Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Creation/Evolution
 Yeast evolves multicellularity in lab in 60 days
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 15

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9453 Posts

Posted - 02/21/2012 :  16:41:08   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by jamalrapper

Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse

Originally posted by jamalrapper
This experiment actually supports the position they held as dictated by the scriptures. Now they have scientific proof Darwin and evolutionary theorist were wrong.
Scripture dictated that multicellular live was created the same day life was created on planet earth. Not 60 days. The yeast definitely took more than the week it took for God to finish his work, as recorded by Genesis chapter 1.



It is a matter of interpretation. Darwin and evolutionary theory claims because of the slow and gradual process evolution took billions and millions of years to get to this point.
Darwin never made any claims about how long it took. Nor have I yet seen any evolutionary biologist make such a claim. The age of earth (~4.5 billion years), and the oldest traces of fossils of life (~3.8 billion years) belongs to Earth sciences and geology. Biologists just acknowledge that this seems to be the time it took. It's not something they predicted. Indeed, before radiometric dating guesses were closer to a few million years than a few billions.
There is a discipline where differences in DNA between species are used to calculate the age of speciation, but such is of course limited in use.


The Scriptures suggest it took a lot shorter than that.
No shit Sherlock!
The Bible says 6 days.
But you know... These days, reason-able people dismiss the bible for the dreck it is: fantasies dreamt up by bronze age sheep herders with not much else to do.



Even the authors of the experiment I paraphrase here. Multicellurity was not well understood by evolutionist who believed it was a slow gradual evolutionary process. But evolutionary transitions as demonstrated in the lab suggest otherwise. It was relatively simple and occurred rather quickly.
So, now suddenly evolution happens. Will you make up your mind already.


One of the standing criticism by creationist was the evolutionary view that it was a slow gradual evolutionary process which took millions of years.
Of course. Yeast could only have had 1500 years to evolve to the point of being yeast, from the "Creation" until Noah accidentally fermented his grapes to the point where his fruit-juice turned into plonk which got him drop-dead-drunk.
The Bible has a lot to live up to before it can pass as a scientific theory. One of the criteria is that you should be able to use it to make predictions. What predictions can you make from the bible which could replace evolutionary theory?


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.
Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 02/21/2012 16:59:19
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9453 Posts

Posted - 02/21/2012 :  16:53:10   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Kil

I don't have a problem with New Scientists reporting. I wouldn't call them a rag either. But they are not a journal. They are science news.
I was being facetious.
My point is that there's a huge difference between a science news paper which reports on scientific research, and a peer-reviewed journal which actually publish scientific research.
A big effing difference which jamal seems to be totally ignorant of. Either honestly ignorant of, or disingenuously faking ignorance of. I'm starting to guess it's the latter.

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.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
24954 Posts

Posted - 02/21/2012 :  16:56:17   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by jamalrapper

It is already known S. cerevisiae is a single-celled organism. Under environmental stress they will show multicullar activity.
No one said they are not single-celled.
You claimed that there are people who question the fact that S. cerevisiae is a single-celled organism:
Even Ratcliff in his own words said he believes the Saccharomyces cerevisiae is a single celled organism. So how do you base your conclusion on his word when there are others who question that as a fact.
Again: you need to make your meaning clear. "That" in your second sentence seems to refer to "Saccharomyces cerevisiae is a single celled organism."
Read what Adam Waite said "because today’s single-celled yeast actually evolved from long-ago multicellular ancestors. "

Read what Neil Blackstone said "bet that yeast, having once been multicellular, never lost it completely,"

Understand what they are saying. The Saccharomyces cerevisiae according to one "evolved from ong-ago multicellular ancestors. Translatedm it has already inherited the blueprint for multicellular capability from its ancestors.
Or if you want to accept the second scientist "having once been multicellular, never lost it completely."
Yes, and? They are questioning the findings. They are not calling the researchers frauds. You are.
We try to paraphrase. Now to say was is not is. That is true. But what the experiment produced was what was already imherent in the yeast multicellular capability and all the experiment did was bring out this capability. That is the gist of the debate.
But that wasn't your position. You originally tried to pass off AiG's nonsense as a debunking of Ratcliff. You deny this now, but it's all there in your previous comments here. You're back-pedaling a mile a minute.
Now read this "Ratcliff and his colleagues are planning to address that objection head-on, by doing similar experiments with Chlamydomonas, a single-celled alga that has no multicellular ancestors.

Now that will silence all critics when a true single-celled test sample that has no multicellular ancestors is used.
No, it won't. AiG's criticism wasn't really about pseudohyphae, it was that artificial selection is not evolution (an absolutely stupid objection). Other creationists will find different objections still, like that the experimenters are frauds trying to hide the facts, or that because the experiment was run by humans it means evolution requires a guiding intelligence (yawn). This is standard operating procedure for anti-science cranks: they run through a list of unsupportable ad hoc excuses when their hypotheses are shown to be garbage.
And even I will admit to the validity of their experiment under the new conditions. I am a reasonable person.
This is a promise you will probably never have to make good on, so it is an empty boast.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

jamalrapper
Sockpuppet

213 Posts

Posted - 02/21/2012 :  18:28:53   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send jamalrapper a Private Message  Reply with Quote
AIG reported what the Science News published. I did not post AIG, Halfmooner did. I got involved in the discussion much later and commented on what was in progress. I did not make up the whole story nor did I endorse AIG. I used what was posted before my entry.
But my position was not limited to AIG. I produced additional links to Science Links and New Scientist.

Your understanding of complex scientific material is very limited. But you think you have it right. Why don't you wait for new developments. As I stated this is a very recent experiment and the scientific community will begin their elimination process. What is your hurry? A simple Yes or No.
You bunch of hypocrites don't even follow your own tenets.

Carl Sagan "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." These are extraordinary claims and require extraordinary evidence. The extraordinary claims are made by Ratcliff and it requires some serious evidence.
Edited by - jamalrapper on 02/21/2012 18:39:34
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
24954 Posts

Posted - 02/21/2012 :  18:50:31   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by jamalrapper

AIG reported what the Science News published. I did not post AIG, Halfmooner did. I got involved in the discussion much later and commented on what was in progress. I did not make up the whole story nor did I endorse AIG.
Liar. You claimed that AiG had "debunked" the experiment:
All you had to do was read Halfmooner's post at the beginning of page 1 where this experiment was debunked.
If that's not an endorsement of AiG's position, I don't know what is. You can't cover up your previous failures with lies that are such huge stinkers that my dead dog could sniff 'em out.
I used what was posted before my entry. But my position was not limited to AIG. I produced additional links to Science Links and New Scientist.
That was only after you couldn't get us to swallow AiG's bullshit.
You understand of complex scientific material is very limited. But you think you have it right.
That's because I read and understood the original article, which made it clear that you were lying.
Why don't you wait for new developments. As I stated this is a very recent experiment and the scientific community will begin their elimination process. What is your hurry? A simple Yes or No.
You bunch of hypocrites don't even follow your own tenets.
WTF? When have I taken a position on whether the experiment is correct or not? I've only busied myself showing your lies and other nonsense for what they are.
Carl Sagan "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." These are extraordinary claims and require extraordinary evidence. The extraordinary claims are made by Ratcliff and it requires some serious evidence.
But you claimed that Ratcliff was a fraud and deliberately deceptive without any evidence. Your hypocrisy is astounding.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

jamalrapper
Sockpuppet

213 Posts

Posted - 02/21/2012 :  19:38:11   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send jamalrapper a Private Message  Reply with Quote
What you are playing is on whether Ratcliff was deliberately deceptive. It can be a matter of opinion. But that is not going to be decided by some carpenter or call center soicalite. Lets get past this fantasia. From my reading you had a problem differentiating phenotypes from phylogeny. I couldn't believe what I was reading.
Crux wrote: The subject is not phylogeny. The subject is what caused the white flamingos to turn pink. It's about PHENOTYPES, not phylogeny.


Your post dated Posted - 09/24/2011 : 17:42:22 page 13. http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=10029&whichpage=13

And you banished someone for correcting you?

Now you are attempting to advance yourself to a molecular level. Go fuck yourself. This absurdity has to end.
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
12755 Posts

Posted - 02/21/2012 :  20:45:59   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
jamalrapper:
And you banished someone for correcting you?

So I take it you really aren't a Christian. I mean, this is such a case of baring false wittiness it's amazing. I can't really remember when we had a liar like you here. Most actual liars are so much better at it. Not that we can't spot them, but really...

Dave said
Because "diet" is over-simplified when the subject is phylogeny.

Crux said
The subject is not phylogeny. The subject is what caused the white flamingos to turn pink. It's about PHENOTYPES, not phylogeny.

Dave said
That's bizarre. I would normally catch such an error in edit. Of course the subject is phenotypes.
See. That's how it works. When you are wrong, you admit it.

Anyhow, five pages later, Crux was ejected for accusing Dave of altering posts. Something that is never done here. Crux's refusal to apologize was the final nail in his coffin. Plus, he was a dick. But that wasn't why he was banned. We get lots of those here.

So all in all, jamalrapper has just told a doozy, and I predict he won't apologize for it because so far he has refused every correction offered. Doesn't really matter what they were. Plus, it looks like he wants to be banned. (Perhaps he needs the time away to study other skeptics?) So it goes...

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Free The West Memphis Three
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15821 Posts

Posted - 02/21/2012 :  21:56:31   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
There's been some discussion around the fact that the quote and the link I gave in the OP were from Wired, not from a professional scientific publication.

That's entirely true. I get most the my stuff I post on from popular online sites, because it's hard for me, as a non-scientist, to understand a lot of scientific jargon. I'd expected the post to be of minimal interest, and just left it at that in the OP. I think most people here understand this.

The source publication is always the best for going into details and arguing about conclusions. I had no idea this thread would explode as it has, and I only got around to readings the PNAS paper late in the game. (Thanks for posting the link, DaveW!)

Again, I suspect most of you didn't need this explanation. But since I'm also being falsely accused of posting a list of Creationists from AiG (a heinous offense!), I thought it not too excessively prudent to explain my original, unprofessional, link.

So pardon the interruption. Now, back to the culture war.

Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Edited by - HalfMooner on 02/21/2012 22:16:39
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
24954 Posts

Posted - 02/22/2012 :  07:19:32   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Kil

So all in all, jamalrapper has just told a doozy, and I predict he won't apologize for it because so far he has refused every correction offered. Doesn't really matter what they were. Plus, it looks like he wants to be banned.
I suspect that jamalrapper was CRUX and/or justintime given his current focus on the object of their obsession and the similarities in writing style, but I really don't care. This flame-out of his is too funny, what with his impotent fury at carpenters and his homo-erotic screeds. He obviously thinks these comments of his are devastating attacks, but they just make me (for one) chuckle.

As has been said many times before, if you just let these people talk, they'll show their true colors, and jamalrapper has not disappointed.

(We should all probably invest in Windex and paper towels, since he's probably using tons of the stuff to clean the spittle and other body fluids off his monitor between comments.)

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
24954 Posts

Posted - 02/22/2012 :  07:23:10   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by HalfMooner

I think most people here understand this.
Yup. And nine times out of ten, the full text of articles mentioned in popular-press science reports are going to be behind paywalls and thus inaccessible to most of our members anyway.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

jamalrapper
Sockpuppet

213 Posts

Posted - 02/22/2012 :  08:55:52   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send jamalrapper a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by Kil

So all in all, jamalrapper has just told a doozy, and I predict he won't apologize for it because so far he has refused every correction offered. Doesn't really matter what they were. Plus, it looks like he wants to be banned.
I suspect that jamalrapper was CRUX and/or justintime given his current focus on the object of their obsession and the similarities in writing style, but I really don't care. This flame-out of his is too funny, what with his impotent fury at carpenters and his homo-erotic screeds. He obviously thinks these comments of his are devastating attacks, but they just make me (for one) chuckle.

As has been said many times before, if you just let these people talk, they'll show their true colors, and jamalrapper has not disappointed.

(We should all probably invest in Windex and paper towels, since he's probably using tons of the stuff to clean the spittle and other body fluids off his monitor between comments.)


I went through a few of your post DaveW. I don't see any justification for banishing MGolstein or even CRUX based on someones allegations they were the same person. Correct me if I am wrong but their registration were over a year apart fom each other.

I believe the sticky point was about CRUX calling you a liar. You just called me a liar in this very post for saying Ratcliff in his experiment starved a bacth of brewers yeast. Halfmooner two post below your accusation showed they actually did starve them. You made accusations based on your own link provided PNAS which you either never read or understood. So justification for removing someone for lying is pure hypocrisy.

What I also found out was the discussion spanned over two threads. Both were silenced even though they were never proven wrong in their understanding of the subject or on the merits of their arguments.

With 6 moderators and several members pitching in. The only way to silence their critical expression was to find reasons which ultimately was found outside the topic of pink flamingos. You were offended, irritated (skin rash flaring up) so the axe came down.

Maybe someone else was the hatched man. But since all you moderators and admins are in bed together. One of you dumb fucks did it. So much easier when you group skeptics by association.

JT on the other hand, going down your list deserved to be banished. He sounded like he was jerking off over some red haired avatar. On second thought you fucks banished someone for enjoying himself on this forum. Why skeptics are not allowed to have a good time?
Edited by - jamalrapper on 02/22/2012 08:59:43
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
12755 Posts

Posted - 02/22/2012 :  09:54:27   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
jamalrapper:
I went through a few of your post DaveW. I don't see any justification for banishing MGolstein or even CRUX based on someones allegations they were the same person. Correct me if I am wrong but their registration were over a year apart fom each other.

Crux was banned because he accused one of our administrators of gross ethical violations and not because he might have been MG. That you can't seem to grok that is your problem, not ours. And yeah, you are a liar. In my post above, you quote mined in a way that made it look like Dave didn't acknowledge his mistake, and accused us of banning Crux because he corrected Dave. That's a lie. And a pretty stupid one at that, because the thread is there for everyone to see. And once again, as I predicted, you are completely unwilling to admit what is obvious to anyone who has read that thread but you, even after I posted a link to Dave's retraction. It's getting pretty clear that you are only here, at this point, to attack us.

As for banning JT, if you look at what he agreed to when registering, and those are standard rules across the interent on forums such as ours.

In your use of these forums, you agree that you will not post any information which is vulgar, harassing, hateful, threatening, invading of others privacy, sexually oriented, or violates any laws.
Come to think of it, you have also agreed to the same rules, some of which you have also broken. But we don't care as much about hissy fits and use of language. We have a bad word filter that we have never turned on because it's our beliefe that adults should be treated like adults. No one has ever been banned for using bad words.

And again, if you feel ganged up on, perhaps it's because you are so obviously wrong, or unwilling to make a cogent argument. Too bad. It's actually better for us for discussions to go on, and not ban people who don't agree with whatever view we might have, because it gives us a chance to expose the bankruptcy of that view, or to have our minds changed. I don't think there is a forum out there that allows so much leeway to people who challenge the prevailing view. I mean, you're still here, right? So all of your accusations fall flat in light of that. Sour grapes is all it is.

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Free The West Memphis Three
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15821 Posts

Posted - 02/22/2012 :  10:52:39   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by HalfMooner

I think most people here understand this.
Yup. And nine times out of ten, the full text of articles mentioned in popular-press science reports are going to be behind paywalls and thus inaccessible to most of our members anyway.
Yeah, grrrr! I hate that.

Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
24954 Posts

Posted - 02/22/2012 :  11:34:54   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by jamalrapper

I don't see any justification for banishing MGolstein or even CRUX based on someones allegations they were the same person.
Did anyone say that either one was banned for sockpuppeting? No.
I believe the sticky point was about CRUX calling you a liar.
Then you believe one more thing that isn't true.
You just called me a liar in this very post for saying Ratcliff in his experiment starved a bacth of brewers yeast.
That's a lie.
Halfmooner two post below your accusation showed they actually did starve them.
Your failure here is that you're ignoring the context.
You made accusations based on your own link provided PNAS which you either never read or understood.
And you're saying that based on your own lie and willful ignorance.
So justification for removing someone for lying is pure hypocrisy.
I've never banned anyone for lying.
What I also found out was the discussion spanned over two threads. Both were silenced even though they were never proven wrong in their understanding of the subject or on the merits of their arguments.
We couldn't have any such discussion, because they were both pulling the same shit that you do.
The only way to silence their critical expression was to find reasons which ultimately was found outside the topic of pink flamingos.
Nobody was silenced.
You were offended, irritated (skin rash flaring up) so the axe came down.
Hell, I reserve the right to ban anyone for any reason (or even no reason at all) on a website that is part mine. I'm quite proud of the fact that I haven't been as capricious and arbitrary as your lies would suggest. Your anti-authority masturbatory fantasies aside, we've probably lost more members than we've ever banned for not banning schmucks like you and MG and CRUX faster than we do.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
12755 Posts

Posted - 02/22/2012 :  12:24:19   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Dave:
Hell, I reserve the right to ban anyone for any reason (or even no reason at all) on a website that is part mine. I'm quite proud of the fact that I haven't been as capricious and arbitrary as your lies would suggest. Your anti-authority masturbatory fantasies aside, we've probably lost more members than we've ever banned for not banning schmucks like you and MG and CRUX faster than we do.
That's a very good point. Most forums, including skeptic forums, are moderated with a much heavier hand than ours is. And several members have left because they felt we were being too tolerant and allowing the kind of shenanigans that jammalrapper has pulled here, including calling us really bad names and putting up with his potty mouth. And while I advocate for civility, allowing that sort of thing really does expose people like jammalrapper for what they really are. If he would rather call us names than defend his arguments, that's his choice. But no argument has ever really been won by resorting to logical fallacies and hissy fits.

Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out true character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.

Abusivead hominem

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Free The West Memphis Three
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 15 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 2.16 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000