Thursday, August 30, 2007

Another savage blow to my Behe critique

ERV, banned at UD for being *sarcastic*, aka repeatedly anticipating and demolishing Sallys attempts to move goal posts, and answering Davies attempts at being *mean* with cheer.

Have fun scissoring each other, pussies.

ROFL!

Poor Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dumb, too stupid to know Behe was trying to let my post blow over. Trying sooooooo hard to ignore my post, hoping others would forget I wrote it... And then Dee and Dumb plaster it on the front page of UD and let me smash their Creationist Claims on their own damn blog!

AAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! IDiots! AAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

210 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 210 of 210
Doppelganger said...

Cordova:
"...I'm just a dumb uneducated dolt who has an overinflated view of himself..."

I can vouch for that - this is a fella who has claimed, among other things, that time erases molecular hierarchies (and 'proved' this using an 8-letter string!) and that it is impossible for ribs to have 'found' the sternum via evolution...

PaV said...

quantok said:

"And in a parallel universe nearby..."

You spoke accurately. What I mean is this: what happens with viruses is, indeed, almost in another "universe" when it comes to RM+NS. Viruses, HIV, in particular, are, as Behe states "mutational powerhouses".

For HIV to develop two simultaneous point mutations, it requires somewhere in the vicinity of 10^9 to 10^10 replications. For a typical eukaryote, it would need 10^18 replications. How long does it take HIV to achieve 10^10 replications? One day! How long would it take a mammalian species to achieve 10^18 replications? 100 million years. Or, to put it another way, HIV has a trillion times the evolutionary power than the typical mammal.

Bottom line, what an IDer would concede to a virus, he, or she, would not for a eukaryote. You see how reasonable and open-minded we are?

You have to keep in mind which "universe" you're in: viral, or eukaryote. ;)

windy said...

For HIV to develop two simultaneous point mutations, it requires somewhere in the vicinity of 10^9 to 10^10 replications. For a typical eukaryote, it would need 10^18 replications.

WTF? Sequence your own genome and your parents' genomes, and I guarantee you will find a lot more than 2 "simultaneous point mutations". In one generation.

Chris Noble said...

Bottom line, what an IDer would concede to a virus, he, or she, would not for a eukaryote. You see how reasonable and open-minded we are?

Then why are you hellbent on the insupportable idea that HIV picked up vpu from influenza?


I’m not trying to necessarily convince anyone. I’m waiting to BE convinced. Remember, this is ERV’s and Ian’s argument/claim. I’m asking questions

This last detour started when you made a comment taht it was easy to suppose that HIV picked up vpu from influenzavirus. Indeed it was easy to suppose. It is much harder to support the claim with evidence. If you had been honest you would have done the work to support your own claim. Ian did the work for you. Now you're "just asking questions".

In my experience thsi is the refuge of all pseudoscientific cranks. In any "debate" they attempt to frame it such that a) they are just asking questions b) they assume the position of the arbiter c) it is up to everbody else to convince them.

In your dreams. You have yet to demonstrate that you understand any of the science that you have the arrogance to judge.

ERV said...

Chris-- That was one of Dembskis major points. "Gee Im just asking how the immune system evolved! Gosh, if anybody would just tell me, Id follow evolution! But Ive asked for publications and no one can show me anything!!!!"

Just like Deniers are 'just asking for publications'.

Chris Noble said...

That's why I think "debating" IDers can be dangerous.

Once you accept the "debate" the way they have framed it you're already at a disadvantage.

The onus is on ID to present a credible case.

PaV said...

chris noble:

"Then why are you hellbent on the insupportable idea that HIV picked up vpu from influenza?"

Why is it insupportable? Because an IDer proposed it?

Put on your thinking cap: HIV replicates more in one day, given just one million people infected with it, than all the elephants that have ever lived. One day. So, if a putative vpu in HIV Shanghai-ed the M2 sequence, it would not take very long for adaptation to take place through recombinations and such. Experimentally, there is a correspondence between the AIVVW of vpu and the HLILW of M2. The "subtypes" of vpu all involve changes in the LVVA portion of vpu, a sequence run that is quite obvious in the M2 hydrophobic region. And Ian said that it should be LVVAA, and not just LVVAA for M2; and what does one see for the vpu "subtypes"? That fifth position changes (the last A). And when did HIV pick up ion-channel activity? At about the same time as the world saw the outbreak of the Spanish flu--type A influenza, which includes M2.

This is certainly suggestive stuff. You say "insupportable". Again, is it because I'm not a Darwinist? Am I being persecuted?

This said, you're right about this being my claim. But is it a "claim"? Look back at the previous posts. What did I term it? I called it an ad hoc conjecture. But maybe IDers aren't even able to make conjectures, so limited is our freedom of speech in some quarters.

Whether HIV "invented" viroporin assemblage or not, I still don't consider that any kind of "protein-to-protein interaction". It is most likely due to em/qm effects that do, indeed, involve mutations, but nevertheless don't constitute what is normally thought of as "protein-to-protein interaction". This significantly reduces ERV's and Ian's argument. (Or, has this really just been Ian's argument all along since ERV sees Ian as her 'teacher'? I don't know.)

Now there are those who might disagree with that. Fine. But from what I've seen so far (which has not been much) I certainly remain unconvinced. But, let's just concede the whole thing. Yes, HIV has come up with 5 PTPBS. No, let's make it 10. Well, the genetics involved with HIV translate into HIV being able to arrive at a novel CCC once a day in every person infected with HIV. And with these million upon millions of CCC generations what do we see? HIV-1 with, what, 10 new PTPBS. Should I say "congratulations" to HIV? From what Behe writes, it takes about 10 proteins, all working together, to see a particular biochemical function taking place.

And, of course, should I mention that the time period that Behe uses for his Table 7.1 is a time period that begins after almost all, if not all, the conjectured PTPBS had already arisen in HIV.

Honestly, what's left to argue?

Chris Noble said...

This is certainly suggestive stuff. You say "insupportable". Again, is it because I'm not a Darwinist? Am I being persecuted?

It is insupportable because there exists no evidence to support it. If you were honest you would have looked at the evidence before you came up with this lame excuse to ignore the faults in Behe's book.


This said, you're right about this being my claim. But is it a "claim"?

Yes, it is a claim. I realise you are not keen to stick your neck out and commit to any positive statement that would require evidence but it is a claim nonetheless.

Whether HIV "invented" viroporin assemblage or not, I still don't consider that any kind of "protein-to-protein interaction".

You are yet to provide any justification for this claim. Yes, it is a claim. You are just redefining "protein-to-protein interaction" to avoid admitting any fault on Behe's part. You can't just retrospectively redefine your terms like this.

You quite obviously have no understanding of the subject that you pretend to be the judge of. It isn't a question of whether you personally are convinced. I dare say that you are very unlikely to be convinced ever but this is completely irrelevant to the science. If you really wnat to achieve something then try to convince the scientific community with scientific arguments.

Smokey said...

PaV wrote:
"Why is it insupportable? Because an IDer proposed it?"

Because it's not supported by the evidence, doofus. An honest inquirer would

1) calculate the probability that this pathetic 5-residue match arose randomly (i.e., not by common descent), or

2) simply BLAST the database with LVVAA, and realize that it's found in many sequences.

BTW, if you're going to do #1, the first term must represent the probability that a leucine residue is found anywhere in a protein, which is pretty close to 1. Then, you have to correct your probability for the fact that you are looking in a transmembrane domain, which is constrained.

"Put on your thinking cap:..."

Heal thyself.

"HIV replicates more in one day, given just one million people infected with it, than all the elephants that have ever lived. One day. So, if a putative vpu in HIV Shanghai-ed the M2 sequence, it would not take very long for adaptation to take place through recombinations and such."

Yes, it would. It also would mutate, making your match criterion irrelevant anyway.

"Experimentally, there is a correspondence between the AIVVW of vpu and the HLILW of M2."

But many TM domains can be swapped, so your claim that this supports common descent is idiotic.

"The "subtypes" of vpu all involve changes in the LVVA portion of vpu, a sequence run that is quite obvious in the M2 hydrophobic region."

They are called hydrophobic regions because they are runs of mostly hydrophobic residues. Do you have the slightest idea how stupid your bloviations appear to those of us who have done sequence alignments?

"And when did HIV pick up ion-channel activity? At about the same time as the world saw the outbreak of the Spanish flu--type A influenza, which includes M2."

There's zero evidence to suggest that the activity was "picked up."

"This is certainly suggestive stuff."

Only to someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.

"You say "insupportable". Again, is it because I'm not a Darwinist? Am I being persecuted?"

No, it's because your claim isn't supported by evidence, particularly a cursory statistical analysis of the prevalence of a 5-residue run in a TM domain.

"... But maybe IDers aren't even able to make conjectures, so limited is our freedom of speech in some quarters."

Yawn.

"Whether HIV "invented" viroporin assemblage or not, I still don't consider that any kind of "protein-to-protein interaction". "

But you consider a 5-residue match to be evidence of common descent, so why should anyone value your opinion?

Anonymous said...

Dammit Sal, I came over here from that DaveScott nutfest just to watch you deliver not one but 3 coup-de-gras. And not even one. Not even a pin-prick. You are this young ladies new hobby-horse and sock-puppet. Now STFU and go make Abby a sandwich. Beeyatch!

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 210 of 210   Newer› Newest»