05 [Permalink]
|
So, PZ states, correctly, that the state has a leg, an unusual state for a snake.
He mentions a mechanism he knows how that can happen. Describes the mechanism as well as the line of evidence that supports his reasoning (it is not symmetrical and, hence, less likely to be a mutation).
Once, again, he is not pretending to have discovered anything new (that might be what confuses you here). He is describing a phenomenon that has been well reported and well understood and that would produce the same results.
Somebody points out another hypothesis that works even better and PZ admits it and suggest a way to be certain.
Sure PZ, was most likely wrong, but his reasoning was sound.
If anything, PZ displayed humility and willingness to learn. His apparent mistake his only really a problem if you are a PZ literalist and believe PZ's word to be inherent.
I don't think there is any such person in the world. Maybe you are just projecting? |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2009 : 09:50:40 [Permalink]
|
Bill does not have a clue of what Pleiotropy means he also has very little understanding of how evolution works and what the scientific process is and the level of our knowledge is.
That'd be acceptable except that he keeps on harping his ignorance because its supports his dogma. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2009 : 10:09:30 [Permalink]
|
Category: Development • Weirdness
Posted on: September 16, 2009 9:45 AM, by PZ Myers
Ain't pleiotropic handy:
Look at the interesting snake found in China — it's got a leg. |
Here PZ dogmatically concludes that the snake did in fact grow it's own leg.
How can this happen? Genes are pleiotropic — they tend to have lots of different functions. The genes involved in making a limb are also expressed in other places; for instance, the Hox genes that specify identity along the length of the body are also reused in specifying identity along the length of the limb. What that means is that when the snake evolved limblessness, it didn't do so by simply throwing away a collection of leg genes — it couldn't, not without also destroying genes that functioned in generating its body plan. Instead, it evolved genes or modified the regulation of genes to actively suppress limb development…but the genes to build a limb are still in the genome, and still functional, and still actively working in other ways.
What most likely happened here is that some environmental agent suppressed the suppressor, allowing the old developmental program for a limb to be re-expressed. The retention of such programs is, of course, evidence that this animal evolved from limbed ancestors.
It would be interesting to know what triggered this change. It's not likely to be genetic (the asymmetry suggests that), but is probably a consequence of some pollutants that disrupt development. It's not a good sign, anyway. |
After his dogmatic conclusion he then rambles on about how the snake might have grown the leg, but never doubts once that the snake did grow the leg.
Some good suggestions from the comments: it may not even be a teratogenic deformity. It could just be a poor lizard that punched a claw through the abdominal wall as it was being digested, and the snake was briefly trundling about in pain from the injury.
We need to do a dissection! |
After posting on his blog about the snake who grew a leg PZ quickly realizes he may have come to a dogmatic conclusion. Hopefully PZ can have a learning moment here on the consequences of being so dogmatic. Let us hope he can take what he learned here about being so dogmatic and apply it across the board and not make himself look so silly in the future. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2009 : 10:14:36 [Permalink]
|
Sorry 'bout that; couldn't resist.....
Of course it is not impossible for a snake to produce a freak leg. After all, they share a common ancestor with lizards. However, as the skeletal foundation is absent, the leg(s) would be little more than sacks of flesh. And the animal would be unlikely to survive beyond the neonate stage dragging around such a hindrance.
But who can say where, given enough time, evolution might go? After all, pythons still have a vestigial, pelvic girdle.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2009 : 10:58:10 [Permalink]
|
Bill Scott:
It is not until his blog is posted and comments come in that PZ then considers that this could be the leg of another animal and that my friends is what is known as a dogmatic conclusion. |
How could it be a dogmatic conclusion if he is willing to consider another hypothesis as being at least equally likely? Get a dictionary, Bill. It doesn't matter what he first thought, as long as he is open to changing his mind.
You find Dogma in religion. For example, "creationists researchers" must sign a statement like this one to work for the ICR or the CRS:
1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and we believe it to be inspired throughout, all of its assertions are historically and scientifically true in all the original autographs. To students of nature, this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.
And so, as researchers they are not willing or even allowed to consider any other possibility. Unlike all conclusions in science, there is nothing that allows for being tentative about the conclusion in their statement. It's a proclamation that any evidence to the contrary must be wrong. They have their conclusion which is beyond correction. That's dogma, Bill. See the difference? Of course, because you subscribe to the above dogma, you probably think that anyone who doesn't agree must be wrong. Your soul is riding on it, eh? So evolution must be wrong. And the teachers of evolution must be wrong. And so on.
You have the nerve to call PZ Myers dogmatic, and really, when it comes down to it, all you are doing is defending your dogmatic beliefs which are not subject to change.
Add to that your complete ignorance of science as demonstrated by your "the snake evolved a leg" take on what you think PZ said and, well, I just don't know. If it weren't so funny, it would be sad, really.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2009 : 11:00:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
Bill does not have a clue of what Pleiotropy means he also has very little understanding of how evolution works and what the scientific process is and the level of our knowledge is.
That'd be acceptable except that he keeps on harping his ignorance because its supports his dogma.
|
Well, regardless, the genetic makeup of the snake had nothing at all to do with the leg, which was PZ's dogmatic claim.
Only after his blog is posted and comments come in does he even consider that the leg is part of another animal making his whole pleiotropic explanation nothing but hot air based on a dogmatic conclusion.
Pleiotropy describes the genetic effect of a single gene on multiple phenotypic traits. The underlying mechanism is that the gene codes for a product that is for example used by various cells, or has a signaling function on various targets. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2009 : 11:15:51 [Permalink]
|
Bill:
Only after his blog is posted and comments come in does he even consider that the leg is part of another animal making his whole pleiotropic explanation nothing but hot air based on a dogmatic conclusion. |
Idiot! How can it be a "dogmatic conclusion" if he is willing to consider another explanation?
When you say something that is wrong, as you are doing now, are you willing to change your mind? Well, so far in this thread, no matter how many times it's been pointed out to you that his speculations were not dogmatic, the answer is no.
You are the one with a dogmatic conclusion Bill. And trying to reason with you is like spitting into a wind. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2009 : 11:56:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Well, regardless, the genetic makeup of the snake had nothing at all to do with the leg, which was PZ's dogmatic claim. |
Pleiotropy describes the genetic effect of a single gene on multiple phenotypic traits. The underlying mechanism is that the gene codes for a product that is for example used by various cells, or has a signaling function on various targets.
|
Very well, now look up "plagiarized"
Because your attribution-less copy/pasting from Wiki-fucking-pedia is just that. Also, do you think it'd fool us into believing you had any idea of what you were talking about?
|
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2009 : 12:07:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
Very well, now look up "plagiarized"
Because your attribution-less copy/pasting from Wiki-fucking-pedia is just that. Also, do you think it'd fool us into believing you had any idea of what you were talking about?
|
 |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2009 : 14:03:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by moakley
Originally posted by Bill scott
Clearly demonstrating how he claims the snake got the leg. He was wrong. But not before he rambled off some dogmatic conclusion about how the snake might have got the evolved leg that it did evolve.
|
Dogmatic and might have in the same sentence. Sounds like you are speaking with a great deal of uncertainty, Bill.
|
The cognotive dissonance Bill must be experiencing has to make his head hurt. Badly.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
A snake matter for Filthy
