tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post3526753753132953820..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Ann Gauger's old factsLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-45602871308262155852014-07-08T21:39:54.835-04:002014-07-08T21:39:54.835-04:00Sorry Larry, you look at least 10 years older than...Sorry Larry, you look at least 10 years older than Ann Gauger. Maybe dye your hair and dump the mustache. ;)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07905058811123225422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-70562749686160497452014-07-01T04:07:47.012-04:002014-07-01T04:07:47.012-04:00An animation they stole-- stolen both in Dembski&#...An animation they stole-- stolen both in Dembski's paid PowerPoint presentations and also in early version of the "Expelled" documentary-- later replaced with a shot-by-shot remake-- in open defiance of copyright laws.<br /><br />In the posts from Uncommon Descent in 2008 when "Expelled"'s theft came to light, Dembski and most of the UDites were tickled pink that the creationists had stolen someone else's registered, and copyrighted, intellectually property. Almost all of them (particularly William Dembski) acted as if their intellectual superiority had finally been proven by their ability to steal other people's property, and get away with it. Because they were (as Dembski pointed out) lawyered up, they can take whatever they want. <a href="http://www.uncommondescent.com/legal/expelled-plagiarizing-harvard/#comment-229619" rel="nofollow">See here for Dembski celebrating theft as intellectual superiority</a>. <br /><br />Some UDites insisted that <a href="http://www.uncommondescent.com/legal/expelled-plagiarizing-harvard/#comment-229553" rel="nofollow">if you opposed IDiots stealing other people's stuff, then you were a fascist trying to suppress free speech.</a> What you make, what you own belongs to them, and if you disagree, you're a fascist.<br /><br />Later the Discovery Institute filed an illegal DMCA complaint against a youtube video of Luskin appearing on Fox News, even though the DI didn't own the copyright to the video-- Fox News did-- so the DI complaint was illegal. They claimed it was because the DI logo briefly appeared on screen, which meant they owned the video, and no one could steal their "property" or do to them what they did to others.<br /><br />Another time, when a blogger used a tiny photo of Casey Luskin taken by Luskin, the #AttackGerbil insinuated he would sue because he owned the (unregistered) copyright to the tiny graphic.<br /><br />Later when Luskin copied the "Research Blogging.org" logo onto the DI's "Evolution News & Views" website without permission, and got caught stealing, "Research Blogging.org" demanded he remove it. Naturally Luskin tried to minimize his theft, on the grounds that the registered, trademarked graphic he'd stolen was small-- about as small as the photo of himself he had complained about before. That thread was particularly <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20080408162339/http://bpr3.org/?p=80" rel="nofollow">hilarious, as Luskin shrieks about "free speech" while repeatedly demanding that all comments on the thread criticizing him be censored</a>.<br /> <br />These same people fanatically defend the right of corporations to exploit public resources and poison the air, land, and water, all in the name of inviolate "property rights." <br /><br />Ah, the righteousness of the defenders of true morality!Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-80939104343962872732014-06-30T21:20:41.773-04:002014-06-30T21:20:41.773-04:00all i can imagine is an audience of IDiots in dimm...all i can imagine is an audience of IDiots in dimmed lights wooing at that silly animation from 2004, "the inner life of a cell". i get that the stochastic, chemical movements of enzymes aren't as sexy as tiny molecular (deterministic) robots but you know what they say about good intentions and the road to hell...Sean Boylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14488615727581444079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-8488282154539258022014-06-30T05:02:00.164-04:002014-06-30T05:02:00.164-04:00I don't think there is any universaly accepted...I don't think there is any universaly accepted term for that, but since those are supposed to be transcripts produced by transcriptional noise one could simply call them non-functional RNA transcripts.Pedro A B Pereirahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15195139833344839287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-57132267532270967072014-06-30T03:51:03.051-04:002014-06-30T03:51:03.051-04:00Heh, I thought the same thing when reading this
.....Heh, I thought the same thing when reading this<br /><i>... we are only human, like everyone else, and our accepted "facts" are often deeply entrenched in our thinking. In truth, though, only one rock solid "fact" exists -- that some time in the not too distant future a strongly held "fact" will be proven mistaken.</i><br /><br />I never fail to be amazed at how little self-awareness these people have.Corneelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02884855837357720225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-83145686397768073812014-06-29T15:55:01.628-04:002014-06-29T15:55:01.628-04:00Its trivial to note but still remarkable that theo...Its trivial to note but still remarkable that theology, that discipline and body of information born from a direct conduit to the designer and creator of the universe, has contributed exactly nothing to our understanding of the universe. <br />The findings accrued through the scientific method are necessarily appropriated but only in a cynical atmosphere of denial and distrust of rational empirical investigation. <br />It all comes down to the target audience and "double D": indoctrinated and dumb. <br />(Maybe that should be ID rather than double D).SRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-88542500602480422652014-06-29T15:34:05.121-04:002014-06-29T15:34:05.121-04:00I learned about overlapping genes, for example, wh...<i>I learned about overlapping genes, for example, when the φX174 genome was sequenced in 1978</i><br /><br />That some genes overlap in φX174 was known before that, from restriction mapping.<br /><br />WEISBEEK, PJ; BORRIAS, WE; LANGEVELD, SA; et al., 1977. BACTERIOPHAGE PHI-X174 - GENE A OVERLAPS GENE B. PNAS 74: 2504-2508. <br />And publications before that.Gerdien de Jonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00894162221492009289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-9859454948835383952014-06-29T15:29:14.209-04:002014-06-29T15:29:14.209-04:00I find it interesting that Gauger said "Like ...I find it interesting that Gauger said "Like Darwinian evolution, perhaps?". Gauger apparently thinks that "Darwinian" evolution is all there is to evolutionary theory. Like other IDiot-creationists, she obviously thinks that if anything that Darwin proposed can be modified or refuted it will automatically make her religious beliefs scientifically correct. Another thing that she's not up to date on is the fact that some of what Darwin proposed has already been modified or refuted yet evolutionary theory continues to provide answers and productive avenues of research. If ID is a correct and productive 'inference' or 'theory' then why aren't the IDiots cranking out new discovery after new discovery after new discovery? All they ever do is bash the discoveries that others make and they wouldn't do that if others were to add three words to their papers, books, lectures, etc., and those three words are 'God-did-it'. <br /><br />Liberally sprinkling those three words (or others like them) into scientific papers, books, lectures, etc., is what the IDiot-creationists want, and to them it would make a HUGE, positive difference in the validity of the science, even though in reality it would make no positive difference at all. Giving credit to an imaginary 'God' doesn't validate scientific facts or provide productive avenues of research.The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-72484741617799661462014-06-29T14:02:38.494-04:002014-06-29T14:02:38.494-04:00Heh heh heh heh heh!Heh heh heh heh heh!Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-3780201728377419592014-06-29T14:00:05.878-04:002014-06-29T14:00:05.878-04:00Why do we hear the loudest yelps for "the unr...Why do we hear the loudest yelps for "the unreliability of the scientific method" from posers in lab coats who claim science has proved life is Intelligently Designed?<br /><br />Gauger's post is self-refuting bullshit:<br /><br />1. I am a scientist!<br /><br /> 2. Don't trust what scientists say! They're always wrong.<br /><br />3. Trust me on 1 and 2, because I'm a scientist!<br /><br />Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-41751448557789955672014-06-29T05:53:25.101-04:002014-06-29T05:53:25.101-04:00Naaaah... Cuttin' edge science is a hijacked p...Naaaah... Cuttin' edge science is a hijacked pop-sci video showing enzymes as smart little robots rolling smoothly one after another along a molecular assembly line, welding an amino acid to a peptide chain here, and tightening a screw in a chemical bond over there. Behold proof of design!Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-79543077275156123972014-06-29T05:34:46.310-04:002014-06-29T05:34:46.310-04:00Hell, the Discovery Institute's church audienc...<i>Hell, the Discovery Institute's church audiences think a 3-D graphic of a DNA molecule pasted in a PowerPoint presentation proves you know all about "cuttin' edge science."</i><br /><br />No, that might still be layperson science. Now, if presented as a gif where the double helix is slowly rotating....that there would be "cuttin' edge science".SRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-85276600710737445322014-06-29T05:27:46.730-04:002014-06-29T05:27:46.730-04:00I guess some of these 'new discoveries' wi...I guess some of these 'new discoveries' will be new to her target audience which as a whole won't know very much about biology.<br /><br />I imagine the goal is to remind people not to accept what the scientists say, as new discoveries are always around the corner. I doubt she would apply this same rigor to her belief that the fingerprints of god run through nucleotide sequences of DNA. SRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-24815196667023692002014-06-29T00:09:18.349-04:002014-06-29T00:09:18.349-04:00Old fact: There are only 3 forms of RNA: messenger...<i>Old fact: There are only 3 forms of RNA: messenger RNA, transfer RNA, and ribosomal RNA.</i><br /><br />A quick terminological question that occured to me (as a non-molecular biologist) here: What would the proper term be for the extraneous RNA transcripts observed in the ENCODE results (i.e. those that appear not to be used as messenger or regulatory RNA)? Is there something in RNA terminology that expresses the same functional non-committal that 'open reading frame' does relative to 'gene'?Christopher Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075565866351612441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-19124193089407722922014-06-28T22:05:45.697-04:002014-06-28T22:05:45.697-04:00Let's give the gal some credit. It used to be ...Let's give the gal some credit. It used to be that when IDers wowed their church audiences with "cuttin' edge science", it referred exclusively to Bible readin', and science stuff published before I was born. But most of Gaugers' "cuttin' edge science" is stuff discovered after I was born. <br /><br />They're catching up!<br /><br />Hell, the Discovery Institute's church audiences think a 3-D graphic of a DNA molecule pasted in a PowerPoint presentation proves you know all about "cuttin' edge science." [A phrase I always hear, within my mind, uttered in the excited voice of George W. Bush; or better, Jon Stewart's impression of George W. Bush. Followed by "Heh heh heh heh."]Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.com