tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post1686868408618056253..comments2024-03-19T00:24:23.577-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: ENCODE Leader Says that 80% of Our Genome Is FunctionalLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger133125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-1805206971558760832015-04-30T19:01:43.232-04:002015-04-30T19:01:43.232-04:00great stuff Andy
seangreat stuff Andy<br /><br /><a href="http://www.repairpc.ca" rel="nofollow">sean</a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04249237233441795414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-12086725628359650882012-09-28T05:39:26.075-04:002012-09-28T05:39:26.075-04:00What about Myers? He is a professor. Next step is ...What about Myers? He is a professor. Next step is nobel prize and there is none in biology. Birney deals with Bioinformatics, which acually doesn't mean any great competence in the field of genetics.....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-16141790623155455472012-09-10T17:24:14.394-04:002012-09-10T17:24:14.394-04:00This would be an excellent joke except that we kno...<i>This would be an excellent joke except that we know it was accidental, </i> Negative Entrophy<br /><br />I have no more interest in whether what you did when you broke your irony meter was an accident anymore than I want to know where you stuck it. The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-28775645360885123852012-09-10T17:21:18.968-04:002012-09-10T17:21:18.968-04:00TTC: I don't recall making a single statement ...<i> TTC: I don't recall making a single statement about quantum mechanics.<br /><br />TTC said this about ALL SCIENCES, and that includes QM and relativity: </i><br /><br />Diogenes, it's a temptation to wonder whether you are really stupid or just totally nuts. But it's a false alternative as you prove you can be both.<br /><br /><b>YOU! are the one who talked about quantum mechanics. </b> <br /><br />My point that people could only address anything from their point of view covers everything they think about or say. It was not any more a point about quantum mechanics than it is about whether you like chocolate or vanilla. If you could read what I said, the only part of physics I mentioned was RELATIVITY, which takes POINT OF VIEW into account in a rather basic way, thus the name. And that's the only thing I said about it. <br /><br />You wouldn't name any of Darwin's books you'd read. You chopped off paragraphs and Darwin's letter to Gaskell, distorting the meanings of both of them in exactly the same way that the Darwin Industry always does, I WAS THE ONE WHO GAVE THE ENTIRE THINGS IN CONTEXT. <br /><br />The new atheism is the product of basic intellectual incompetence and ignorance, a symptom of a defective school system too fixated on superficial scientific knowledge. Maybe if they taught more people the kind of basic PHILOSOPHICAL methods that used to be taught in Freshman Rhetoric you'd know what a total moon calf you are being. The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-29416124305297874802012-09-10T16:50:27.844-04:002012-09-10T16:50:27.844-04:00TTC: I don't recall making a single statement ...TTC: <i>I don't recall making a single statement about quantum mechanics.</i><br /><br />TTC said this about ALL SCIENCES, and that includes QM and relativity:<br /><br />TTC: <i><b>It means that science is an anthropocentric point of view, anything people come up with is an anthropocentric point of view...</b> The universe science finds is no less "made up" by people than the God which is described in scriptures. They are both the product of an entirely human point of view.</i><br /><br />People "made up" all sciences, including quantum mechanics and relativity. So logically, that mean TTC believes QM and relativity are just "points of view", no different from, say, I like creamy peanut butter, you like chunky peanut butter. <br /><br />I think the Earth is round, you think the Earth is flat. It's all just different "points of view", right TTC?<br /><br />Diogenes: <i>Quantum mechanics and relativity are not "points of view."</i><br /><br />TTC: <i>Oh, good Lord. If you'd even watched NOVA you'd know what was wrong with that sentence. You clearly know nothing. Here's a hint, what do you think is relative about RELATIVity? </i><br /><br />Asshole accuses me of not knowing quantum mechanics and relativity. <br /><br />Asshole also accuses everyone on this site of not having read Darwin and not being able to read German.<br /><br />I will answer this stupid question about relativity. If two events, E1 and E2, occur at time-space points (x1,t1) and (x2,t2), is the quantity [(x1-x2)^2 - c^2(t1-t2)^2] invariant for all observers, or is its value merely a "point of view"?<br /><br />Asshole will not answer. Asshole will change subject.<br /><br />In a previous thread, asshole asserted that positivism had been disproven in the 1930's by means of "physics". Remember that? I repeatedly asked asshole which laws of physics, specifically, in the 1930's were used to disprove positivism. <br /><br />Asshole did not answer. Asshole changed subject.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-38478898968916076792012-09-10T16:41:07.632-04:002012-09-10T16:41:07.632-04:00TTC,
This would be an excellent joke except that w...TTC,<br />This would be an excellent joke except that we know it was accidental, and that your comment is yet another incoherence due to your reading comprehension disabilities.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-50229467789625128402012-09-10T15:51:12.795-04:002012-09-10T15:51:12.795-04:00NE, no one's interested in your sex life.NE, no one's interested in your sex life. The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-50281081008778494722012-09-10T15:44:58.367-04:002012-09-10T15:44:58.367-04:00Oh shit, there goes another irony-meter ...Oh shit, there goes another irony-meter ...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-80272446731101670222012-09-10T15:08:57.179-04:002012-09-10T15:08:57.179-04:00Re Negative Entropy
It should be noted that, on a...Re Negative Entropy<br /><br />It should be noted that, on another thread, I challenged Mr. McCarthy to cite one paper in the peer reviewed literature that claims a 5 standard deviation effect for PK. He finally responded with a link to the blog of Dean Radin where the latter, in commenting on the Higgs experiment at CERN, claimed that the results of the various experiments for PK all add to to far more then 5 standard deviations. Apparently meathead McCarthy thinks that a blog is peer reviewed literature. It should also be noted that nutcase Radin also didn't cite any of the technical literature or provide an explanation as to how he conflated these experiments to arrive at such a conclusion. It would appear that Radin is as ignorant of statistical inference as McCarthy is. Two experiments, each reporting a 2 standard deviation effect doesn't add up to a 4 standard deviation effect.SLCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-72605038740851136152012-09-10T15:05:59.095-04:002012-09-10T15:05:59.095-04:00Judging from Mr. McCarthy's moronic comments o...Judging from Mr. McCarthy's moronic comments on relativity and quantum mechanics, SLC<br /><br />I don't recall making a single statement about quantum mechanics. I don't discuss the topic. The only thing I recall saying about relativity was that point of view was rather relevant to it. You want to quote what I said, in my words, SLC? And link to where I said it?<br /><br />You are typical of the Kurtz school of atheist polemics, SLC, fundamentally dishonest. <br /><br />The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-62219159408951682922012-09-10T15:01:03.975-04:002012-09-10T15:01:03.975-04:00Intellectual superiority? In my day it was called...Intellectual superiority? In my day it was called backing up what you say with evidence and citations. Back then no one would mistake doing the minimum to support what you say a display of arrogance. Backing up what you said was the MINIMUM required to maintain basic credibility. <br /><br />I said why I wouldn't translate Schallmeyer, it would just give your side a chance to quibble over every word and suffix. I wasn't the one who made Schallmeyer relevant, that would be Leonard Darwin, old Chuck's boy, who said Schallmeyer was inspired to found German eugenics by reading On the Origin of Species. Oh, and Schallmeyer did too, but, unfortunately, no one from Charles Darwin's inner circle or Joseph McCabe, the Christopher Hitchens of Brit atheists at that time translated Schallmeyer into English, as they did Haecel. It was the only place in my argument I relied on a credible, secondary source instead of primary source material. <br /><br />As to my citing Charles Darwin's Descent of Man, noting what he said and who he cited in the book, anyone who wasn't a drooling idiot would know that what he said in that book constituted the primary source document IN AN ARGUMENT ABOUT WHAT HE SAID ON THE SUBJECT! You are a total idiot if you don't understand that in order to present what Darwin said, you have to use what Darwin said. I don't make it up like you do. <br /><br />Jeesh! How stupid can you be and still be considered credible among atheists? <br /><br />I made no arguments about Hitler that would require citing him. I only dealt with people who Charles Darwin knew and cited in my argument. Hitler was born seven years, almost to the day, after Charles Darwin died. AS I NOTED. The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-78753170636318550562012-09-10T13:41:08.846-04:002012-09-10T13:41:08.846-04:00Every argument with TTC boils down to his claim: &...<b>Every argument with TTC boils down to his claim: "My evidence is that I'm intellectually superior."</b><br /><br />TTC: <i>You obviously hadn't read Darwin</i><br /><br />You just got done accusing me of not knowing quantum mechanics. Now we're back to accusing me of not having read Darwin. Next up will be accusing me of not knowing German. <br /><br />This just shows TTC is an idiot who cannot understand how to draw inferences from evidence.<br /><br />With this kind of logic, I could prove TTC is the one who never read Darwin, because TTC repeatedly used the same quote mine of Darwin (from DoM) that was used by Ben Stein in "Expelled" and by many other creationists.<br /><br />TTC asserts that his "proof" that I never read Darwin is that I use the same quotes (from his letters) that other anti-creationists use. But TTC himself uses the same quotes that creationists like Ben Stein use, so that illogic would likewise would "prove" TTC never read Darwin.<br /><br />Is there anyone, anyone anywhere on the internet, who does not immediately see the illogic of TTC's argument? TTC is incapable of even the most basic logic. <br /><br /><i>So, what works of Schallmeyer did you read in the original German?</i><br /><br />None. Why the fuck is it relevant? Reading Schallmeyer in German is only relevant if you can demonstrate that the English translation is relevant yet incorrect, or tricky, or context-dependent.<br /><br />I never put down anti-Darwinists by saying to them, "You don't read German so I'm smarter than you." It's not even relevant unless there's some passage in "Mein Kampf" or the Table Talk where the translation is relevant yet incorrect, or tricky, or context-dependent.<br /><br />If the standard English translation is accurate enough, there's no reason for accusing anti-Darwinists of being dumb because they (supposedly) don't read German. <br /><br />For all I know, they might read German. If I presume they don't, and they really do, I might make a TTC-style ass of myself.<br /><br />I could say, "What works of Hitler did you read in the original German, asshole?" but it's not always relevant to the topic. Sometimes it's relevant, sometimes it isn't.<br /><br /><b>Every argument with TTC turns into his claim, "My evidence is that I'm intellectually superior." That's a logical fallacy and I'm rejecting it.</b> Unlike TTC, I'm not going to boast of what I read, because my evidence is the evidence itself, and will have to stand or fall on that basis.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-61426512515234608152012-09-08T18:13:00.674-04:002012-09-08T18:13:00.674-04:00(6) trangenic experiments in many different organi...(6) trangenic experiments in many different organisms show that large pieces of the genome can be deleted (ex. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15496924) or have other DNA randpmly inserted into it, without any affect on the viability of the organism (ex. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=3892534). The Other Jimnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-91636211452114454582012-09-08T16:01:05.471-04:002012-09-08T16:01:05.471-04:00Larry, the argument from mutation and substitution...<i>Larry, the argument from mutation and substitution rates does not rule out these segments having fitness-affecting functions.</i><br /><br />Which is why he gave the qualification "where the nucleotide matters". <br /><br />It's no small distinction--if the nucleotides matter in a sequence of N bases then the sequence could constitute something on the order of 2 x N bits of hereditary information, but if only the length matters then it could only constitute log_2 N bits. <br /><br />E.g. consider a sequence 32768 bases long. <br /><br /><b>2 x 32768 = 65536 bits</b><br /><br /><b>log_2 32768 = <i>15</i> bits</b> <br /><br />So even a vast pile of sequences each of whose length was biologically relevant would still only represent a tiny amount of hereditary information compared to even a few sequences where the nucleotides matter. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-76227068802733474802012-09-07T21:04:37.480-04:002012-09-07T21:04:37.480-04:00Judging from Mr. McCarthy's moronic comments o...Judging from Mr. McCarthy's moronic comments on relativity and quantum mechanics, he is at least as ignorant on those topics as he is on statistical inference. I must say that never have I heard anyone write so knowledgeably from such a vast fund of ignorance as Mr. McCarthy.SLCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-39345668740341380722012-09-07T20:11:15.227-04:002012-09-07T20:11:15.227-04:00Oh, brother. What a moon calf. Oh, brother. What a moon calf. The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-91586102674065662542012-09-07T18:52:07.942-04:002012-09-07T18:52:07.942-04:00Just as predicted TTC answered with some new incoh...Just as predicted TTC answered with some new incoherence. Good job TTC, good job. Now have a cookie.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-30158548608719643452012-09-07T18:29:22.950-04:002012-09-07T18:29:22.950-04:00NE, your comments tend towards disorganization and...NE, your comments tend towards disorganization and that's at the start of them. <br /><br />SLC is a True Disbeliever such as the late Richard Kammann documented in his essay of that name. You aren't even that sophisticated. <br /><br />"Years memorizing words too long...."<br /><br />Oh, brother. What a moon calf. The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-54247378192608028672012-09-07T15:34:56.458-04:002012-09-07T15:34:56.458-04:00Hey SLC,
Well, as you can see TTC could not under...Hey SLC,<br /><br />Well, as you can see TTC could not understand but one sentence from my comment: "please be clam." Notice, from his answer, that he could not even understand the context within which I used that sentence. Then notice that he starts talking about atheists mistaking evolutionists and creationists, about PZ, et cetera, all of which has nothing to do with what I said. His mind is addled. I doubt he is attempting to be banned from as many places as possible. He is just incompetent and mentally challenged. That's all there is to it. To hide his incompetence and stupidity he builds these stories about evil atheists and materialists, and logical positivists, and other big words that he has half learned after painful years. Years memorizing words too long for him to understand, just to give the appearance of an intelligence that escapes him to a point that he just does not understand that his attempts at appearing intelligent are doomed to fail miserably. Man, I can write all this sure that he will not understand but maybe half a sentence and then he might answer with some new incoherence.<br /><br />Poor TTC.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-44455316016197669402012-09-07T14:01:12.941-04:002012-09-07T14:01:12.941-04:00OH, SLC, don't you know that PZ himself, has d...OH, SLC, don't you know that PZ himself, has denied he has "given me the heave ho"? To which I said, "It's all the same to me"? Though you anticipate a PZ Post that isn't quite ready yet.<br /><br />I don't care who bans me and who doesn't. It's a big blogosphere. I've seldom looked at PZ's blog because it's hardly the ideal venue for reading about science and finding mature commentary. Too many of his regulars take his permission for atheists to talk about stuff they don't know about as a permit to make it up as they go. <br /><br />You did read my denial of his Great Hoax, which I posted yesterday, didn't you? PZ made his biggest claim to fame up. The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-65095299262857218172012-09-07T13:52:13.496-04:002012-09-07T13:52:13.496-04:00But TTC is not humble
And answering your nonsens...<i> But TTC is not humble </i><br /><br />And answering your nonsense is doing nothing to make me so. <br /><br />You obviously hadn't read Darwin or you wouldn't have taken the same old "quote mined" passages that people have been using to lie about what he said for the past half a century. You wouldn't name a single book of his that you'd read, I assume because you're afraid I might have read them and could have called you on misrepresenting it. I'll tell you what I've read, Voyage of the Beagle, On the Origin of Species, The Descent of Man, his collected letters edited by his son Francis Darwin and various shorter things, letters, etc published online. I'll put that against your dribblings from the Darwin Industry any day. <br /><br />So, what works of Schallmeyer did you read in the original German? I believe I provided a Googlebooks link to Vererbung und Auslese, in which you could have seen that Leonard Darwin was correct, Schallmeyer attributed his founding German eugenics directly from reading On the Origin of Species. <br /><br />You are a drooling nut job. <br /><br /> The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-46037268977572830812012-09-07T12:23:44.016-04:002012-09-07T12:23:44.016-04:00(5) The genome can only absorb so many mutations i...(5) The genome can only absorb so many mutations in functional regions per generation before genetic meltdown occurs. This number is about 5, but the actual number of mutations per generation in humans is 50-150. So if 80% of the genome was important, we would be in serious trouble. apalazzohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06077383161556651420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-42580578792810818152012-09-07T12:00:38.333-04:002012-09-07T12:00:38.333-04:00Re Negative Entropy
Mr. McCarthy (aka TCC)is just...Re Negative Entropy<br /><br />Mr. McCarthy (aka TCC)is just in a snit about PZ Myers because he was given the heave ho over there, just like he was given the heave ho over at Jason Rosenhouse's blog. He's challenging John Kwok as the heave ho champion of the internet.<br /><br /><br /><br />SLCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-31653215229116425132012-09-07T11:55:28.030-04:002012-09-07T11:55:28.030-04:00This is going to make my life very complicated.
H...<i>This is going to make my life very complicated.</i><br /><br />Heh, so let me say: I am not a regular reader of your blog, but I am familiar with it and your positions on, um, certain controversial issues in evolutionary biology. I was about a third of the way through reading Yong's article when I couldn't contain myself any longer: I said, "Oh, I have <i>got</i> to pop over to Sandwalk and see what Larry Moran makes of this..." ;p :DJames Sweethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17212877636980569324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-91049799381045710132012-09-07T10:15:07.376-04:002012-09-07T10:15:07.376-04:00Oh, don't let the laughing fool you, I'm q...Oh, don't let the laughing fool you, I'm quite calm. <br /><br />Look, another atheist who can't tell the difference between an evolutionist and a creationist. It's my experience that a majority of the time new atheism is a sign of a definite lack of intelligence mixed with arrogant certainty that their scienciness, as opposed to scientific knowledge, gives them a carte blanche to speak out of ignorance. My evidence? PZ, himself, says atheists don't know what they're talking about before they say it.<br /><br />http://zthoughtcriminal.blogspot.com/2012/09/atheists-granted-indulgences-by-pz-myers.html<br /><br />The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.com