tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post8962145685444823511..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Flunk the IDiotsLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-41668865221000933632012-05-30T08:34:29.558-04:002012-05-30T08:34:29.558-04:00@ The whole truth: Hear, hear. Well said.@ The whole truth: Hear, hear. Well said.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40365466553631062312012-05-29T01:52:01.283-04:002012-05-29T01:52:01.283-04:00"...geared toward educating students for a hi..."...geared toward educating students for a high-tech 21st century – do not believe in evolution, said the college's provost, Gabriele Wienhausen."<br /><br />I really wish that people, and especially people who are scientists, science supporters, and/or <i>educators</i>, would STOP saying "believe in evolution". I don't "believe in evolution", I ACCEPT that it occurs. The words "believe in" make it sound like a religion. <br /><br />And while I'm on the subject of proper word usage, another thing that irritates me is when people, and especially people who are scientists, science supporters, and/or <i>educators</i>, make no distinction between 'evolution' and 'the theory of evolution' (or 'evolutionary theory'). Evolution, or the theory of evolution, are not the same thing. <br /><br />I also don't "believe in" 'the theory of evolution'. <br /><br />I do believe (not "believe in") that evolution occurs, but the theory of evolution is just a scientific framework used by humans to explain the occurrence, evidence, and processes of evolution. The theory of evolution is subject to change, it is not cast in stone, and it is not something that anyone should "believe in", any more than believing in the instructions and/or schematics that come in the box with a new TV set. <br /><br />Keep in mind that using sloppy terminology gives religious IDiots ammunition to use against their opponents.The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-87731931808808137252012-05-28T08:49:05.930-04:002012-05-28T08:49:05.930-04:00It has nothing to do with religion at all.
Uh huh...<i>It has nothing to do with religion at all.</i><br /><br />Uh huh. So why are you self-handled "Atheistoclast" instead of "Just Another Science Dude" or something. Your disingenuousness is showing.<br /><br /><i>He believe that an argument from personal incredulity and ignorance is a valid one.</i><br /><br />You're religious. Why would <i>you</i> have a problem with <i>that</i>? Essentially the whole reason you and people like you are here is because you believe personal incredulity is a valid argument against the natural basis for the rise and development of life.<br /><br /><i>the result of degenerative processes</i><br /><br /><i><b>Ding ding ding ding ding ding!</b></i> Did I call it, or what, folks? Yes, the fall of man in a story about a talking snake as a "principle of science"... completely ignoring both the fact that I just mooted the concept AND my point that a "perfect" being could not, by definition, create a process <i>prone to corruption in any respect</i> without himself being imperfect... again, by definition.<br /><br />If your god is perfect, ALL THAT HE CREATES must also be perfect. So whither "junk DNA" in the first place? Even a single instance denies the nature of your god as purported.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-41921872188687371422012-05-27T14:07:25.158-04:002012-05-27T14:07:25.158-04:00Why should anyone be grading students on what they...Why should anyone be grading students on what they believe rather than what they have learned?Michael Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-65383313308055351802012-05-25T14:58:02.395-04:002012-05-25T14:58:02.395-04:00It helps to properly define what is meant by the w...It helps to properly define what is meant by the word "junk" in the context of molecular biology. It seems you interpret anything as "junk" if it doesn't have any immediate, obvious or essential function. I think that is far too strict and conservative and most scientists are beginning to realize the limits of such an approach. <br /><br />Plant genomes are replete, not just with retrotransposons that proliferate naturally, but entire spare copies of the their genome. This genomic redundancy may well have an evolutionarily adaptive purpose even if we can likely remove whole chromosomes with no real consequence.Atheistoclastnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5501071890759068262012-05-25T14:35:16.100-04:002012-05-25T14:35:16.100-04:00I have an informed opinion about the amount of jun...I have an informed opinion about the amount of junk DNA. I think it's about 90% but I'm perfectly willing to debate whether it's 60% or anything in between.<br /><br />There is no serious scientific debate about whether the amount of junk DNA could be less than 50%.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-9058886112610499552012-05-25T11:50:25.782-04:002012-05-25T11:50:25.782-04:00It has nothing to do with religion at all.It has e...It has nothing to do with religion at all.It has everything to do with the credibility of Larry Moran as a scientist. He believe that an argument from personal incredulity and ignorance is a valid one.<br /><br />There almost certainly is a large amount of junk in the genome - the result of degenerative processes - but it is just plain incorrect to assert that 90% of the genome is junk.Atheistoclastnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-62317036629320378192012-05-25T09:38:50.756-04:002012-05-25T09:38:50.756-04:00So what's your point, Atheistoclast? That ther...So what's your point, Atheistoclast? That there isn't as much "junk" DNA as some people have postulated? Okay... and? If it's the work of an omniscient, omnipotent, omni-benevolent god, why would there be ANY? (Yeah, yeah, yeah, "the fall" of mankind, sure... but a "perfect" machine isn't "perfect" if it's corruptible in any way, shape, or form, which invalidates the suggestion at the first hurdle.)<br /><br />Ultimately, what is the case to be made? Observation: "not so much junk DNA as before!" Conclusion: "JESUS IS LORD!" Really... is that how you think this works?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-59787710341134642882012-05-25T06:49:16.871-04:002012-05-25T06:49:16.871-04:00This is kind of silly, quantum mechanics isn't...<i>This is kind of silly, quantum mechanics isn't something covered in the first year of chemistry, it probably doesn't even get covered until you take something like Physical Chemistry, which only, for the most part, chemistry majors take.</i><br /><br />Physical Chemistry <i>was</i> my first-year chemistry course. (Actually first semester, as the course I took was compressed from the normal 3 credit hours for each of two semesters to 6 credit hours in one semester.) I did not major in chemistry, though I did have to take a test to qualify for the course.<br /><br />I personally was thrilled to learn a little quantum mechanics, being tired of hearing about "valence theory" as the reason why various elements form the bonds they do. To me it was like being taught about phlogiston. Why teach kids something wrong because you think the truth is too complex? (I didn't think it was too complex, at least on the level required to learn a little about physical chemistry.)Judnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-54952898709369494622012-05-24T22:15:07.961-04:002012-05-24T22:15:07.961-04:00Since the job of an university instructor is to st...Since the job of an university instructor is to students thoughts.......Schenckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10802843636373254323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-42135823455656865232012-05-24T22:11:52.090-04:002012-05-24T22:11:52.090-04:00This is kind of silly, quantum mechanics isn't...This is kind of silly, quantum mechanics isn't something covered in the first year of chemistry, it probably doesn't even get covered until you take something like Physical Chemistry, which only, for the most part, chemistry majors take. <br />The closest anyone every gets to it is when considering the position of an electron in it's orbital, and there all they really have to know if that the position within the orbital is only probabilisticly defined. And they really only need to know that in order to answer a question that asks exactly that; no one's determining if they're going to get an acid or base based on this.Schenckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10802843636373254323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-89963952421559181582012-05-24T12:27:39.286-04:002012-05-24T12:27:39.286-04:00A lot of life is tied up in know and toeing the pa...A lot of life is tied up in know and toeing the party line. I don't think people really have a choice about it starting out. If you're down the road a few years and you've proven your chops, you can start coming out with the "edgy" stuff. I'm thinking of Michael Behe, for example. Odds are, he gave the anticipated answers when he was in university. Once his wings were dry, he could start coming forth with his own ideas. I'm okay with that in both senses. Let's be honest... there are probably thousands of scientists in the biological sphere who probably WEREN'T convinced when they were giving the "right" answers, but BECAME convinced over the years by the results they consistently got. But if we penalize them today, we never get those convinced minds of tomorrow. It's a gamble, but that's the nature of a free society.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14628319905801089582012-05-24T11:14:41.696-04:002012-05-24T11:14:41.696-04:00Admittedly, long ncRNA sequences and cis-regulator...Admittedly, long ncRNA sequences and cis-regulatory elements constitute only a tiny fraction of the genome (as far as we can tell), but the fact is that they can be found to be poorly conserved (degenerate) because the sequence itself appears to be so malleable. I would read this paper:<br /><br /><b>An arthropod cis-regulatory element functioning in sensory organ precursor development dates back to the Cambrian.</b><br /><br />http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/8/127<br /><br /><i>An increasing number of publications demonstrate conservation of function of cis-regulatory elements without sequence similarity.</i><br /><br />If you understand the concept of a spacer sequence, then you will grasp that the arrangement of base pairs is not so important as the length of the sequence itself. It likely has a subtle effect on the timing of protein production.Atheistoclastnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-77327031154807166382012-05-24T10:55:42.032-04:002012-05-24T10:55:42.032-04:00No, Larry. You definition of a "regulatory se...No, Larry. You definition of a "regulatory sequence" in DNA is so narrow and precise that it excludes large swathes of the the genome known to play a role in gene regulation and expression, as well as chromosomal replication and DNA repair.<br /><br />Oh, look! Here is a paper on LINE retrotransposons that demonstrates a previously unknown epigenetic and essential function:<br /><br />http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1000354<br /><br /><b>LINE Retrotransposon RNA Is an Essential Structural and Functional Epigenetic Component of a Core Neocentromeric Chromatin.</b><br /><br /><i>These results indicate that LINE retrotransposon RNA is a previously undescribed essential structural and functional component of the neocentromeric chromatin and that retrotransposable elements may serve as a critical epigenetic determinant in the chromatin remodelling events leading to neocentromere formation.</i><br /><br />Of course, you will no doubt retort by asserting that most LINEs are in fact defective and not transcribed via RNA. I await your definitive evidence of this.<br /><br />The Nelson paper clearly shows that intergenic distance is as important a factor as any regulatory motifs that may be found. The authors show how coded sequences of complex function seem to require more intergenic material than ones which are more basic. We just don't fully understand why.Atheistoclastnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-22723912077753106282012-05-24T10:42:32.815-04:002012-05-24T10:42:32.815-04:00Good point. I'll try and keep that in mind. Pe...Good point. I'll try and keep that in mind. Perhaps the title of this post should have been "Why IDiots Fail"?Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-7446735812720820532012-05-24T10:40:32.002-04:002012-05-24T10:40:32.002-04:00It amuses me that Larry Moran assumes that because...<i>It amuses me that Larry Moran assumes that because something is not conserved it is likely not functional!</i><br /><br />I give several examples of functional regions of the genome that are not conserved. Some part of introns, for example, and the DNA between regulatory (DNA binding) sequences. <br /><br />Real scientists look for functional regions of the genome whether they are conserved or not. The evidence shows that the vast majority of DNA in our genome is not conserved. There's no evidence that a considerable fraction of this DNA has a function. <br /><br /><i>Also, large swathes of non-coding DNA, such as long RNA genes and DNA binding sites, are not conserved in sequence but they are in function.</i><br /><br />Please define "large swathes." What percentage of the genome are you talking about? Please give some examples of DNA binding sites that are not conserved.<br /><br /><i>Larry also doesn't seem to understand that introns and intergenic regions may function partly as spacer sequences.</i><br /><br />Yes he does. I've even written blog postings about it. Unfortunately for you, those postings date back to 2008 when you were probably still in eight grade.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-43600915409107376282012-05-24T10:33:25.193-04:002012-05-24T10:33:25.193-04:00But Larry does himself live in the dark ages of th...But Larry does himself live in the dark ages of the 1970s when the term "junk DNA" first emerged. He is an intellectual Neanderthal who refuses to evolve and adapt to the science of the 21st century. His ideas are destined to go extinct.Atheistoclastnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-55072673917652834852012-05-24T10:31:30.587-04:002012-05-24T10:31:30.587-04:00Badger -
"[Q]uantum mechanics is not a basic...Badger -<br /><br />"[Q]uantum mechanics is not a basic part of chemistry."<br /><br />What?<br /><br />Of all the things I might write here, let me restrict myself to saying your statement would very much surprise the professor and graduate assistant who taught my first-year physical chemistry course in 1972. Just what is it you think determines whether elements will combine so that we have any chemistry at all? And what is it that governs the behavior of chemical "bonds" (i.e., electron interaction between atoms) when combination does occur?Judnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-82815243487517561462012-05-24T10:26:09.576-04:002012-05-24T10:26:09.576-04:00And in that article you state that intergenic regi...<i>And in that article you state that intergenic regions are "probably junk". Yet we have known for close to a decade now that this section of the genome is heavily involved in gene regulation:</i><br /><br />Maybe that's why, in that very same article, I state that about 0.6% of our genome is regulatory sequences? Maybe that's why I devoted a separate posting to explaining the importance of regulatory regions? [<a href="http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2008/02/junk-in-your-genome-protein-encoding.html" rel="nofollow">Junk in Your Genome: Protein-Encoding Genes</a>]<br /><br /><i>Enough of this nonsense, Larry. Just admit that you are woefully mistaken and offer a contrite retraction.</i><br /><br />The problem with you guys is that no matter how often we explain the science, you continue to ignore it and drag out papers that we've already taken into account. These are usually papers that attribute function to a tiny percentage of the genome. But sometimes they are papers that show the exact opposite of what you IDiots think they show. <br /> <br />In this paper (Nelson et al. 2004) the authors are looking at small, relatively compact, animal genomes. They claim that genes with large regulatory regions are likely to be further apart, on average, than those with small regulatory regions. In other words, when the genomes have lost most of their junk we can see the real extent of regulatory sequences since those regulatory sequences are conserved. <br /><br />The obvious conclusion is that in animals with huge genomes, most of the intergenic space is not involved in regulation.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-78077167233893933032012-05-24T09:54:30.201-04:002012-05-24T09:54:30.201-04:00I still think if they supply the answers requisite...<i>I still think if they supply the answers requisite of a pass, that's all that matters.</i><br /><br />That's why I ask questions like: "What is your best explanation for the cause of the Cambrian Explosion?" or "Do you think the evidence for the common ancestry of humans and chimps is convincing?" or, "The original proponents of the Modern Synthesis thought that macroevolution could be explained by microevolution. Do you agree with them? Explain your answer."<br /><br />In my experience, most creationists will lie when answering these questions. I usually don't have any way of telling if they lie.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-90995269228059794082012-05-24T09:40:27.129-04:002012-05-24T09:40:27.129-04:00He is stuck in his ways.
Thank heaven he has peop...<i>He is stuck in his ways.</i><br /><br />Thank heaven he has people up-to-date in the latest Bronze Age theories of the formation and sustenance of life to straighten him out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14269542292028788962012-05-24T09:36:18.749-04:002012-05-24T09:36:18.749-04:00Bilbo... let me play devil's advocate for a mo...Bilbo... let me play devil's advocate for a moment. I don't believe in God. But I'm a good student and I have a penchant for esoterica; I took Christian instruction as an adult and I have a good grasp of the rudiments. If I decided to parlay that general knowledge into a career, and I went to Bible college for a while, grasped the fundamentals, and could ace any test they threw at me... all without for a second believing in the deeper reality of any of it... well, what's your take on my candidacy for the ministry? Should I be ordained? Should I be instructing people who come to me with their moral challenges, or teaching the next generation about the divine will and plan? Would it be okay for someone like me to take my living out of the collection plate? I'm just curious where you stand on the other side of the looking glass.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-39860664525680893692012-05-24T09:24:03.160-04:002012-05-24T09:24:03.160-04:00So it's good to know that you are a member of ...<i>So it's good to know that you are a member of the Thought Police, Larry. Frankly, if I had the authority right now, I would remove you from your teaching position.</i><br /><br />I can't tell if you're a Poe or you really never have heard the word "irony", Billy. :) I'm reminded of bit from National Lampoon back in the 1980s called "People who should be taken out to be shot", with the final panel being "People who really WOULD take people out to be shot".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-31114371616684056582012-05-24T09:18:57.311-04:002012-05-24T09:18:57.311-04:00What about those students who you've gotten to...<i>What about those students who you've gotten to know?</i><br /><br />I still think if they supply the answers requisite of a pass, that's all that matters. I'm not Christian, but if I took a course on the tenets of the faith and the professor flunked me on the basis that, "yeah, you got the answers right, but you don't actually believe in God", you better believe I'd be talking to the administration. I think the point is to learn, understand, and be able to apply the principles of the course. Whether or not I subscribe to their foundation is my own business.<br /><br />I'm not big on the idea that a lot of doctors, present and future, think there's an invisible man moving molecules around to make what they do possible. But at the end of the day, if they're willing and able to apply the knowledge they've acquired and it makes no difference to the outcome, then ultimately I don't care that they need to believe an agency is necessary for carbon molecules to get married and start having making little DNA molecules. Whatever. Just like I can capably argue the merits of various Christian dogmas without ever once genuinely believing they have any other origin than a bunch of people in the Middle East puzzling over the nature of life.<br /><br /><i>If you knew medical students who believed in homeopathy and rejected vaccinations, would you give them an M.D. degree just for writing down the answers you wanted to hear on a test?</i><br /><br />Frankly, yes. That's what the test is there to measure. Anything more strikes me as faintly Orwellian. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and if I go to this guy for the flu shot and he tells me to drink magic water instead, that'll be the last he sees of me or any other patient with an IQ over 90. The great thing about the sciences is that unlike certain governments we could name, it really DOES come with a working system of checks and balances and I really do think if it quacks like a duck, it won't be a doctor for long.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-28082114337311103102012-05-24T08:07:17.411-04:002012-05-24T08:07:17.411-04:00Students fail because they cannot demonstrate that...Students fail because they cannot demonstrate that they have an appropriate level of understanding of the subject being assessed. Staff don't "fail" students.Old Synnernoreply@blogger.com