|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
 Posted - 02/18/2012 : 08:35:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
By Kil's own admission when you search for skeptic scientist only AWG skeptics and deniers show up. |
Kil's "admission" is actually an admonishment to avoid reliance on Google University. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2012 : 08:46:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
And here I though jamalrapper was being incoherent in the other thread. These latest posts of his here are total nonsense, both factually and grammatically.
|
Reding comprehension problems too. Look how he misinterpreted Kil's statement, as quoted above.
Edited: Ok, we hit a new page. My bolding in jamal's quote:
jamalrapper:
By Kil's own admission when you search for skeptic scientist only AWG skeptics and deniers show up.
| Kil wrote Actually, if you use the search terms skeptic scientists, you do get the AGW debate. |
|
|
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 02/18/2012 08:51:02 |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2012 : 09:22:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by Dave W.
And here I though jamalrapper was being incoherent in the other thread. These latest posts of his here are total nonsense, both factually and grammatically.
|
Reding comprehension problems too. Look how he misinterpreted Kil's statement, as quoted above.
Edited: Ok, we hit a new page. My bolding in jamal's quote:
jamalrapper:
By Kil's own admission when you search for skeptic scientist only AWG skeptics and deniers show up.
| Kil wrote Actually, if you use the search terms skeptic scientists, you do get the AGW debate. |
|
|
I did include Kil's original quote. I have to include nitpicking as a very observable skeptic's trait. Cannot deal with the big issue so start looking for skeptic treasure......crumbs.  |
| Edited by - jamalrapper on 02/18/2012 09:40:47 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2012 : 09:22:37 [Permalink]
|
Yeah. So jamalrapper he changed the meaning of what I wrote. Interesting. Creative quote mining. Of course, he left off the part where I talked about all of the scientists who happen to be skeptics who spoke at TAM, a meeting for skeptics. I could provide the list. But I'm afraid at this point jamalrapper is not interested in anything but what he can twist to fit his concept of skeptics. He was busted making up that "hid that they used brewers yeast" remark with regard to the OP research, and has yet to address that or admit that he was wrong. He thought he would come here and clean up, and all he has managed to do is dig himself a hole that he can't get out of, something he can't do without admitting his failures, make the slightest attempt to understand responses to him, or at the very least, admit he lied. He's not an honest broker. At least Bill Scott while often wrong doesn't come here and lie to us. His logic might be tortured, but I think Bill at least makes an attempt at being honest.
But oh well. What can you do? It's not as though we haven't seen his sort before. Comes with the territory I guess.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2012 : 09:36:54 [Permalink]
|
The OP "Yeast evolves multicellularity in lab in 60 days." was not my post. It was Halfmooner's spectacular scientific event. Shortly followed by the Ooooops!!!!! another scientific fraud and dud.
I noticed Kil, you had no problems accepting the original post but objected to the de-bunking which followed. There is a very large list of scientific frauds and many peer-reviewed ones as well. So why are they given the benefit of the doubt by skeptics who should be most critical for this betrayal. It is as I said. The blind leading the absurd. S&S the scientist and the skeptic. |
| Edited by - jamalrapper on 02/18/2012 09:37:49 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2012 : 09:57:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
The OP "Yeast evolves multicellularity in lab in 60 days." was not my post. It was Halfmooner's spectacular scientific event. Shortly followed by the Ooooops!!!!! another scientific fraud and dud.
I noticed Kil, you had no problems accepting the original post but objected to the de-bunking which followed. There is a very large list of scientific frauds and many peer-reviewed ones as well. So why are they given the benefit of the doubt by skeptics who should be most critical for this betrayal. It is as I said. The blind leading the absurd. S&S the scientist and the skeptic.
|
You said that the people who conducted the experiments described in the opening post "hid" the fact that they were using brewers yeast. That was not the truth. And you have yet to admit that you made that up.
And what debunking followed? You slandered the people who wrote the paper, said it was dishonest, and lied about it. That was your debunking. The links you (or Mooner, because it doen't really matter) provided didn't do much better, but at least they didn't make shit up out of whole cloth like you did.
You misunderstood what Mooner posted. And again you refuse to admit your mistake. What he posted was what was predicted. That some creationist site would attempt to debunk the paper. NOT that they HAD debunked it. I took the time to write a post that explained theirs and your mistakes, and you ignored it. What you didn't do was to respond to the criticisms. Instead you made an attempt to show that science is religion. And you failed at that too, at which point you launched into an ad-hom attack.
You're really a piece of work. Either you are too stupid to understand our replies, or you are making feeble attempts to strawman our replies. Or you are a bald faced liar. Or maybe just crazy. I'm going with all of the above. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2012 : 10:22:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by jamalrapper
The OP "Yeast evolves multicellularity in lab in 60 days." was not my post. It was Halfmooner's spectacular scientific event. Shortly followed by the Ooooops!!!!! another scientific fraud and dud.
I noticed Kil, you had no problems accepting the original post but objected to the de-bunking which followed. There is a very large list of scientific frauds and many peer-reviewed ones as well. So why are they given the benefit of the doubt by skeptics who should be most critical for this betrayal. It is as I said. The blind leading the absurd. S&S the scientist and the skeptic.
|
You said that the people who conducted the experiments described in the opening post "hid" the fact that they were using brewers yeast. That was not the truth. And you have yet to admit that you made that up.
And what debunking followed? You slandered the paper, said it was dishonest, and lied about it. That was your debunking. The links you provided didn't do much better, but at least they didn't make shit up out of whole cloth like you did.
|
I never said the authors hid the fact they were using brewers yeast.What they did not know or hid was the fact that the particular type of yeast they used in their experiment was dimorphic and capable of multi-cellular mutation. So in fact they were not growing/mutating a single-cellular organism into a multi-cellular organism. There are brewers yeast that are known to be single-cellular. But that was not used in thier experiment which they have stated they will use in their future experiment( a quick reversal) Please reread my post and the de-bunking link Halfmooner provided.
My references were made directly from Halfmooners link and post. The authors might have known or hid the fact what they used had the capability of multi-cellularity. But their oversight can hardly be excused especially when Saccharomyces cerevisiae's genome sequencing was released in 1996. Check Wiki.
| Also (Halfmooner link Wired) Since the late 1990s, experimental evolution studies have attempted to induce multicellularity in laboratory settings. |
The authors claimed they were successful http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/01/evolution-of-multicellularity/
and then debunked. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/07/02/news-to-note-07022011
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2012 : 10:29:52 [Permalink]
|
jamalrapper:
I never said the authors hid the fact they were using brewers yeast. |
True. That was YOUR claim. YOU said they hid that fact. And I called you on it. Do I really need me to link back to that post or are you going to admit that it was your claim? See, this is what you do. Another lie.
jamalrapper:
Hi Bill. I would'nt take the experiment too seriously. It has already been proven deception was involved. The authors hid the fact they used common brewer's yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae), which normally grows as individual cells but is also known to grow as "multicellular" structures in a clumped manner forming "pseudohyphae" when grown under adverse conditions. |
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=14660&whichpage=3#200308
As for the rest of your post, whatever. If you think AIG is a reliable source, I can't help you there. They think that Humans and dinosaurs lived together in peace and harmony. They think that the meat eating dinosaurs were herbivores before the fall. They think the Flintstones was a documentary! Get real. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2012 : 10:43:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
jamalrapper:
I never said the authors hid the fact they were using brewers yeast. |
True. That was your claim. And I called you on it. Do I really need me to link back to that post or are you going to admit that it was your claim? See, this is what you do. Another lie.
As for the rest of your post, whatever. If you think AIG is a reliable source, I can't help you there. They think that Humans and dinosaurs lived together in peace and harmony. They think that the meat eating dinosaurs were herbivores before the fall. They think the Flintstones was a documentary! Get real.
|
Yes please show me when I said "The authors hid the fact they were using brewers yeast."
I did say to Bill and to make it easy for you I quote it here.
| Hi Bill. I would'nt take the experiment too seriously. It has already been proven deception was involved. The authors hid the fact they used common brewer's yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae), which normally grows as individual cells but is also known to grow as "multicellular" structures in a clumped manner forming "pseudohyphae" when grown under adverse conditions. |
| Or to be generous to them. Authors of the study were so blinded by their belief in macroevolution that they failed to consider the most obvious explanation for the results they observed. Wildtype Saccharomyces cerevisiae already have the ability to grow in a clumped manner by forming pseudohyphae. |
In the same post to Bill I give the authors some benefit of the doubt that they did not know Saccharomyces cerevisiae already have the ability to grow in a clumped manner by forming pseudohyphae.
| They want us to believe that multicellularity, which took billions of years to appear on earth, can evolve in a few days under simple laboratory selection. Instead of using modern techniques of genetic sequencing and gene array expression analysis, these scientists merely observed clumps of Saccharomyces cerevisiae to conclude that they had "differentiated" into "adult" and "juvenile" populations. |
Here I point to Bill what they wanted us to believe and how it could have easily been verified they were already working with a multi-cellular capable brewers yeast. Which in my opinion was a deception and not ignorance of the fact.
You have to read my whole post to Bill instead of taking me out of context.
|
| Edited by - jamalrapper on 02/18/2012 10:44:30 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2012 : 10:48:44 [Permalink]
|
ammelrapper:
Yes please show me when I said "The authors hid the fact they were using brewers yeast." |
Read what you wrote. But even if I'm getting that wrong, and you meant becasue they used brewers yeast. And you also refuse to understand what they did that was different from clumping. Plus they said in the next experiment they were going to use an algie that doesn't have a multicellular past. So you still lied by omission. Either way... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2012 : 10:59:53 [Permalink]
|
You also said this:
jamellrapper:
The goals behind scientist perpetuating such fraud and deception is to bring credibility to evolution as a science by demonstrating evolutionary transition theories are scientifically provable. |
Total horse shit and another one of your lies. The question of moving from single cell to multicellular life is an unanswered question. And that's what they were addressing.
jamellrapper:
You have to read my whole post to Bill instead of taking me out of context. |
I did read your whole post. And look who's talking! You're MO is to take things out of context. You do it all the time! What do you think quote mining is? Leaving out the fact that the experimenters are going to use algie next time, but still accusing them of deception is taking things out of context AND lying by omission. Hell. You even did it with a quote of mine, referring to google results, just several posts back!
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2012 : 13:26:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
You also said this:
jamellrapper:
The goals behind scientist perpetuating such fraud and deception is to bring credibility to evolution as a science by demonstrating evolutionary transition theories are scientifically provable. |
Total horse shit and another one of your lies. The question of moving from single cell to multicellular life is an unanswered question. And that's what they were addressing.
jamellrapper:
You have to read my whole post to Bill instead of taking me out of context. |
I did read your whole post. And look who's talking! You're MO is to take things out of context. You do it all the time! What do you think quote mining is? Leaving out the fact that the experimenters are going to use algie next time, but still accusing them of deception is taking things out of context AND lying by omission. Hell. You even did it with a quote of mine, referring to google results, just several posts back!
|
Originally posted by Kil
ammelrapper:
Yes please show me when I said "The authors hid the fact they were using brewers yeast." |
Read what you wrote. But even if I'm getting that wrong, and you meant becasue they used brewers yeast. And you also refuse to understand what they did that was different from clumping. Plus they said in the next experiment they were going to use an algie that doesn't have a multicellular past. So you still lied by omission. Either way...
|
You have to first grasp what the experiment was about. Taking a single-celled organism and in the lab causing it to mutate into a multi-cellular organism. The stuff that happens in evolution but takes millions of years to make that transition. SO the lab claimed they did the same in 60 day.
For you to get stuck on the word yeast is to totally miss the significance of their claims.
That they used a multi-cellular yeast reduced the significance of their results. That is the gist of the de-bunking.
What I said was they hid the fact they used brewers yeast that was already multi-cellular which they passed off as single-celled.
There is no denial here just you not understanding what the significance of the experiment was. There are brewers yeast that are single-celled which they should have used instead.
The question is not that they were using brewers yeast. It is not knowing or hiding the fact they did not use a single-celled variety.
You have to read the link Halfmooner started with, which is what I based my response on. Failing that, you do not help yourself when you further misunderstand what I am saying about the same experiment.
Where you have a point is if you can prove the yeast they used is a single-celled variety. But since they already mentioned the name of the yeast they used Saccharomyces cerevisiae, it is too late for them to take back. Ratcliff said they will be using Chlamydomonas in their next experiment which is a true single-celled organism. (that is mentioned in the linked article posted by Halfmooner. There was no omission there. You just never read or understood de-bunking link by halfmooner. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/07/02/news-to-note-07022011
In fact about 4 post above this I asked your to check halfmooners link and wrote this. Time and date of post Posted - 02/18/2012 : 10:22:57
But that was not used in their experiment which they have stated they will use in their future experiment( a quick reversal) Please reread my post and the de-bunking link Halfmooner provided.
|
BTW here is a different source for the same experiment(New Scientist). I don't think this is a creationist site so you can remove your blinders and read for a change what all the fuss is about.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028184.300-lab-yeast-make-evolutionary-leap-to-multicellularity.html
|
| Edited by - jamalrapper on 02/18/2012 13:42:36 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2012 : 19:57:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
BTW here is a different source for the same experiment(New Scientist). I don't think this is a creationist site so you can remove your blinders and read for a change what all the fuss is about. |
I already posted a link to the original article in PNAS. Why rely on Wired, New Scientist or AiG when anyone can read the results from the horses' mouths?| That they used a multi-cellular yeast reduced the significance of their results. |
They didn't use a "multi-cellular yeast." That's another lie from you. They used a yeast which, under conditions of starvation, changes form so that the individual cells clump together. The researchers didn't starve the yeast, and the evidence they found shows that it was not the pseudohyphal process which caused multi-cellularity during this experiment. To say otherwise is to call the researchers liars, and if you won't come right out and say it again like you said it before, you're nothing but a coward.| That is the gist of the de-bunking. |
It's a lie is what it is.| What I said was they hid the fact they used brewers yeast that was already multi-cellular which they passed off as single-celled. |
And that's still a lie.| There is no denial here... |
Yes, you're denying what the researchers themselves wrote.| ...just you not understanding what the significance of the experiment was. |
No, everyone except you understands it just fine.| There are brewers yeast that are single-celled which they should have used instead. |
Name one.| The question is not that they were using brewers yeast. It is not knowing or hiding the fact they did not use a single-celled variety. |
No, that's the same old lie.| You have to read the link Halfmooner started with, which is what I based my response on. |
You based your response on the writings of known liars for Jesus.| Failing that, you do not help yourself when you further misunderstand what I am saying about the same experiment. |
And you do yourself no favors when you refuse to read the original article and instead continue to unthinkingly parrot the lies from AiG. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2012 : 21:59:33 [Permalink]
|
Just a pause to give the quote the first paragraph from the Abstract of the PNAS paper, "Experimental evolution of multicellularity," linked to by Dave above, which outlines the results of the yeast research we've been referring to here. Personally, with all the words slung about here, I needed this refresher from the original publication:Multicellularity was one of the most significant innovations in the
history of life, but its initial evolution remains poorly understood.
Using experimental evolution, we show that key steps in this transition
could have occurred quickly. We subjected the unicellular
yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae to an environment in which we
expected multicellularity to be adaptive. We observed the rapid
evolution of clustering genotypes that display a novel multicellular
life history characterized by reproduction via multicellular propagules,
a juvenile phase, and determinate growth. The multicellular
clusters are uniclonal, minimizing within-cluster genetic conflicts of
interest. Simple among-cell division of labor rapidly evolved. Early
multicellular strains were composed of physiologically similar cells,
but these subsequently evolved higher rates of programmed cell
death (apoptosis), an adaptation that increases propagule production.
These results showthat key aspects ofmulticellular complexity,
a subject of central importance to biology, can readily evolve from
unicellular eukaryotes. |
I quote this here not to admonish anyone, but to help those of us who are mainly spectators to better understand the basics of the issue. |
“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 02/18/2012 22:13:39 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2012 : 23:06:08 [Permalink]
|
From the above paper:| To determine if pseudohyphae can be induced in the unicellular ancestor and snowflake yeast from replicate population 1, 14 transfers, we starved yeast by culturing them on solid YPD media for 5 d. Pseudohyphae were readily observed in both strains (C and D). We conclude that the snowflake phenotype is not the result of a mutation that made previously inducible pseudohyphal cell morphology constitutive. |
"Pseudohyphae" are strings of connected budding cells, a protective reaction that normal unicellular yeast cells take to in times of starvation. The individual cells retain their rounded shapes but form into linear strings of cells.
The adaptation of "snowflake" clusters noted in the above quote seems to be something significantly different, actual multicellularity. These evolved cells themselves have become elongate in shape, and have started to demonstrate what might be called "divisions of labor." Those snowflakes are what this argument seem to center upon. |
“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 02/19/2012 00:28:56 |
|
|
 |
|
Yeast evolves multicellularity in lab in 60 days
