Thursday, February 28, 2013

Saturday, February 28, 1953

Friday night, after cutting out the cardboard bases, still deep in defeat Watson went home and then to the theatre. Saturday morning, February 28, he came in, cleared a place to work, got out his cardboard cutouts.
Though I initially went back to my like-with-like prejudices, I saw all too all too well that they led nowhere. When Jerry [Donohue] came in I looked up, saw that it was not Francis, and begin shifting the bases in and out of various other pairing possibilities. Suddenly I became aware that an adenine-thymine pair held together by two hydrogen bonds was identical in shape to a guanine-cytosine pair held together by at least two hydrogen bonds. All the hydrogen bonds seem to form naturally; no fudging was required to make the two types of base pair identical in shape.1
Watson stumbled into this part of the solution visually, from a shape, a representation, and that had happened several times before; that is the way his mind works. Note two of the four kinds of bases have the same contour. Watson found that the purine adenine, a fused double ring with other atoms fringing it at several points, could form two hydrogen bonds with the pyrimidine thymine, a single ring, when he placed the two cutouts side by side in the right way. The bond were the correct length, and were straight lines, N—H--O or N--H—N, as Pauling's model-building precepts required. Guanine and cytosine made hydrogen bonds the same way. The pairing could not be switched, however, for then the various atoms around the fringes got in each other's way. But when an A-T pair was laid on top of a G-C pair, the two compound shapes were exactly congruent. Such pairs could fit inside the backbones without bulges or pinches.

Donahue said these pairs agreed with what he knew. Crick, when he came in, immediately pointed out that the way the bases in these pairs would attach to their sugars meant that the two backbones ran in opposite directions, just as they had to do. Each chain could include both purines and pyrimidines, with pairs flipped over. That satisfied the dyadic symmetry. Chargaff's ratios were satisfied, too. The bases could appear in any order on one chain. Once that order was fixed, though, the base pairing, guanine always with cytosine and adenine with thymine, determined a complementary order on the opposite chain.

That morning, Watson and Crick knew, although still in mind only, the entire structure: it had emerged from the shadow of billions of years, absolute and simple, and was seen and understood for the first time. Twenty angstrom units in diameter, seventy-none billionths of an inch. Two chains twinning coaxially, clockwise, one up the other down, a complete turn the screw in 34 angstroms. The bases flat in their pairs in the middle, 3.4 angstroms and a tenth of a revolution separating a pair from the one above or below. The chains held by the pairing closer to each other around the circumference one way than the other, by an eighth of a turn, one groove up the outside narrow, the other wide. A melody for the eye of the intellect, not a note wasted. In itself, physically, structure carried the means of replication—positive to negative, complementary. As the strands unwound, at double template was there in the base pairing, so that only complementary nucleotides could form bonds and drop into place as the daughter strands grew. ... one doubts, of course, that Crick and Watson altogether realized, that morning, what they had seen. "We have discovered the secret of life," Crick told everyone within earshot over drinks that noon at the Eagle. It was not the entire secret of life, yet truly for the first time at the ultimate biological level structure had become one with function, the antimony dialectically resolved. The structure of DNA is flawlessly beautiful.

Horace Freeland Judson
The Eighth Day of Creation Expanded edition 1996, pp. 148-150
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press



1. James D. Watson, The Double Helix, p. 194

198 comments:

  1. FINE about discovery of the DNA anatomy.
    Yet its still just a picture of biology.
    its not a roadmap to the origins of biology and not a description of how DNA can be changed or not changed.
    any ideas about dNA being evidence for common descent is merely a line of reasoning without genetic scientific evidence.
    Evolutionary biology han NO biological scientific evidence backing it up.
    If so then list the top four best evidences Mr and Mrs evolutiondom!
    Lets make a bet!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Robert Byers says,

      Evolutionary biology has NO biological scientific evidence backing it up.

      Those kind of statements make it very difficult to have an intelligent conversation. You have effectively declared that you have no interest in discussing science.

      I hope that Sandwalk readers will realize that engaging you in conversation is a complete waste of everyone's time. If they don't, I may have to remind them from time to time that some people should be ignored.

      Delete
    2. mr moran .
      I stand by my statement.
      I understand the list of evidences given to back up evolution but i am making a closer point.
      That these evidences are not IN FACT based on biological scientific evidence.
      If there are some then I am wrong!
      Why not in the future for me and other creationists just make a thread about your top one and another thread about the next.
      I say it can't be done but only NON biological evidences would be introduced.
      Creationists do say evolutionists don't have biological scientific evidence.
      This should be easy to settle.
      You can show to your readership how unreasonable creationists are or are failing in understanding evolutions evidences.

      Delete
    3. You know, it might be a challenge to succinctly describe the top four evidences of evolution, in language a 6 year old could understand.

      But then Byers writes things like:

      I say it can't be done but only NON biological evidences would be introduced.

      Which reminds all of us that Byers defines many, many biological things as non-biological. For example, bones, shells, footprints, burrows, and the ENTIRE fossil record.

      Byers in the past has stated that tree rings are not biological. (This is because tree ring dating proves the Earth is over 6,000 years old.)

      So, while it might indeed be a challenge to succinctly describe top four evidences of evolution...

      The denouement would always be Byers saying, "That's not biological! And THAT's not biological! And THAT's not biological either!" and trying to suck us into a word game.

      So Byers here is invoking argument from authority: he has the authority, the only authority, to define the word "biological" and none of us have the authority to define the word, even those of us who are, uh, biologists.

      So, while it might, at first, seem like fun to succinctly describe the top four evidences of evolution...

      I have no doubt Byers' endless invocations of argument from authority (his own, he has all of it) would suck all the fun right out of it.

      Delete
    4. Well, I just got done explaining quite a few biological evidences for evolution to my high school students. Easy peasy. But as Larry says, Byers has been shown many times and refuses to listen. He is best ignored.

      Delete
    5. Please don't say "evidences" plural. It's preacher-talk. "Lines of evidence", maybe.

      Delete
  2. It was mostly covered on by me and others on the blog "Craig Venter Discusses the Tree of Life"

    http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2013/02/craig-ventor-discusses-tree-of-life.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have to admit I was hoping for more action from this forum...I just hope, that my comments on the Venter blog did not cause this whole forum to "slowdown"... I have been known to cause some problems on other forums, for obvious reasons, but I had hoped that on this forum we will be able to get to the bottom of the problems such as" vitalism vs entropy barrier, self assembly of proteins, self-cell membrane formation, metabolism first vs RNA world, why did evolution need 600 typs of mangoes and how did they evolve and why?
    Why did Larry Moran and Craig Venter evolve to baldness only on the part of the scalp but they have retained their bushy hair on the side and lower back of their scalp????

    For those who answer one of these question logically, I am willing to pay $1000.00

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really? You're going to give me $1000 (US?) if I teach you how proteins fold or about male pattern baldness? I'd love to collect $2000 from you. Please specify, exactly, the terms of your offer.

      Delete
    2. I want to answer the one about mangoes. The first one about mangoes. Ante up.

      Delete
    3. Hi Larry,

      Thanks for your response. I hope you don’t mind me calling you by your first name do you?
      I‘ve heard that Canadians are pretty laid back about formalities, so if you wish to be called professor Moran, I will do that. Just let me know…
      The challenge is on, and I’m not kidding around. When I proposed 1 mil for someone to recreate endosymbiosis in the lab, everybody including probably you???-- didn’t buy that…So I decided to go lower; to be more believable. ..
      So… We have two very different issues here…
      1. Self-assembly of proteins: while I appreciate your offer to explain how proteins fold, I was looking more for the explanation as to what makes proteins self-assemble in the face of entropy barrier. To make this subject interesting to a larger audience, (I hope you appreciate that since your blog has been asleep, especially lately…) I was going to use the famous example of the bacterial flagellum motor. Most people know that it self-assembles in a perfect way within about 20 minutes. However, there are some problems there that I have issue with, such as:

      The number of ways that the proteins can fold to assemble the motor, which is wrong is enormous…? It is definitely greater than the number of ways that the proteins can fold together that is right…
      How can this happen in real time within 20 minutes?
      There is more to this issue, but I’m not going to bother as I would like you boring blog to revitalize a bit… I have more in store soon…Trust me Larry…

      2. Regarding Pattern Baldness Larry, I didn’t mean to be disrespectful just because you have this “evolutionary side-effect”... To be more specific, I was looking for a logical explanation as to how, from evolutionally point of view, you can explain this phenomenon. Not necessarily why it happens (Venter often says that we are just hairless monkeys, so what is the problem….?) While I can buy this explanation to a degree, my question earlier specifically targeted the extent of pattern baldness from evolutionary prospective, or for that matter, any prospective… Just to emphasize; If pattern baldness is part of evolutionary process, why do you, Venter and others lose hair in the hairline, top of the scalp and crown, but never, ever on the side behind the ears and the lower part of the scalp the upper neck? (There is an exception to the small part of the neck, just in case my father ever reads this…He would kill me if I omitted this ....).
      It does not make any sense. Just to fill you in, many of my patients complain that while they lose the hair on the scalp, they grow more and more hair everywhere else—ears, eyebrows, back and ass. This is not a joke. Why on earth would evolution eliminate the hair that is “no longer necessary” and grow the hair that is even less needed? Just look at your eye brows Larry. To me you are turning into Stalin for crying out loud…lol

      Delete
    4. @Allan Miller
      Do you really think you can contribute to the subject??? If yes, just let it out because that is one needs to do.. Well, on the other hand...nuh...

      Delete
    5. Witton,

      please explain your reference to "vitalism vs. the entropy barrier."

      What do you mean by "vitalism"?

      Delete
    6. Do you really think you can contribute to the subject??? If yes, just let it out because that is one needs to do.. Well, on the other hand...nuh...

      Oh yeah, I'm just going to put out my years of work in Mango Studies for some stranger on the internet, for free. Deposit your $1000 with an independent third party and we'll see whether my answer to the question "why did evolution need 600 typ[e]s of mangoes?" is a logical one under the terms of your generous offer.

      Surely it wasn't a mere rhetorical flourish?

      Delete
    7. why did evolution need 600 types of mangoes"

      Sometimes within the most supremely flawed of questions lurks a path to an answer. Not that Witton will deduce this.

      Delete
    8. Witton asserts that proteins which do in fact self-fold and self-assemble can't possibly do that because there are too many ways to do so. Note that Witton is not asking about how they evolved, but how they do it right now. I guess his unstated hypothesis is that Something Else, maybe leprechauns, is pushing the proteins into shape.

      If so, there should be an experimental system Witton can propose to show that, where we can see the proteins do the impossible, in detail. If so, Witton will be widely acclaimed -- a lot more than $1,000 is at stake. Until then, proposing Something Else is just a windy exercise in hand-waving.

      Delete
    9. Definitely want the $1,000 up front in some sort of escrow account with this one.

      Delete
    10. why did evolution need 600 typs of mangoes and how did they evolve and why

      You forgot to mention that the banana is proof of god's existence.

      Delete
    11. Wow, Witton missed the highschool biology class where where the spatial structure and chemical pro2perties of the functional groups in organic chemistry were explained. He should be sending thousands of dollars to the writers of basic biochemistry textbooks the world over.

      Witton, you're aware you can even get software that can predict how proteins fold simply by their amino-acid sequence, right? It is computationally challenging, which is why there are projects such as folding@home etc.

      Witton, do you think "the will of god" is programmed into these programs, instead of just basic knowledge of biochemistry? What is it, do you think, that makes it possible for a program to compute how a protein will fold? An equation that describes MAGIC?

      Delete
    12. John Witton says,

      ... while I appreciate your offer to explain how proteins fold, I was looking more for the explanation as to what makes proteins self-assemble in the face of entropy barrier.

      Good. I accept that challenge. Let's work out the details. I expect you to write a check for $1000 and give it to a neutral third party. That party will send me the check if a neutral referee agrees that I have met your challenge. All we have to do now is agree on a judge. I suggest Michael Behe since he is a biochemist. Is he acceptable to you?

      Regarding Pattern Baldness Larry, I didn’t mean to be disrespectful just because you have this “evolutionary side-effect”... To be more specific, I was looking for a logical explanation as to how, from evolutionally point of view, you can explain this phenomenon.

      I accept this challenge as well. Same conditions apply except that maybe we should choose a different referee. I suggest Michael Denton, another well-known Intelligent Design Creationist. I'm pretty sure he understands enough about evolution to be able to judge whether my answer is logical. Agreed?

      Delete
    13. Rumraket wrote,

      He should be sending thousands of dollars to the writers of basic biochemistry textbooks the world over.

      Hold on a minute ... I have first dibs!

      Delete
    14. This (and Byers) gives me an idea. I will give £10,000 to the first person who tidies my garden to my satisfaction.

      Delete
    15. I'll do it but I need travel money! I'm actually horticulturalist. I presume you are in the UK? (I'm in the US.)

      Delete
    16. Boy, I can't write at all today. I am a horticulturalist.

      Delete
    17. Lynn, you miss the irony. Note that Alan writes 'to my satisfaction'. He thus gives himself an excuse to not pay you even if you transform his garden into a blue ribbon winner. Witton is doing the same thing. He has no intention of paying because he can always say he is not satisfied with the answers he receives. It's showboating.

      Delete
    18. @Larry Moran

      I’m glad you took the bait Larry…for the lack of better word in English… You are not a very good bluffer though…I’m hoping you don’t play poker and bet large sums of money… Anyway, even though you are paddling back from some of the issues I have presented you know you can’t explain, I’m still going to pursue this transaction, since I can still nail you on those two issues you feel comfortable with…You have nothing to lose...or it might be a little bit of pride, which is fine with me… So, this is what I’m doing. I am sending two cheques $1000.00 US each to Michael Behe and Michael Denton with the explanation of our agreement. They may not like writing extensive explanation as to their judgment or nothing at all, except Larry or John is the winner in their view. We just have to accept that. I don’t know them personally, I’m sort of familiar with their work but I doubt they are familiar with mine, unless Behe was wondering why he is bald and others are not, then he may have come across my humble means….
      So, to be fair, I think you should present you arguments within few days while I contact two parties with the details. I hope they don’t refuse, and I think they won’t once they find out who is involved…
      BTW: I’m not a creationist or IDiot Larry…I’m just a skeptic like you…well not like you but sort of like you… I don’t believe in science… well to be clear…I don’t believe in science that is based on faith… You don’t believe I should, do you?


      Delete
    19. Oh, I got it Andy. I was just fishing for a free trip.
      I'd be worth it as long as he didn't hold my papers in escrow :-).
      Now, the creationist's deal, no way. But I hope Larry goes for it.

      Delete
    20. @Rumraket
      I never went to high-school...How was it? Schooling was always too boring for me... That is probably why I began to think, rather than to absorb the propaganda some wanted to impose on me...Like I said... I have always been a skeptic...just like Larry... sort of...though...

      Delete
    21. @Lynn Wilhelm
      Now, the creationist's deal, no way. But I hope Larry goes for it."

      I would be a shame...Not for me obviously... lol

      Delete
    22. @Rumraket
      I hope you can read..? It is now "how" but "what" makes proteins fold despite entropy barrier..I mean, if there is no "external intervention" proteins should fold no matter what, right? I hope you can see the difference? Larry can...so..?

      Delete
    23. If the question is "what", then the answer is even easier. Larry Moran has dips on the cash unfortunately :(

      Delete
    24. I am sending two cheques $1000.00 US each to Michael Behe and Michael Denton with the explanation of our agreement. They may not like writing extensive explanation as to their judgment or nothing at all, except Larry or John is the winner in their view. We just have to accept that.

      Tell them they may keep the cheques if you win, then perhaps you will have a chance.

      Delete
    25. It is now "how" but "what" makes proteins fold despite entropy barrier.

      No protein folds "despite an entropy barrier". It's like saying what makes water collect in a hole despite gravity and the hole.

      Delete
    26. @Lynn,

      Thanks for the offer, but I already have an army of urchins eager for the cash, as I sit under my tree with an umbrella-decorated drink :0) The garden's looking great - who'd have thought, mangoes in March in the UK? But I have another challenge for them ...

      Delete
    27. @Piotr Gasiorowski

      Did you say something..? Or ...nuh

      Delete
    28. @Allan Miller

      You don't know what you are talking about...I suggest you review Wikipedia...lol

      Delete
    29. @John Witton.

      You don't know what you are talking about...I suggest you review Wikipedia...lol

      In relation to what? Protein folding, mangoes, spurious cash offers? Or do you want me to review the whole of Wikipedia?

      If I were to take a wild guess, I'd say you don't really know what entropy is. Maybe you think the folded state is more 'ordered'? Do you think proteins stay straight if left to their own devices, and something external overcomes this natural tendency, boots them over the 'entropy barrier' and makes them curl up?

      Delete
    30. @Witton I am sending two cheques $1000.00 US each to Michael Behe and Michael Denton with the explanation of our agreement.

      I call bullshit on this.

      It will never happen.

      Delete
    31. Witton: why did evolution need 600 typs of mangoes and how did they evolve and why?

      Perhaps you should explain first what you understand by "typs of mangoes", and why you believe evolution has produced 600 of them. The facts are as follows:

      The genus Mangifera has 69 currently known species (the fruits of less than half of them are considered edible). The oldest fossils of Mangifera are some 23 million years old [see here], and the genus is thought to have evolved some 10 million years earlier. Surely a plant taxon can plausibly diversify into ca. 70 species in 30 million years? Euphorbia is about 42.5 million years old and contains about 2000 species. Now that's a giant genus.

      If mangoes have hundreds of cultivars, that's due to human cultivation, not to evolution in the wild. There are more than 2500 rose cultivars and three times as many apple cultivars.

      I would have written more, but I have no right deprive Larry of his 1000 bucks.

      Delete
    32. Meh,

      This guy is going to write 1000 US checks for explanations that exist in prenatal textbooks of biochemistry? I doubt it. Look at the fucking question:

      I hope you can read..? It is now "how" but "what" makes proteins fold despite entropy barrier..I mean, if there is no "external intervention" proteins should fold no matter what, right? I hope you can see the difference? Larry can...so..?

      "What" is much easier to explain than "how," because in the "how" creationists can constantly move the goalposts. With "what" this guy loses with one word.

      I bet he moves to "how: within seconds of hearing the "what."

      Delete
    33. And finally "why". Don't forget the "whys".

      Delete
    34. John Witton writes,

      So, this is what I’m doing. I am sending two cheques $1000.00 US each to Michael Behe and Michael Denton with the explanation of our agreement. They may not like writing extensive explanation as to their judgment or nothing at all, except Larry or John is the winner in their view. We just have to accept that.

      Excellent! I'll wait a few days until they receive the checks then email them to confirm the arrangement. I'll send them the links to these posts and comments.

      As soon as I get confirmation, I'll post my answers on this blog then let Behe and Denton decide whether I've answered your questions or not. I'm hoping to do that by the end of this week.

      Delete
  4. Google celebrated DNA's 50th anniversary with a doodle: http://www.google.com/doodles/celebrating-dnas-50th-anniversary

    ReplyDelete
  5. Horace succeeds in showing how science can be beautiful. Reading that made the hairs stand on the back of my neck :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that his book should be read by every biology student. But seems like my enthusiasm is not shared by enough people.

      Delete
  6. True science can and it is beautiful... Unfortunately, some so called "scientists" make it appear ugly, and that is why the term scientific method has been restricted to the real science. Not to the one that some wish it was science, because their belief is driving them to it. But to the science based on scientific method and not on wishful thinking of pseudoscience... e.i."It had to happen that way even though there is no evidence for it..."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. Creationists are that stupid. No evidence for any gods, yet they insist.

      Delete
    2. John, do you think of yourself as a scientist? I'm planning a blog post about you and your job to go along with your donation of $2000 to my bank account and I'd like to get your opinion.

      Delete
    3. "John, do you think of yourself as a scientist? I'm planning a blog post about you and your job to go along with your donation of $2000 to my bank account and I'd like to get your opinion."

      Larry... I hope this is not an intimidation..? I'm not scared of you or your faith based "science".

      "Scientist" is a very vague term... We'll see who is going to emerge as a scientist after this confrontation...

      Delete
  7. Using the word evidence in the plural appears to be one of the signs of a crank...

    ReplyDelete
  8. It is quite remarkable that a card-carrying crystallographer Franklin could nor grasp the importance of the space group that she determined while self-taught crystallographer Crick saw it right away.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Crick says he recognised the similarity of the 'both-ways-up' pattern to his thesis molecule, haemoglobin. Experience feeds in.

      Delete
    2. Crick wasn't exactly "self-taught." There were one or two experts working in the same group. Perhaps you've heard of William Lawrence Bragg, Max Perutz or John Kendrew?

      Nevertheless, your main point is well-taken. Franklin did not have the insight to solve her structure using model-building and she missed several important clues. I think it's clear that she didn't appreciate that she was working on the "secret of life" since she was not well-connected to the phage group in 1953. (That changed later on.)

      Delete
  9. He was definitely self-taught. Bragg was 100% administrator by that point, Perutz and Kendrew did not have much time for him and just let Crick do whatever he wanted. E.g., figure out the structure of coiled coils, some 30 years before the direct experimental evidence and publish the paper in Nature. Alone, without co-authors.

    Whatever he did with hemoglobin, it is clear that he wasn't involved very much in that work, for he is not a co-author on any of the papers hemoglobin papers.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Witton has a long string of "Why is the sky blue Daddy?" type of questions. Now the rule with creationists is that they jump from discipline to discipline-- genetics to paleontology to geology to astronomy to cosmology-- until they find a question that is so far outside Prof. Evilutionist's field that he can't answer it.

    Then the creationist declares victory, because if there is one question from any field under the sun (or over it) that Prof. Evilutionist can't answer, well, that proves of course that 6,000 years ago, dirt turned into the human genome by sorcery.

    One of Witton's "Why is the sky blue Daddy?" type of questions is at least marginally original.

    Witton: why did evolution need 600 typs of mangoes and how did they evolve and why?

    You will note the similarity of this question to Ray Comfort's infamous "Behold! The atheist's nightmare" banana video. But Witton has substituted a mango for a banana. Thank reason for small favors.

    OK. Now all of us here know that the mango (like the banana) is a DOMESTICATED fruit. Thus its properties that are most amenable to human consumption are the product of artificial selection by humans, not natural selection nor supernatural design by God.

    Thus, the question is based on a false premise: that the properties of mangoes that make them most amenable to human consumption are the product of evolution. Not proven.

    But at any rate, we can invert his question, as we can invert all creationist "Why is the sky blue Daddy?" type questions.

    Why did intelligent designers need 600 typs of mangoes and how were they designed and why?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not going to argue with you, for obvious reasons to me...
      BTW: My favorite line of argument against your pooooor argument is the Fibonacci Number...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_number
      You are a moron but I still have hope...You are not looking for the truth like Larry should...but it is a sad story...
      You still wanna talk about vitalism or you are going to wait until Larry arms his guns?

      Delete
    2. Er, John, wasn't he the one who asked you about vitalism? You've posted comments a couple of times since he asked you with nary a peep about it.

      How do Fibonacci numbers provide you a line of argument? I do think develpment and simple laws of physics have shown us a lot about why such patterns are seen in nature.

      Delete
    3. You still wanna talk about vitalism or you are going to wait until Larry arms his guns?

      Fuck yeah! I haven't seen vitalism defended in print since 1920.

      By Intelligent Design standards, that makes it current cuttin' edge science.

      Please list three testable predictions of vital farce, I mean vital force theory that have been confirmed by observation.

      Delete
    4. John, you still haven't answered this one.

      Why did intelligent designers need 600 typs of mangoes and how were they designed and why?

      Delete
    5. You are not only an idiot but a miserable one... I have mercy...Din't you know that? Get some help! I can't laugh at you...Where I come form it's illegal to do so at disabled people ... Sorry I can't help it lol :)))) My bad...

      Delete
    6. "Why did intelligent designers need 600 typs of mangoes and how were they designed and why?"

      What kind of argument would be good enough for you? An evolutionary one doesn't suffice, so what can I do? If I was the Designer, I would say: enjoy the 600 different flavors for your palate; out of love...but you don't know what that means, because I'm talking to a mummy with evolutionary presets... Doesn't accept humanity...Sorry, My bad..

      Delete
    7. "F... yeah! I haven't seen vitalism defended in print since 1920 By Intelligent Design standards, that makes it current cuttin' edge science. Please list three testable predictions of vital farce, I mean vital force theory that have been confirmed by observation."

      Well... I'm glad you said that, because If I were a DEvoLUTIONISTS like you, I would get my guns ready with ALL THE proof for macro-evolution...just to quote you:

      "Please list three testable predictions... theory that have been confirmed by observation." ;) Capish???
      Go ahead. Make your DEvoLUTION my reality!!! I'm sure you can...

      Delete
    8. What happened to discussing vitalism?

      YOU brought up the subject. I ask for a defense of vitalism. This drives you into a hysterical rage.

      Why do the topics you yourself bring up drive you into a state of greater incoherence than your standard incoherence?

      Once again I repeat the question crucial to the topic YOU YOURSELF raised:

      Please list three testable predictions of vital farce, I mean vital force theory that have been confirmed by observation.

      Delete
    9. The topic continues with Larry explaining what makes proteins fold facing entropy barrier... I can't explain it now...If I do, Larry is going to paddle back even more...He's already omitted 75% of what I have asked him to explain...Just compere what I wrote and what he chose to respond to...I will still nail him, but it is not going to be as much fun... lol

      Delete
    10. For those who answer one of these question logically, I am willing to pay $1000.00

      Larry can omit 75% of the questions. He gets the $1,000 for each of the two that he proposes to answer. Apparently Witton cannot read his own comments!

      Delete
    11. BTW: My favorite line of argument against your pooooor argument is the Fibonacci Number...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_number

      Does this mean I can win $1,000 just for explaining cell signaling to you?

      Delete
    12. I meant Fibonacci Number in Nature...

      https://www.google.ca/search?q=fibonacci+number+in+nature&hl=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=7sIzUcTdMrOG0QGKo4GIDQ&sqi=2&ved=0CD4QsAQ&biw=1280&bih=675

      Delete
    13. Oh, yes. The fatal attraction of the Fibonacci series and the Golden Ratio. The hallmark of the lunatic fringe.

      Delete
    14. @Piotr Gasiorowski

      Get ready for the challenging work of correcting spelling tomorrow...You might be much more believable at that...I hope dupku or dopku??? lol :)

      Delete
    15. John, it isn't 'challenging' in your case; it's merely tiresome.
      From this thread alone you wrote 'compere' in place of 'compare', 'din't' rather than 'didn't', and referred to Diogenes as 'a Devolutionists', mixing up the singular and plural. And this from just a cursory glance of one thread. You are attempting to lord over this forum with a haughty, above it all, demeanor, but your numerous syntax errors just make your false show of bravado appear silly.

      Delete
    16. @andyboerger

      Thanks, Didn't know proper grammar was required to make the point here? Ever used an Iphone?

      BTW: I don't care what you think...As a matter fact, I don't care what others on this forum think... I'm trying to convey something you probably have no clue about...

      You don't like it because I told you you weren't helpful? Too bad... Swallow you pride and move on... If you can't, then you know what to do...

      Delete
    17. I neither cared, nor noticed, that you told me I wasn't helpful.
      Every solipsistic megalomaniac believes that they are 'trying to convey something' that others have no clue about. The fact that they were continually trying, rather than succeeding, would indicate something very obvious to them if they weren't so busy worshipping the false idol of their own superiority.

      Delete
    18. I'm imagining arguing with John,

      John, there's plenty of archeological evidence showing that mangoes have been domesticated and the various varieties are due to artificial selection from the natural species ...

      [John answers] Fibonacci numbers!

      John, what does that have to do with mangoes?

      [John] I mean FIbonacci numbers in nature!

      But what does that have to do with mangoes?

      [John] Fibonacci numbers!

      OK John, then let me tell you, Fibonacci numbers arise quite easily naturally because ...

      [John interrupts] Fibonacci numbers! Fibonacci numbers!

      What about them John?

      [John] they are my favorite line of argument against you!

      But they don't answer anything of what I've told you.

      [John] I meant Fibonacci numbers in nature!

      But John, they easily appear naturally in nature, there is no mystery ...

      [John] Ha! I triumph! Don't try to attach to me now that I have attained victory! I Have you by the balls! Muahahahahahahahaha!

      Delete
    19. NE, a bit more arrogance and it would be pitch perfect!

      Delete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John, with an ego like yours, you'll never be on your own.

      Delete
    2. Thanks... I know... I can't help it especially since now I got Larry by the balls... What do you want me to do? Wait for you to pick up the shrapnel?

      Delete
  12. Replies
    1. Yes. You seem to have a lot of cash. I want to be friend with rich people.

      I don't know what to make of you Witton, are you trolling?

      Delete
    2. @Eugen

      "Yes. You seem to have a lot of cash. I want to be friend with rich people."

      I have enough...let's put it this way...and that can mean many different things...Rich people very often never have enough ...cash... that is...:) Therefore they don't want to share it with anybody...even themselves...:)

      "I don't know what to make of you Witton, are you trolling?"

      If you don't know what to make of me, "...just watch me..." :)

      BTW: Thanks for the support. Don't need it though...your cash that is...:)

      Delete
  13. diogenes.
    What is biological evidence should be clear.
    No I don't think fossils are biological evidence for decsent or process since only a moment in time is fossilized.
    Its just speculation about connections even if it was accurate speculation.
    Yet its not scientific biological evidence.
    This is why evolutionists are unpersuasive to people.

    I don't think evolutionary biology is true and so there couldn't be SCIENTIFIC BIOLOGICAL evidence for something that never happened.
    Case in point is marine mammals and so on.
    i have recently been watching a lot of youtube stuff on the famous modern evolutionist writers and satisfy myself they don't understand they are presenting non biological evidence.
    so i offer anyone the chance to show yEC is wrong.
    Top one or four.
    let the voters decide.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @Rumraket (others)

    You seem quite convinced Larry is going to take it all, why don't plunk down $1000 and send it to Gasiorowski…If Larry wins, he will send it back. But if..., for some unforeseen reason.... he loses, then Gasiorowski will have fun for few days at your expense. What do you think???

    You have faith in Larry and your knowledge, don't you???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know about Rumraket, but I am not convinced that Larry will get any money because once he shows you that your question about baldness is misinformed, you will say that he did not answer your question (misinformed questions have no direct answer, they are shown to be misinformed and you will play the idiot and refuse to understand any explanations). Then the other question, he will answer, he will clearly tell you why proteins fold despite "entropy barriers." But then you will not believe him, and claim that he did not answer, and demand a "how." You will continue moving goal posts and refusing to understand any explanations. That's classic creationist play. I have seen it too many times not to know. If any of the judges states that you lost you still will be so angry that they will not know if they truly have any right to send the checks to Larry.

      I could show quite easily that you have no idea of what you are saying, and that you have no idea about how misinformed your questions are within a few comments. Yet, you will ignore any comments at your convenience. You do not care about reality. You just want to pet your overinflated ego. You are a troll, even if not by intention. You are an uneducable ass-hole, and you have demonstrated that quite well already in this very thread. If you care I can show you.

      Now, for the sake or argument, you think that you are right. OK then, what about we tackle just one of your malformed questions, seek for its origin, and you show us all that you really care? Or will you refuse "for reasons that are known to you"? In other words, because you know you can't defeat reality.

      Delete
    2. Let's be clear here, Witton won't be sending checks to anyone. Period.

      Delete
    3. Let's be clear here, Witton won't be sending checks to anyone. Period.

      Surely you aren't accusing him of dishonesty? :-)

      Delete
    4. I'm not sure how likely Behe and Denton are to agree to this. Still, I think it was a real stroke on Larry's part to suggest creationists who nonetheless possess some degree of scientific competence as judges.

      I guess we just have to take Mr. Witton's word for it that he sent them the cheques.

      Delete
    5. What is dishonesty in Larry's eyes: Something Larry can't argue about or has no clue about...Canadian Style...Bacon and Spinach....

      Delete
    6. What is dishonesty Larry? It is dishonesty according to what you believe in or according to what? Maybe according to what YOU want the world to believe in???

      Delete
    7. I have contacted both Behe and Denton. I have emailed the Discovery Institute regarding our arraignment. Even The Star is interested, if Behe participates... I don't think anybody takes you seriously Larry... We'll see.. You seem to be a big mouth that writes text books nobody understands, even you ...;)

      Delete
    8. Arraignment? It's a criminal matter now?

      Delete
  15. Why is it that so many creationists have trouble expressing themselves clearly in written English? It's almost as though they never paid any attention at school.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Rich
      "Why is it that so many creationists have trouble expressing themselves clearly in written English? It's almost as though they never paid any attention at school."

      They have not time...They are trying hard to understand the atheistic theories, that supposed explain other theories, that there is no evidence for...In other words they scratch their heads day and night thinking what it is the difference between theories that explain other theories without any evidence for them and faith??? Lol:)))

      Delete
  16. Is all Witton asking for is an answer to Levinthal's paradox?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's partly an explanation of protein folding but I think he also wants me to explain how two proteins can bind to each other "in the face of entropy barrier." Both have been described in my textbook since 1987. I don't think he understands the thermodynamics of biochemical systems.

      For some reason, this whole thread makes me think of candies and babies.

      Delete
    2. @Laurence A. Moran
      " I don't think he understands the thermodynamics of biochemical systems. "
      Do you Larry? You can always say "he is full of crap" when you don't have any arguments...That means what? You must be right because you are ... I love that Larry but...

      Delete
  17. Why is The Big Larry avoiding the baldness theme??? Is it because he has no clue or because he is clueless? It is both...He has no idea what he has gotten into... It is soon to be revealed...Larry is my hero...In a clownish way...His Sandwalk blog soon is going to turn into Sad-walk or...even more soon to be revealed...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why are you wearing a hat on the picture? Are you some kind of musician? Or...? Tell us... I don't want to guess...but I'm 99% sure why...;) or perhaps? :(

      Delete
    2. what is it with you about baldness, John?

      Delete
    3. I know my stuff about this issue...and the other too...

      That is why I can nail Larry with them...

      What else can I say?

      BTW: I like your Zorro like look...It's pretty cool... :)

      I don't look good in hats...plus my thick, bushy hair doesn't fit well... Know what I mean...???

      Delete
    4. Your stuff being what? Hairdressing and numerology? Sorry about your toupée not fitting into a hat.

      Delete
    5. Why is The Big Larry avoiding the baldness theme???

      Umm, because he isn't? He's agreed to answer your question once the conditions of the wager are all finalized. How does that amount to "avoiding" the question?

      Do you really expect him to give the answer now, before an impartial judge has agreed to settle the matter, and allow you the option of just saying "I don't like that answer. Therefore I win!"?

      Your grip on reality grows more tenuous by the minute.

      Delete
  18. So, have those cheques arrived at Behe and Denton yet?

    ReplyDelete
  19. To All Larry's Supporters:

    I have an idea;

    All Larry's supporters should send him $100 cheque each... If Larry wins the contest, which they believe he will, he will send the cheques back to you. If, for some unforeseen reason, Larry loses, he will cash the cheques, and start a new foundation in my name, to commemorate this unanticipated "miracle". What do you think? You have faith in your knowledge and Larry's don't you? Isn't it what you have been bombarding me and this forum with? Now it's time to turn your big mouths in to deeds...

    Come on! Don't let Larry down!!! Lol ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."

      -- Bertrand Russell

      Delete
    2. John, Larry is playing you fair. You have accepted his choice of the referees and the conditions of the contest. Now the ball is in your court. Just contact the referees, send the checques and shut up till the referees have decided if Larry's explanations hold water. He is under no obligation to reveal his hand yet, so what's the purpose of all this noise? Getting nervous?

      Delete
    3. @Piotr Gasiorowski

      Now think for a moment about what you wrote; You call me a hairstylist. If I'm a hairstylist and able to prove that baldness can’t be explained by evolutionary terms, what will you look like? What will Larry look like? I think you should just continue with the insults as this can make great headlines... ;) lol

      Delete
    4. @Piotr Gasiorowski

      After the contest is over, I will hire a couple of hacklers in Polandski and remind you all of your bigmouth claims including the junk DNA ;) lol I promise you that... Count on it...

      Delete
    5. @John: I'd love to see the completion of the contest, but I doubt if it can be effected. If you ever manage to get in touch with Behe and Denton, they will see at once they are dealing with a nutbag who is an embarrassment to the ID cause and whose "challenge" is a pathetic off-target kamikaze run. As a result, they will politely decline to have anything to do with you. I'd like to be wrong but somehow it's hard to imagine they'll take you seriously.

      Delete
    6. You seem to be correct, Piotr, based on Mr. Witton's post just below. But he is undeterred. Fight the good fight, John!

      Delete
  20. It looks like I’m going to have to present my case to the referees first or they won’t budge…

    I don’t think they worry about Larry but rather me…They probably would like to see, if I have enough ammunition to shoot Larry at least in the toe…
    So, this will probably delay things, but I'm starting working on it… Don’t worry Larry!!! I have a backup plan just in case this one doesn't work…
    We’ll still have a chance to tackle…I look soooo forward to it you have no idea ;) lol

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When one is too batshit even for the IDiots, one should start to get concerned....

      I wonder if Mr. Witton would care to share the content of the responses he has received from Drs. Denton and Behe. With their permission, of course.

      Delete
    2. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/06/18/business/19thomas-600.jpg

      Delete
  21. @Witton: lots of facile comments, empty phrases for the most part. Have you actually said anything at all, of consequence, since Larry's eyes lit up seeing a win-win scenario?
    Could Witton be a psedonym, say, abbreviated from 'Walter Mitty Kamikaze Mission', perhaps?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree but I'm still intrigued by some of his comments though They're unorthodox. I have read most of his posts and he got me interested by few. It is hard to detect when his serious and when he is joking. If he is trolling, why such unusual subjects?

      Delete
    2. It is hard to detect when his serious and when he is joking.

      With such as he, the distinction is inconsequential.

      Delete
    3. I'm not sure. I've looked up some literature and it is inconclusive. Professor Moran is an expert in his area, so I will go with him when it comes to the protein issue..

      But the baldness issue? I'm not so sure. Maybe Witon has something, but why reveal it here? It doesn't make any sense to me.

      Delete
    4. Abishak,

      The forces participating in protein folding are well understood. I am not talking about it now, but they are. I do not know what you looked for in the literature. In any way, John is very mistaken, and most probably has no idea what entropy really is about. I will not talk about baldness at all, but it shows misunderstanding that John carries in other questions as well.

      All of John's questions show very classic creationist misunderstandings. Of a kind that we see a lot among the most ignorant of them. What surprises me is how confident this ass-hole is, as if he was the very first person to think of entropy as a problem for protein folding/assembly of structures, and as if he was the first to misunderstand evolution. As if he was the first so make questions loaded with stupid assumptions proper only of kindergarden misunderstanding both of evolution and of natural phenomena. Seems like John has only read creationist literature and/or science for kids. His "preparation" does not help him understand the science at the proper level. He will be quoting and misquoting the most shitty definitions of entropy. You will see.

      For example, I give you the mangoes. Look at his question: "why did evolution need 600 typs of mangoes and how did they evolve and why?" The number of stupid/kinder-garden assumptions and misconceptions of evolution (and domestication) embedded in this question are astounding.

      See ya.

      Delete
    5. So, you do know about baldness but you won't talk? We're twins. I'm bald and my twin brother has full head of hair. How do you explain that? Nobody has that is why we're might go with Witon. Not sure we're doing the right thing though.

      Delete
    6. I will not talk about Wittons "question." But I can talk about yours:

      That nobody has explained that to you does not mean that there's no explanation. It certainly has nothing to do with Witton's "question." There's several possibilities, and yours is not a question about evolution, but about inheritance (and perhaps mutation). The first and most probable contender is that you are not identical twins, only fraternal twins. That would mean that you have inherited at least some different alleles (versions of genes), and thus different predispositions to being bald and to whatever baldness patterns you have (besides other differences). Even if you think that you are identical twins, you might not be. You would not be the first twins to think that you are identical while not being. Then, if you are identical twins, certified by deep and unambiguous genetic testing (even if you look identical it does not mean that you are genetically identical. I am no twin with my brother, yet I was often mistaken for him), you have had at least slightly different environments. Often one baby gets more nutrients than the other, you are not occupying the very same space as your brother, thus it is obvious that the environments will be different. Maybe one of you caught some infection, the other didn't. Long et cetera. genes are a factor, but the environment plays a role too. Another reason could have something to do with mutations occurring in one but not the other. After all, mutations are random. :)

      Solving your question requires some serious considerations. John is far from being capable of properly studying these kinds of problems. Keep your money safe.

      Delete
    7. Thanks for your time. It is much appreciated that you took the time to explain this issue. Witen said that baldnes was not a part of evolution and that's what struck me and my bother. Also, only the top is thinning and not the rest. My grandfather dyied at 93 with bald as it can get but not his back and behind the ears. I have a picture I can send to you to see. You think he is a scammer? What is he trying to achieve? Make Dr Moran look bad? Better than him have tried. Don't think so

      Delete
    8. Witton might not be a scammer in the proper sense. He might be just a troll, but a troll who might not miss a chance to scam you if you offer so willingly to give him money. He might be truly convinced as a creationist that evolution is false. Given the tone, he might think that he can show that evolution is false, and, because he thinks he is truly smart (probably a bunch of idiots think that he is, and he has come to believe it. There's enough incompetent people that some less incompetent would look truly smart to them), and because some stuff is not really well taught in middle and high school, he thinks he has real proof based on those misconceptions. All it took him was to misunderstand what evolution is about, just as I was misinterpreting gravitation in my example. If so, he would be a self-deluded fool looking for the recognition of his genius, to be the one to dismantle evolution for good. He might never understand Larry's answers though. His questions show that he is not prepared to understand them.

      Patterns of baldness might not be very well inherited, besides baldness, even when complete, often starts at the top and only carries on later in life (I do not know if this will happen to you, I am saying that it might be early to tell). Also remember that your inherited characteristics come from more than your grandpa. Perhaps in his answers Larry will give you much more and clear information about genetics/environment and baldness and baldness patterns.

      Best,
      -NE

      Delete
    9. You are probably right though you have not answered all the issues, which worries me, since this forum seems to be all but that. Larry has a status and a position. He would not risk it if he wasn't sure of what he knows. Thanks. We're going to wait until Witon finalizes the contest. I hope he has not run away.
      PS. What do you think he is trying to accomplish? My brother says he is an opportunist. What do you think?

      Delete
    10. I have not answered all of Witton's issues? Of course not. Not every question is worth answering, and Larry said he would answer those two. So I rather not interfere. I offered to show that Witton has no idea if he was willing to answer some questions, but he ignored me, just like he ignored another person. Of course I know why. Witton has no idea, and being caught as either a liar or an ignorant is not in his plans. Or else he does not want to reveal to Larry about the rhetorical tricks that he is planning to use. It could well be that he is trying some new tricks to make a living out of lying to creationists, and to do that he need to "win" against somebody credible, like Larry, so revealing his tricks this early might warn Larry, and thus John would not catch him unaware. Many possibilities.

      -----------

      About baldness and genetics, I just found this short note in the wall street journal: Hair Apparent? New Science on the Genetics of Balding.

      It's a start for your understanding. Best in your life. Remember that it's all about who you are, not how much hair you have on your head. You will soon discover so. Just don't get obsessed with your hair loss. Ciao.

      Delete
  22. Witon, My brother and I decided we're going to give you $1000 or $2000 to pay everyone off if you wish. But, we will need to hear some more details about your stuff as you should expect.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't be stupid Abishak. This would be like giving your money to a snake-oil salesman.

      Delete
    2. Look, if he can ask why evolution needed 600 types of mangoes, he can't possibly know what he is talking about. He is a snake-oil salesman for sure. It's more nonsensical than asking why did gravitation need eight planets around the sun (or nine depending on who's counting).

      Delete
    3. We're thinking it is worth the risk. If he knows something nobody else does, then it is worth it. You are probably right but it is tempting.

      Delete
    4. How could it be tempting? Besides this guy said he has the money. Truly, don't give your money to an asshole! I am not just probably right. I know so. He knows nothing that nobody else knows. He is making worse-than-kindergarden mistakes.

      Be very very skeptical. Most importantly if you have no education in science and evolution. If all you have heard about evolution comes from the media, creationists, and such, then you know nothing. Be that self-aware. Otherwise you will be giving your money to tons of unworthy causes. I can stress this enough. The guy might play you like dough if you are ignorant. Don't allow it. Imagine him as some dishonest car salesman, and act accordingly until unambiguously demonstrated otherwise. I have nothing to win whether you decide to give this imbecile your money or not. In the end it's your problem. But this guy truly has nothing. As stupid as asking why gravitation needed eight planets. For real (I hope you understand why the gravitation question is nonsensical). That's the level this guy plays at. Don't be fooled.

      Delete
    5. I know about the mangoes but who knows when his serious? His a hoot and maybe eccentric

      Delete
    6. Actually, if you don't understand why asking the gravitation question is nonsensical, then the more the reason why you should not give your money to this guy. That would mean that your level of scientific understanding is so low that he would play you and make a fool out of you with too much ease. He could say just about anything and you would have to just believe it, out of inability for understanding any of it.

      Delete
    7. If he has money, as you said, he can't be a scammer. We're twins. My brother has a full head of hair and I'm balding but not everywhere. Just the top. Why? Explain it to me before I give Whiton 2000 grand. If he know why, ten we pay. If you know, we will give you the money. I have no choice. You don't get it because you probably have all your hair.

      Delete
    8. I explained above. I do not want your money. Not one cent. If he allowed you to send him money, then he is a scammer.

      Delete
    9. And of course you have tons of choices. today genetic tests are becoming very very cheap ...

      Delete
    10. ... but you would be better off consulting a professional. Not some ass-hole like Witton. Also, if what worries you is your loss of hair, that you don;t want to lose it, what makes you think that an explanation means a cure? Let alone an explanation by a snake-oil salesman like this Witton guy?

      (mine getting thin, very thin, at the top. I don't give a damn.)

      Delete
    11. If you know about the mangoes, then it should be easy for you to understand if I warn you that his other questions are exactly as nonsensical. Shouldn't it? I know so. If you know at least one to be nonsense, what makes you think that everything else will not be? Most importantly if many here have said so? Even at least one creationist said so!

      Delete
    12. We've have spent over 120 grand on professionals already, so Wheaton is nothing in comparison.You guys are probably right. We are going to think about that seriously. So frustrating that nobody can help us for no money in the world. Fuck!

      Delete
    13. @Negative Entropy
      (mine getting thin, very thin, at the top. I don't give a damn.)
      I wish I could say the same. I'm 24 an my last fiancee left me because she did not want to have shine pictures. She was referring to my shine hairline. Shit!

      Delete
    14. @ Negative Entropy

      We forgot to thank you. Thanks. You seem to know more about this shit than us. Thanks again.

      Delete
    15. Abishak, why does your blogger profile picture have a full head of hair ?

      Wouldn't be leading poor NE on, would you ?

      Or be a Witton sock puppet ?

      Delete
    16. Or be a Witton sock puppet ?

      Hmmm...

      The JW-troll goes quiet. At exactly the same moment, a friendly voice appears, with an account made this month, offering "third party" encouragement over JW's faulty logic. More like a doppelgänger

      Stop feeding the trolls.

      Delete
    17. maybe a sock puppet/maybe not, but steve's comment that the profile picture has a 'full head of hair' is silly. What, he imagines that blogger gives you the option of choosing a 'bald silhouette'? (or for that matter, anyone would choose it?)

      I thought you guys were the ones who insisted on 'robust evidence' to back up your claims. So far, what you have is about as 'robust' as a follicle on Abishak's pate.

      Delete
    18. @Abishak - I read your exchange with some surprise. Granted that one should never take anything anyone says on the internet without some scepticism, I'll assume you are for real.

      You seem to have interpreted Witton's question as implying that he has a cure or explanation for baldness.

      Why did Larry Moran and Craig Venter evolve to baldness only on the part of the scalp but they have retained their bushy hair on the side and lower back of their scalp????

      It was a cheap personal shot, no more, linked with a "just askin'" attempt to undermine evolutionary theory because it does not have an explanation for every last feature. Based on a kindergarten view of evolution. Individuals don't evolve, and not everything that varies in a population has an explanation in terms of Natural Selection. Nor does it always have an explanation that is simplistically reducible to genetics alone.

      Delete
    19. I wish I could say the same. I'm 24 an my last fiancee left me because she did not want to have shine pictures. She was referring to my shine hairline. Shit!

      Trust me, you are better off without her.

      Delete
    20. Yes, yes, yes...Now it's your turn...I'm sure you have more to say...

      Delete
  23. And on the Eighth Day, God created Baldness. And wasn't sure if it was good or not.


    It DID, however, lead to this oft-skipped passage from the Sermon on the Mount;
    'Blessed are the wigmakers....'

    ReplyDelete
  24. Just to let you all know, we are not scientists or anything like that. A friend who visits uncommondescent.comsaw Weaton's appeal there to help him to notify Behea about the baldness bet. That is why we ended up on this blog. We can't answer most if not all of your scientific questions or allusions. Just to let you know.
    We are still thinking about what Weaton may know or may not know, although it is true, that he didn't say here he has the cure for baldness. If he did, he would be all over the news :(

    Im just desperate that's all. Can anybody here understand?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ... he didn't say here he has the cure for baldness

      There's nothing wrong with being bald. It is not a disease. It does not require a "cure."

      I'd be much more worried about those people who have an obsessive fear of hair loss. They have a problem. A psychiatrist or a psychologist can help.

      Delete
    2. Larry: that's what happens when you read the National Post...instead of scientific literature... Pattern Baldness is not a disease, but it is a disorder... It has been classified as a part of metabolic syndrome, including heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. You see Larry, if you ever looked at some scientific literature, it is possible you would not be such moron... Unfortunately, the proof says you are... Undo this damage first before I f..k you up...and I can Larry... You made so many boo-boos I don't know where to start Larry...You consider yourself as a scientist? I hope...? It's good for me... lol

      Delete
    3. Baldness is not part of metabolic syndrome. Neither is cancer.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_syndrome

      There is some evidence that metabolic syndrome is correlated with male pattern baldness, but the finding is not consistent, and that still wouldn't mean baldness is a "disorder."

      Glad your tummy's feeling better. Apologies on behalf of Canada for creating the virus that infected you.

      Delete
  25. If "The structure of DNA is flawlessly beautiful",
    is "junk DNA" an oxymoron?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't know that junk had to be ugly.

      Delete
    2. @Negative Entropy, you're right that ones' junk doesn't have to be ugly. It's in the eye of the beholder. We're finding out more and more, as time passes, the significance and necessity of so called "junk DNA" to be available to fulfill its role as part of that flawlessly beautiful structure. Why did we first coin the term "junk DNA" and why do we still hear it bandied about today? That's my question.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. @rockturner

      You reall should just read the several relevant posts of Larry's on the subject.

      http://sandwalk.blogspot.dk/2008/02/theme-genomes-junk-dna.html

      Delete
    6. @Rumraket
      Having done that kind of reading, for some decades now, still leaves me pondering why the term was so carelessly bandied about with such authority in the first place.

      Delete
    7. There was no carelessness in the suggestion about junk DNA. Nor was there such a thing as "with such authority," other than the authority of the evidence. It was very well presented lines of evidence and arguments about them. Obviously you did not read the original literature. You clearly have the wrong impression about this issue.

      Delete
  26. UPDATE: As of today, Thursday, March 7 at 12 noon, Michael Behe has not received the cheque or any communication at all from John Witton.

    I couldn't get in touch with Michael Denton because I can't find an email address, telephone number, or snailmail address. Please contact me if any of you know how to contact him.

    John, perhaps you could send me the address since you have already mailed a cheque to Michael Denton?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is all so unexpected. Apparently there's an "entropy barrier" around Witton's local post office too, he can't fold his proteins through the door.

      Delete
    2. Larry, thank you so much for exposing this piece of shit. I'm devastated though.You dont get it. I'm very naive because of this shit on my head and I look at my brother and I cry. Lary, you were 100% right about the girl. She was apparently screwing around before she told me why she didnot wanto to marry me. Fuck, fuck!. Fuck I wanna buy the best meal money can buy for you and all those well wishing people to me, who have the sciece behind them, who drive our lives...
      Weaton if I knew who you are I would send you black roses not to humiliate you. You are a barber at best. Damn you questioning science.I was going to send you money you little piece of shit. Do you know Ho=w much you hurt me by your shit?
      one thing though is that im so despetate about the hair, that i didnt even read his posts right. Its my colleague's fault . Weaton did not say there is cure, and my hopes went down the drain Hope at least one can understand only my brother gets it even though his not bald. I jusft hope that science like Lary's will get to the bottom of this shit. I feel like crying. I hate Witon but accualy as Christian I should not do that. Sorry guys im just a mess... I love you all. I,m not saying it I would like all of you to come withm me to dinner one day. I will tell you I have a toupee. I went to 6 star reesort and I could not swim in the ocean because of it. Go to hell Weatton.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. I'm not removing my comments... What is going on? Am I doing something wrong? Or is it something else...? This is unbelievable... I will try later...I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong, if any...

      Delete
    7. Larry is right. I have not sent the cheques or the paper to Behe or Denton yet... I'm sick with a bad case of stomach flu...You don't have to believe me... I will try to contact you when I'm better...Sorry to all my supporters...

      Delete
    8. I think I know what is going on... Well... it is just too bad...

      Delete
    9. John Witton says,

      Larry is right. I have not sent the cheques or the paper to Behe or Denton yet... I'm sick with a bad case of stomach flu...You don't have to believe me... I will try to contact you when I'm better...Sorry to all my supporters...

      Not to worry. I'm sure every single one of your supporters will understand why you lied last Saturday and again last Monday. I'm sure they will understand why you said nothing when I announced that I would be contacting Michael Behe and Michael Denton at the end of this week.

      In fact, I'm sure all your supporters understand you perfectly well.

      Delete
    10. JW writes, "You don't have to believe me..."

      but why wouldn't we? Your track record thus far has been nothing short of stellar.

      Delete
    11. Abishak,

      About you baldness.

      As I mentioned already, buy Propecia. Or buy Proscar, which is the same chemical in 4x the concentration so you cut the pills in four. You save money with Proscar.

      If you are American, you can order prescription drugs from overseas suppliers over the internet without a prescription.

      Take Proscar pills, each cut into four pieces, one piece per day for 7 months. Nothing will happen until the seventh month. Then bango, your hair re-grows overnight.

      Please stop complaining and whining and do something about your problem.

      Delete
    12. @Witton,

      There is an insurmountable "integrity barrier" separating you from the most simple, most trivial scientific facts.

      No natural process can possibly overcome your "integrity barrier". Even given the lifetime of the entire universe, the possibility of your getting over that barrier to accurate scientific facts is vanishingly small.

      Delete
    13. John,

      I know what kind of imbecile you are. So I would know "who" I am dealing with. I bet that Larry also knows quite well the kind of ass-hole that you are. It's too obvious. You make it too obvious. Humiliation. Right. You have self-humiliated here so many times and you are not even aware of it. That's your level of imbecility.

      Oh, so afraid of Witton! Witton doesn't know anything about thermodynamics, Witton doesn't know anything about biology, and worse, Witton doesn't know anything about logic. What's to be afraid of then? Witton's mental illness might make him dangerous.

      Delete
    14. Yeah, according to you, food helps us to overcome the entropy barrier...to some, s..t output helps them to overcome the same...what's the difference? Just provide the evidence for both....lol

      Delete
    15. Witton,

      Don't put words on my mouth ass-hole. I have not said anything here about entropy barriers. I would not answer "food" to a question about what makes proteins assemble w/other proteins you nonsensical imbecile. It is you the kind of idiot that mistakes one kind of problem with another, not me.

      Delete
    16. Abishak, if you do take Diogenes' advice to try Propecia against baldness, please do it responsibly and ensure that no pregnant woman can come into contact with the dust from the broken tablets, or indeed with your semen. This is powerful stuff! See the Wikipedia page on Finasteride (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finasteride). Also, sometimes impotence is a side effect - why I stopped using it.

      Delete
  27. Lary why did you take up the challenge from this troll? Didn't you expect him to be a troll? We all make mistakes.you must've been looking for some fun what else|? he is a zero (the full head of hair is typing) of the brothers.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Sorry Lary im just angry at life shit

    ReplyDelete
  29. Witton repeatedly declared "just watch me". And what happened? He vanished!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What do you what us to say? We were fooled? He's vanished and with him our hopes. my hopes fuck, fucxk Fuck!

      Delete
  30. This has been one bizarre thread Larry.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Oh my. This is what happens when Larry goes on vacation. Jeez. Haha.

    ReplyDelete
  32. ...'course i suspect Witton and Abishak are one and the same person, but anyway....

    ReplyDelete
  33. Oh, I haven't followed this thread closely enough...TheOtherJim saw things correctly hours ago.

    One commonality between Science and Religion is that they both attract the mentally ill.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I am so sorry guys but after spending a few days on the toilet, I have finally been able to put together the email to professor Behe...

    I'm not going to tell you the details, but it is possible, that we are getting a strain of flu that originated in Canada...I can see Larry in his lab manipulating the genes to prove his point... I don't mean to be cruel, but the mutations are linked to some Canadian tourists who were "passing on the genes" to our population...ehhh..

    The rest is very simple: I have presented my case along with Larry's manipulations… The king will decide…
    We'll see...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'n please be sure to pass on your contact information for Denton to Larry, who is trying to get in touch with him, now that you're up and around.

      His address, which you surely have.

      Delete
    2. Take the hat off...become the real-thing evolutionist... you can't...though....because....

      Delete
  35. @andyboerger
    What is that going change? Will your hair grow back under the hat??

    ReplyDelete
  36. From now on, you can refer to me as the "hair-stylist"... I think that is better for Larry all the scientists on this blog... lol

    ReplyDelete
  37. To Aberhishik brothers:
    1. you are not idenetical twins
    2 If your are identical twins, there are only 2 options:
    A) one of the twins lost his balls-the one without hair loss...

    B) one he has maintained an extreme lifestyle-unlikely, but possible.

    Larry Mormon may know more... ask directly... I'm just a hairstylist for those that have hair...It's obvious however Larry Mormon is not my regular client lol

    ReplyDelete