Thursday, August 30, 2007

Sal buys 'Wheres Waldo' book, never seen again

Im a deceitful little thing-- hiding scientific facts in plain sight.

ERV blog, 8/2/07-- Vpu, is in fact, a new gene1. Of the five major phylogenetic groups of SIV, Vpu is only found in one group-- Chimpanzee SIV (SIVcpz) and its descendants—including HIV-1. It is absent in all of the other major lineages (Sooty Mangabey, African Green Monkey, Sykes Monkey, and L'Hoest Monkey). This means that Vpu is in HIV-1 but not HIV-2. 2

Ah, Michael Behe, you might try to talk your way around Vpu now (though you were evidently unaware of its existence moments ago) by insisting that it is not *new* new. "Sure it's new in chimpanzees, but its not *new* in HIV-1!" Sorry, you'll find no escape with that limp-wristed, ad hoc parry. SIVcpz Vpu and HIV-1 Vpu act in different ways, biochemically , which is predictable enough when you do something as simple as comparing amino acid sequences. For instance, if you compare a laboratory strain gag to SIVcpz gag, you get a similarity of ~75%3. Not too shabby. On the other hand, if you compare the subunit portion of env (the gene I use to create phylogenetic trees because it's the most variable between viruses) you get an AA similarity of only ~59.5%.

The amino acid similarity between HIV-1 Subtype B Vpu and SIVcpz Vpu is ~37%.

ERV blog, 8/12/07-- A picture I thought was good enough for a child to understand.
UD, 8/28/07-- And, HIV-1 Vpu doesn’t look genetically or act biochemically like its ancestor, SIVcpz Vpu. They don’t ‘work in the same way.’ Behe is still wrong.

* We know Vpu is new in HIV-1 because of the directionality of necessity. As I referenced in my original essay, Vpu evolved in a very specific way in HIV-1 to overcome a cell specific and human specific host factor. Please see reference 10- I tried very hard to find PLoS/PubMedCentral references for this very purpose.

UD, 8/29/07-- I have never typed that Vpu is novel in humans. Its new in a branch of primate lentiviruses, again, look at reference 10. Its the sequence, biochemistry, and functionality that are different in humans.

But as I said in my essay and here-- HIV-1 Vpu and SIVcpz Vpu are totally different genetically, biochemically, and functionally.

Its also integral for particle release in humans, requiring more HIV protein-protein interactions. Completely new function/molecular machine in HIV-1. It is NOT in SIVcpz.

ERV comments, TODAY-- The Factician said...

Mr. Cordova,

Let me point you to the relevant portion of ERV's post--->

""Sure it's new in chimpanzees, but its not *new* in HIV-1!" Sorry, you'll find no escape with that limp-wristed, ad hoc parry. SIVcpz Vpu and HIV-1 Vpu act in different ways, biochemically , which is predictable enough when you do something as simple as comparing amino acid sequences. For instance, if you compare a laboratory strain gag to SIVcpz gag, you get a similarity of ~75%3. Not too shabby. On the other hand, if you compare the subunit portion of env (the gene I use to create phylogenetic trees because it's the most variable between viruses) you get an AA similarity of only ~59.5%."

86 comments:

Salvador T. Cordova said...

The fact that Vpu exists in SIVcpz and HIV-1 today suggests that Vpu existed in HIV-1 already when it infected humans.

The VPUs are different today but one still calls it Vpu. This fact argues for the very point I'm trying to be certain of, namely Vpu already existed in HIV-1 when it first infected humans.

I really don't want to misrepresent your position on a simple question. So I asks this simple question again:


"Is it your premise that Vpu pre-existed in HIV prior to entry into humans?"

If you'd answered it already, my apologies in advance, but a simple YES or NO to that question would help clarify the matter greatly.

Thank you in advance.

regards,
Salvador

Hermagoras said...

Sal,

What part of "Vpu is only found in one group-- Chimpanzee SIV (SIVcpz) and its descendants—including HIV-1" do you not understand? The question was answered before you asked it.

For the record, I do not think you're stupid or anything of the sort. I think you don't know how to read outside your own field. All of us are to varying degrees, but your cross-disciplinary literacy is further constrained by your powerfully distorting worldview and your tendency to see every interpretation as a mortal combat (your use of violent terms to describe discourse is well documented).

Hermagoras said...

Correction: for "all of us are," read "all of us are limited"

Anonymous said...

Sal, you're a moron. From her very first post she makes it clear that the origin of vpu was recent, but predates the transfer of HIV-1 to humans.

But, she says, again and again and again, Behe's still toast even if you want to pretend that the origin of a new gene in SIV isn't relevant, because AFTER HIV-1 transferred to humans, vpu acquired new binding abilities, which is exactly what Behe said couldn't and hadn't happened.

If you were something better than a crazed, desperate fundamentalist blindly trying to protect your pitiful little custom-made universe from inconvenient reality, you would just suck it up, be a big man, and admit that we have both a recent origin of a new gene with a new function (the origin of vpu in one of the SIV lineages), and the origin of new binding activities in vpu within the last 80 years, after SIV transferred to humans to produce HIV-1.

But instead, you just run around the internet trying to convince yourself that evolution isn't real and that none of your creationist heros like Behe ever make any mistakes. You're like a little kid trying to keep alive the idea that Santa Claus is real. Grow up. Be honest with the data and with yourself. Value substance over goalpost moving and hairsplitting.

Hermagoras said...

My understanding is of course very limited: after all, I'm just what Sal calls "some English professor somewhere." But my understanding from ERV's first post is that the novelty is found in HIV-1 Vpu, and that, as ERV puts it, "HIV-1 Vpu and SIVcpz Vpu are totally different genetically, biochemically, and functionally." So the answer to your question is Yes, but it's not a relevant question, and never was.

Am I right? I don't know nothing about this biology stuff, bein' just "some English professor somewhere" an' all, but that's my feeble reading of Abbie's original post. Can someone help me out here?

olegt said...

hermagoras,

That's a comprehensive answer. I am sure Sal will copy and paste it over at UD. For the benefit of the readers.

Right, Sal?

Hermagoras said...

Really? I, a mere English professor, am able to read ERV's mega-complicated science-y stuff? Goodness gracious, I'm getting the vapors!

Salvador T. Cordova said...

Hermagoras said:

"What part of "Vpu is only found in one group-- Chimpanzee SIV (SIVcpz) and its descendants—including HIV-1" do you not understand? The question was answered before you asked it"

I very well understand that this means I'm right. I'm not even being bashful that the reason I keep hammering this issue is that Ms. Smith will have to make a major concession, namely: "the Vpu gene already existed in HIV-1 when it first infected humans."

She can articulate that clearly or let the discussion drag on with pictures and insults. Fine. The question still remains:


"Is it your premise that Vpu pre-existed in HIV prior to entry into humans?"

A simple YES or NO for the sake of the audience to this debate will suffice, and spare the readers any more tedium.

Hermagoras said...

Right about what, exactly, Sal? She said what you are demanding she say in her first post. Obviously you draw earth-shattering conclusions from this, but I fail to see what they are. Again, that's probably just the English professor talking.

Hermagoras said...

Sal,

So you quote me over at UD: wow, I participate by proxy. How about quoting the part where I point out that it's not relevant?

Rich Hughes said...

Sal is famous for quote mining. Sal, what does the designer think of dishonesty?

Israel Barrantes said...

Really, it's not worth it to discuss logic and rational stuff with a preacher. In the end, they'll quote a line from the Bible, like they do all of the time when they found themselves on a dead end. What a waste of time.

Smokey said...

Sal slimed:
"If you'd answered it already, my apologies in advance, but a simple YES or NO to that question would help clarify the matter greatly."

No, Sal, she's already answered it already, Behe is still wrong about no new biochemical functions, what we call Vpu is simply a matter of convenience and history, and the only simple YES or NO to a question that will clarify the matter is if you use one of those to answer the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

If you don't have a wife, simply substitute "meat" for "wife" in the question.

Chris Noble said...

Amusing.

"bornagain" cites something from antivaccination nutjob kookfest whale.to

ignorant pseudosceintific twaddle

These people think that whale.to is science?

Sal's weasel words.

I pointed out ERV’s invocation of gene duplication in HIV-2 has no bearing on Behe’s claims because Behe is talking about HIV-1 after HIV-1’s introduction into humans. He is not talking about HIV-2.

Either Behe knew about the gene duplication in HIV-2 and was being deceptively selective in specifying HIV-1 or he is/was blissfully unaware and ignorant.

quantok said...

So now we know — Salvador T. Cordova is on a quote mining expedition: "ERV forced to admit Vpu did not evolve as a new gene in humans! Behe was right!"

But this was one of the first things mentioned in ERV's original post: that chimpanzee SIV is differentiated from other simian forms by having Vpu, which then entered humans in HIV-1.

So the claim is: if the Vpu gene was already in chimps then nothing new evolved, no matter how biochemically novel the properties of Vpu became after entering humans? Is this the best UD can do — go for the OJ Defense and try to create spurious doubt around scientific facts inconvenient to their case?

The folks at UD are displaying all the characteristics, and pitfalls, of a cult. Once you exclude sceptics (or in this case anyone with an 8th grade reading age) from the intellectual meme pool, all you are left with is nodders and yes-men applauding your weakest arguments. It's ironic that the curious doctrine of genetic degradation so popular over at UD is actually manifesting as memetic degradation – the bad arguments are protected and their progeny weaken the overall fitness of any case for ID.

ERV said...

*shrug*

Sal is free to quote-mine me all he wishes. I consider it one of the highest compliments a Creationist can give (just behind death-bed recantations).

And, well, this is how Creationists act. I mean is anyone *that* shocked? You all predicted their Claims from the very beginning (sexually transmitted penguins, anyone?). I predicted their claims from the beginning (not *new* new, not *NEW* *new* new, etc).

Anyway-- Keep playing all you want, folks! Try not to get any Sal-Spooge on your shoes!

The Factician said...

Goodness gracious, I'm getting the vapors!

Heh. You made me snort a little.

Sal,

You're making a very simple error. I suspect you're doing it on purpose, but just in case it is an honest error, I'm going to point it our for you as simply as I can...

Naming something vpu doesn't make it the same thing as vpuSIV. If we were to start calling whales monkeys, it wouldn't make them monkeys. It would merely demonstrate the limitations of language.

But then, you knew that. And merely want the chance to misrepresent science...

ERV said...

Btw-- If you wade through the comments, its obvious that Sal is a lying sack of shit 24 hours ago, when I copy pasted the thread.

Sally: "ERV wont answer me ERV wont answer me!"
Me: [answered Sal over and over and over]
Sally: Recognizes ERV answered him, and moves goal posts to protein-protein interactions.
Me: [smacks Sal down again and banned]
Sally: "ERV wont answer me ERV wont answer me!"

Sal, you are a lying little sack of Creationist shit. Piss off.

quantok said...

"Sal, you are a lying little sack of Creationist shit."

My bad. I assumed there was actually a strata of Cretinists who were earnest dilettantes who just didn't get the science and who suffered from a lack of peer review in pointing out their amateurish mistakes.

Now I realise they are all of one KIND, invariant and non-adaptive: keep sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "Nah, nah, nah!" and all the inconvenient truths will go away.

Clearly it's a cult, but it's hard not to love the little buggers for the damage they do to the credibility of religion.

PS. My local bookshop now stocks pin badges that say "Creationists Won't Evolve".

caligula said...

ERV, may I humbly suggest that you adjust your tone a bit? I think your writing style may be giving Behe a valid excuse to ignore your criticism. True, there is no crying in science, but I think the amount of eccentricity allowed in a scientific debate is not entirely unlimited.

The Factician said...

Calligula,

I dunno, I use the "You're full of shit" all the time when talking to my colleagues. If they prove me wrong, I back down, apologize, retool, and move on... Scientists are used to it. But creationists, maybe not so much. They do agree with themselves. Alot.

Meanwhile, back at UD, they're declaring victory because of something you've "admitted" to. Apparently none of them understood the orignial posts. Or any of the following posts.

I really think scordova would be better off in law school than in engineering school... He certainly argues like a lawyer.

One more time for you Mr. Cordova, then I go back to writing my paper: Don't mistake semantics as being the same as evidence. Words are what we use because we don't have anything better.

Oy. I don't suppose it will help the poor guy...

Salvador T. Cordova said...

factian said: "You're making a very simple error. I suspect you're doing it on purpose,.....

Naming something vpu doesn't make it the same thing as vpuSIV."


Where did I the Vpu's are necessarily identical in any strain where Vpu's exist?

Now then, let's move on. I said: "I very well understand that this means I'm right."

Dr. Hermagaoras asked:
"Right about what, exactly, Sal?"

Right about the fact that Vpu existed in HIV prior to HIV entering the human population.

So, the question remains to Ms. Smith, and I'll even simplify the wording so any one here can answer it:

"Is it Ms. Smith's premise that Vpu existed in HIV prior to entry into humans?"

I phrased it so you can answer it Hermagoras, and clarify it for me.

You seem to argue I'm dense. Fine. For the sake of argument I'm dense.

I suppose a simple YES or NO to this central question is not too difficult to articulate, especially for you Dr. Hermagoras.

"Is it Ms. Smith's premise that Vpu existed in HIV prior to entry into humans?"

YES or NO?

ERV said...

"Is it Ms. Smith's premise that Vpu existed in HIV prior to entry into humans?"
You stupid, stupid cow.

I suppose 'Piss off' was too hard for you to understand too?

caligula-- No. Conversations with Average Joe Creationists are one thing. Conversations with Professional Creationist Shit Bags is another thing. Besides, the 'ERV is MEAN!' card has already been played.

ERV said...

Actually, caligula, I take that back. Youre right. An easy way to get rid of shitbags like Sal is to ask them a question.

Let us once again grant YOUR premise. Lets pretend I havent answered your question. Why, then, did you acknowledge my answer and move your goal-posts to protein-protein interactions on UD right before I was banned, hmm?

Anonymous said...

I am genuinely confused - Why aren't you giving Sal a simple answer to his simple question?

If you feel that you have answered this question previously, and I believe you have, and your answer was in the affirmative, then why not say "Yes, Sal." instead of calling him names?

ERV said...

Special treatment for Creationist, then? They arent expected to be able to read and comprehend the English language like everyone else? The first two times I answered Sal werent enough? Im supposed to sit here and type my answers over and over and over and over and over and over and over while he pretends I never answered him? Why?

Anonymous said...

First, no - not special treatment. If you were at a conference and someone asked you the same question three times, you would not call them a "stupid cow", or a "shit bag". You would politely answer idiotic questions. Using derogatory namecalling is a *creationist* tactic. Not a scientific one.

Second, yes, special treatment for creationists. For two reasons.

First, the conversation being conducted here is being observed by many fence sitters not directly involved in the conversation. To these people who do not have the time or inclination to re-read the multiple threads and posts that now exist on this subject, your refusal to type three letters "Yes" into your own blog suggests that either you are stonewalling or that Sal has a valid point. Note - I do not believe that you are stonewalling, I believe you are rightly upset with Sal for behaving in what amounts to a dishonest manner. That said, the impression that this thread leaves to an undecided observer is one of Sal asking simple questions and you calling him a "shit bag".

Second, you should expect to deal with idiocy. You wrote an excellent article that points out multiple flaws in Behe's work - and you posted the article on a blog. In my opinion, you should have expected idiots to retort in repetetive and nonsensical arguments from the get-go. That is the burden of posting scientific ideas in an open forum. How you deal with idiocy is, of course, your own preogative. I would suggest that answering "Yes, Sal. See: here, here, and here for other places I have said this. Now what would you like to discuss" will convince more bystanders than "I suppose 'Piss off' was too hard for you to understand too?".

Of course, it's your blog - do as you see fit.

caligula said...

ERV, just for the record, I wasn't playing a card. I'm merely hoping that your rhetorics (vile language) will not offer the creationists a free chance to apply THEIR rhetorics. I'm sure we agree that they're better trained at that art. And in this case, their rhetorics will have quite a bit of validity.

I know you're ticked. I've received the same good-cop/bad-cop routine from Sal/Dave myself once. Sal does the inviting and the smokescreening, Dave does the assaulting and the threatening. They're quite a pair, and it's all a big theatre. If you get three posts from Dave before a ban warning, you've done well. Then comes Sal in a shining armor: "Oh, she may have spoken UNTRUTHFULLY etc. but for the benefit of the Dear Reader, please let her stay". See? Sal is not slimy, and Dave is not an ignorant bully. Sal truly is a Nice Guy, and Dave is just Stern, that's all.

That's exactly why you should act the star witness that you are, here. Don't offer them free cookies by resorting to constant name calling.

The Factician said...

How about me, can I give them a free cookie? scordova, would you like a free cookie?

*offers a cookie*

Hermagoras said...

Anybody can see what is happening here. Sal thinks that he will trap ERV in some way by having her reframe her statement in the language Sal chooses. If she answers him in those terms, Sal has some pre-determined ("front-loaded"?) plan of action for saying that ERV has conceded something. But if she refuses to play those games and reposts her perfectly sensible earlier descriptions, Sal can say (in fact, he is saying) that she's refusing to answer. So he thinks he's got her trapped.

But what I want to know, Sal, is what was wrong with the earlier posts? What is at stake for you in describing it this way? What do you think you have to benefit?

Hermagoras said...

Sal wrote, "I phrased it so you can answer it Hermagoras, and clarify it for me."
And also,

"We’ll see if a PhD English professor can spell the word “YES” ! :=)"

Hey, Sal: I already spelled Yes, and I already clarified it for you. Let me repeat it, with added emphasis:

my understanding from ERV's first post is that the novelty is found in HIV-1 Vpu, and that, as ERV puts it, "HIV-1 Vpu and SIVcpz Vpu are totally different genetically, biochemically, and functionally." So the answer to your question is Yes, but it's not a relevant question, and never was.

ERV said...

Anon-- That was my response, initially. And Sal accepted it, and rightfully moved his goal posts to protein-protein interactions.
This new line of 'Just answer YES or NO' can only be interpreted as intentional lying and wasting my time.

Youll notice PaV asking real questions in another post, and we're all having a (generally) good time.

But Sal? Hes just a lying shit. This entire post answers his question yet again, and he wont read it. *shrug* When he stops acting like a shit, Ill treat him like an adult again.

coligula-- I'm merely hoping that your rhetorics (vile language) will not offer the creationists a free chance to apply THEIR rhetorics.
Im not going to sit and smile pretty. It is now Behes responsibility to not only explain my essay, but the asinine behavior of his colleagues. They can ham it up as much as they wish.

Tyler DiPietro said...

Well, we have a couple of obvious concern trolls here demanding that we capitulate in the face of dishonest tactics by creationists. The premise behind Sal's stupid fucking question has been shown to be false over and over again.

And to the concern troll who's too cowardly to adopt an actual handle to which I can refer to him/her as: I'm impressed by your mass mind reading capabilities in this area. Quite frankly, I don't give a fuck what the "fence sitters" at this point think. The dishonesty and cowardice on the part of the creotards is so flagrant that anyone sitting on the fence is either a creotard themselves or lacks an IQ above temperature.

And to anyone offended by the language my dear friend is employing: grow a thicker skin.

franky172 said...

ERV -
I do not intend to suggest that Sal is being honest or doing anything other than wasting your time. I agree with your analysis of the previous responses - Sal asked, you answered, Sal moved goal-posts.

My only point is that from a [i]public perception[/i] point of view there are more effective ways to deal with people like Sal than calling them names.


tyler -
[i]And to the concern troll[/i]
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[i]who's too cowardly to adopt an actual handle to which I can refer to him/her as:[/i]
An accusation of internet cowardice? I thought we had grown out of this at age 12. I suppose not.

[i]I'm impressed by your mass mind reading capabilities in this area.[/i]
You do not believe that this exchange will be played as a "defeat" of ERV's points in the ID community (admittedly, by people like Sal who only want to play "gotcha")? You do not believe that at least some casual observers would be more inclined to read the relevant literature or threads if this exchange were more cordial?

[i]Quite frankly, I don't give a fuck what the "fence sitters" at this point think.[/i]
And I believe that your stance is unfortunate for everyone involved.

[i]The dishonesty and cowardice on the part of the creotards is so flagrant that anyone sitting on the fence is either a creotard themselves or lacks an IQ above temperature.[/i]
I do not believe that calling the people who read these threads and might be convinced one way or the other "creotards" or "stupid" is an effective way to win converts.

Tyler DiPietro said...

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Well, what can I say? You are incorrect, I'm perfectly aware pof it's meaning. Look in PZ's killfile dungeon for a definition.

"An accusation of internet cowardice? I thought we had grown out of this at age 12. I suppose not."

Who's "we". Posting without a handle is cowardly, you have no reputation or anything else to damage while you spout bullshit talking points. Assuming that you are the anonymouse from a few posts back, congratulations on growing a pair of cojones.

"You do not believe that this exchange will be played as a "defeat" of ERV's points in the ID community (admittedly, by people like Sal who only want to play "gotcha")? You do not believe that at least some casual observers would be more inclined to read the relevant literature or threads if this exchange were more cordial?"

ERV has already been banned from discussion at a UD thread that she was specifically invited to. And to top it off, they keep using the same dishonest tactics and "claiming victory" anyway, making your point moot. I think the prospect of a "cordial" exchange has long past it's expiration date.

"I do not believe that calling the people who read these threads and might be convinced one way or the other "creotards" or "stupid" is an effective way to win converts."

And who are these people, do you know them? No, of course you don't. You're just pulling assumptions out of your ass.

Tyler DiPietro said...

And by the way:

"I do not intend to suggest that Sal is being honest or doing anything other than wasting your time. I agree with your analysis of the previous responses - Sal asked, you answered, Sal moved goal-posts."

See, this what I absolutely love about people like you. You were perfectly capable of discerning the dishonesty of the creos in the threads here and the one on UD. But those other simply lack your comprehension skills and thus we have to tailor our language to please them. Can you be any more condescending?

The Factician said...

You do not believe that this exchange will be played as a "defeat" of ERV's points in the ID community (admittedly, by people like Sal who only want to play "gotcha")

Come on, don't you think that this will be played out as a win regardless of how it turns out? After all, scordova was playing it out as a victory before even getting the answer that he was supposedly looking for (not looking very hard, though).

I tend to agree, though, that civility looks best for the folks watching who haven't made up their minds, but the folks over at UD are pretty good at pushing peoples' buttons and making them annoyed...

franky172 said...

I'm perfectly aware pof it's meaning.
Yet you continue to misuse it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

Who's "we".
Adults.

reputation or anything else to damage while you spout bullshit talking points.
Points stand or fall on their own merits, accusing the poster of cowardice does not add to the validity of your claims.

ERV has already been banned from discussion at a UD thread that she was specifically invited to.
True. And this is extremely embarassing for the IDers. We should bring this up at all opportunities. In fact, let's bring it up right now - ERV was invited to, and banned from a discussion relating to her own posts on UD, after which Sal reiterated previously answered questions on ERV's blog in an effort to claim "victory" on UD. These tactics are dishonest and cowardly.

Notice how I avoided using creationist-style rhetoric and name calling.

And to top it off, they keep using the same dishonest tactics and "claiming victory" anyway, making your point moot.
My point wasn't that the IDers will claim victory - they will claim victory no matter what happens; my point is that calling people "shit bags" makes it easier for them to claim victory and have the surface-level appearance of validity.

I think the prospect of a "cordial" exchange has long past it's expiration date.
And I disagree.

And who are these people,
Interested readers. People who are capable of changing their minds. You believe that such people do not exist? Then why are you arguing points on the internet if you feel no one will change their mind?

do you know them?
I have read several threads on many websites including FARK, FreeRepublic, and others where bystanders have expressed thanks for the cordial attitudes of scientists, and the rational presentation of evidence. Several of these posters have suggested that they were unaware of the mountains of evidence behind the ToE until they read such discussions. I have seen no such posts in response to calling people "creotards". My own personal point of view on many political issues have been altered after reading on-line discussions.

No, of course you don't. You're just pulling assumptions out of your ass.
But I do. And you claim that no one who is "on the fence" is reading these threads. How presumptuous of you.

Can you be any more condescending?
I have spent a significant amount of time invested in the creation/evolution discussion and am previously familiar with the tactics employed by people like Sal and others. A casual reader who is not familiar with these tactics will be more easily fooled by shiny websites and fast-talking car-salesmen posing as scientists. I do not feel that this is a condescending attitude.
You, on the other hand, have called undecided people "creotards" and "idiots". And you accuse me of condescention?

Hermagoras said...

I sent the following to Sal's email:

Sal,
Sorry to clutter your inbox, but I already answered you. Most recently you wrote:
Can Hermagoras spell the word "YES"? What sort of sweet things are they saying about me over at ERV? Keep me posted.

And earlier:
We'll see if a PhD English professor can spell the word "YES" ! :=)

Quit asking this. Still earlier I wrote:

My understanding is of course very limited: after all, I'm just what Sal calls "some English professor somewhere." But my understanding from ERV's first post is that the novelty is found in HIV-1 Vpu, and that, as ERV puts it, "HIV-1 Vpu and SIVcpz Vpu are totally different genetically, biochemically, and functionally." So the answer to your question is Yes, but it's not a relevant question, and never was.

I posted this twice because you seem to have missed it. Now I have emailed it to you. Note the correct spelling of "Yes."
Why it is irrelevant? Because although you say you're
Right about the fact that Vpu existed in HIV prior to HIV entering the human population,

ERV notes that
HIV-1 Vpu and SIVcpz Vpu are totally different genetically, biochemically, and functionally.

Next time you refer to me at UD, why don't you represent what I write correctly? Or are you just so in the habit of distorting your opponents that you've lost all sense of shame?
Oleg predicted your behavior when he responded to my comment thus:

That's a comprehensive answer. I am sure Sal will copy and paste it over at UD. For the benefit of the readers.
Right, Sal?



And to ERV readers: no, I'm not going to give you Sal's email, much as I'd like to.

Hermagoras
--
http://paralepsis.blogspot.com

Smokey said...

anonymous wrote:
"If you were at a conference and someone asked you the same question three times, you would not call them a "stupid cow", or a "shit bag". You would politely answer idiotic questions."

Your analogy is false. What I would do at a conference is answer the stupid question (Sal's question has already been answered repeatedly) and THEN insult the idiot who asked it, which is exactly what everyone is doing here.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, I've been away. Did I miss the coup de grace?

Salvador T. Cordova said...

With respect to the question:

"Is it Ms. Smith's premise that Vpu existed in HIV prior to entry into humans?"

Ms. Smith responded:

"You stupid, stupid cow.

I suppose 'Piss off' was too hard for you to understand too?"

Does that mean YES? YAY!

I was right, Vpu existed in HIV before it entered humans.

But just to be sure, when you said, 'Piss off', that was an admission that:

"Vpu existed in HIV prior to entry into humans?"

Right? YES or NO?

If you say YES, then I can move forward with Hermagoras's objection, but until you acknowledge

"Vpu existed in HIV prior to entry into humans?"


I have no intention of proceeding. I will let your comrades pressure you to say YES or NO.

Of course, which ever way you answer you know I'll be able to successfully take issue. If you say YES, I will win the argument. If you say NO I will win the argument. If you avoid the question, you avoid the coup de grace.

Such is life when one must protect and indefensible position and admit an essay published at PT was erroneous and too hasty in its conclusions.

Oh well, have a nice labor day weekend. The question remains:

"Is it Ms. Smith's premise that Vpu existed in HIV prior to entry into humans?"

The Factician said...

Of course, which ever way you answer you know I'll be able to successfully take issue. If you say YES, I will win the argument. If you say NO I will win the argument. If you avoid the question, you avoid the coup de grace.

Ummm... you're even dumber and more dishonest than I'd heard...

She's already answered your question (before you even posed it, since you're clearly too slow to notice). And, she's already answered how you'll "take issue". The fact that you're too dense to notice suggests levels of wilful ignorance I hadn't fathomed when this silly game began.

Anonymous said...

This is my first comment on this thread. I'm relatively new to the whole ID debate and am undecided. I'm not a scientist, and part of how I must evaluate the arguments is by the manner in which people argue. If someone routinely resorts to angry, ad hominem attacks, their defensiveness makes me suspicious, and I am less likely to believe their argument.

I think the shutting down of the debate at UD was wrong and shows defensiveness. But the attitude and juvenile language displayed here by ERV and the other commenters shows, frankly, even more defensiveness. Hardly an impressive intellecutal display.

You can say whatever you want about IDers not deserving any better treatment, and you can attack me for not having a thicker skin about the childish language used here, but you'll only be proving my point and making another person less likely to trust your views.

The Factician said...

Hi anonymous,

Yes, things have gotten a little raucous. scordova has asked the rhetorical equivalent of "When did you stop beating your wife?". To those of us who are comfortable with the material, both the answer to his question and where he was planning to go next with it are obvious, and obviously dishonest. You can understand how folks might get upset with that.

He's arguing like a lawyer, as if one word answers and "gotchas" have anything to do with how we find answers in science.

Based on available evidence, yes, vpu existed prior to HIV infecting humans. But vpu now and vpu in SIV are *very* different. Both these points are available in erv's detailed original post. And sal knows that. erv spent her whole post detailing this and why it is a beautiful example that refutes Behe's argument that HIV hasn't changed. It has changed. Considerably. And picked up additional functions. The fact that vpu in SIV and vpu in HIV are called the same thing has more to do with how we name things (and to do with the fact that they are related - which no one is disputing).

scordova wants to say "Aha! But it was there already and still has the same name! No change!" which has been dealt with. Hence the fact that everyone here got a little rambunctious. First they ban us from their site, then he comes over here and plays his dishonest little word game.

Really, I suspect scordova would make a lovely lawyer. But lawyers aren't all that interested in the truth. They're interested in their clients' version of the truth, and will play word games to get there. Scientists don't play word games. Hence the anger.

Hope you understand (and will share this with your friends).

-F.

Smokey said...

Sal has revealed his rhetorical strategery at Telic Thoughts:
The fact there are biochemical differences today does not negate the fact HIV inherited a functioning Vpu gene. She full well knows even if the Vpu has evolved since entry into humans, two major features in it's functioning have been retained. And thus her claim at PandasThumb is demonstratably false that these were novel features.

Of course, this is ludicrous, because Behe's lie isn't that features have been retained, it is that no new biochemical features have arisen, a lie that Abbie has demolished with evidence.

I think that Sal's knife is slipping in his alleged "coup de grace" and cutting off something of his own instead.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, F, for the good, clear explanation. But why then do ERV and others waste everyone's time with all of the bluster and insults? Why not just say what you said: "the answer is yes, but it doesn't really help your argument for the following reasons ...."

I know what you and others will probably say -- "you don't understand how crazy and dishonest these creationists are" -- but for someone who is still trying to figure out the debate, it just doesn't help at all. The whole point is that undecided people don't know whom to trust, and one side's vehemence and insults don't help undecided people at all.

In short, think about what will persuade your audience, not what will soother your anger.

The Factician said...

Anonymous,

You're absolutely right, of course. I can't speak to others sharp tongues, but my own came after I was very patient and very gentle with the ID folks over at UD and got banned for it.

Combine that with scordova's dishonesty and disingenuousness, and I confess, I have behaved badly. I also confess, I have enjoyed insulting scordova.

As to why folks haven't answered him? We have. Over and over and over. He's asked his question like it's a simple yes or no answer, and it's not. Consider this example:

Sal: Is this bacterium a male?

F: Well, maleness and femaleness isn't really a useful term in this case. Though it has properties of males it also has properties considered female?

Sal: yes or no, is it a male?

F: Well, neither, really. It's really quite a bit more complicated...

Sal: Why do you refuse to answer my question? Yes or No?

F: I've already answered. It has properties of both.

Sal: Yes or No?

F: Piss off, Sal.

Again, we should all behave better (especially for people like you, anonymous). But forgive us if we don't.

olegt said...

Quoting Sal: Of course, which ever way you answer you know I'll be able to successfully take issue. If you say YES, I will win the argument. If you say NO I will win the argument. If you avoid the question, you avoid the coup de grace.

Wow. In this passage Sal himself acknowledges that it indeed was a bullshit question. Sal, ya gotta be more careful.

Tyler DiPietro said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tyler DiPietro said...

"Yet you continue to misuse it"

Explain how, then I might take you seriously. Like I said before, I suspect, based on your repetitive and substanceless hand wringing about our language, that you are a concern troll.

"Points stand or fall on their own merits, accusing the poster of cowardice does not add to the validity of your claims."

Points? You haven't made a single point in this whole damn thread, you only came to castigate us for A.) not answering a bullshit question from Sal and B.) using foul language. As to A, other posters have already addressed it. As to B, if you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen.

"Notice how I avoided using creationist-style rhetoric and name calling."

Notice how, after spending several posts admonishing me for name-calling, you resort to a bald-faced ad hominem? Name calling isn't the exclusive pedigree of creationists, and I have no qualms about calling a spade a spade.

"My point wasn't that the IDers will claim victory - they will claim victory no matter what happens; my point is that calling people "shit bags" makes it easier for them to claim victory and have the surface-level appearance of validity."

Which they are good at having. In case you haven't noticed, the posts where the evidence was presented are still available on this. If people aren't going to go beyond the blather of the creos and accept it uncritically, there isn't much we can. Such people are usually already sympathetic to the creos in the first place, your apparent assumption that we're dealing with a tabula rasa aside.

"And I disagree."

Please. One side has already shut down dissent from their position by banning dissidents (that they themselves had invited) from their blog. If that's a clear expiration date, I don't know what is.

"I have read several threads on many websites including FARK, FreeRepublic, and others where bystanders have expressed thanks for the cordial attitudes of scientists, and the rational presentation of evidence."

Which has already occurred, and concluded. The evidence has already been presented, the creos are only artificially extending the life of their credibility (at least in the eyes of their sympathizers) by asking bullshit questions and lying. You admonish us for not falling into the trap, and I still suspect you're concern trolling, despite your ostensibly "cordial" attitude.

"Several of these posters have suggested that they were unaware of the mountains of evidence behind the ToE until they read such discussions. I have seen no such posts in response to calling people "creotards"."

Then you haven't looked very carefully, "creotard", "IDiot", etc are all common terms and are often found in well written and well reasoned posts. Debate on the internet doesn't always have to be feel good socializing, and in fact it rarely is.

"My own personal point of view on many political issues have been altered after reading on-line discussions."

And did all of them have to be polite? Like you say, points should stand or fall on their merits.

"But I do. And you claim that no one who is "on the fence" is reading these threads. How presumptuous of you."

No, I never said that. You can stop using strawmen any time you wish. What I did say was that there was no valid reason to be on the fence at this point.

"I have spent a significant amount of time invested in the creation/evolution discussion and am previously familiar with the tactics employed by people like Sal and others."

As have I. Not everyone shares your personal opinion about this. If you think politely tip-toeing is the way to go, you're free to pursue that strategy to your hearts content. Excoriating posters who don't share it is a waste of everyone's time.

"You, on the other hand, have called undecided people "creotards" and "idiots". And you accuse me of condescention?"

Yes. Like I said, I at least have enough respect for people to call a spade a spade.

franky172 said...

Like I said before, I suspect, based on your repetitive and substanceless hand wringing about our language, that you are a concern troll.
Your evidence that I am a troll is that I believe that to win the PR battle being waged, the intelligent scientists discussing this matter shouldn't call people "stupid cows" and "shit bags"?

Points? You haven't made a single point in this whole damn thread,
I have made several points - namely that name-calling feeds into the IDers sense of unfair treatment, it turns off fence-sitters, and that we might catch more flies with honey. It also makes the story of this thread going forward for Sal very catchy - "they called me names! they can't answer a simple question! Behe is vindicated!" This is exactly the kind of story that catches people's attention. I think that we will be hearing about this for years from our mutual friend Sal.

Meanwhile, your response to all these is to call those who disagree with you "concern trolls", or "creotards", and let's not forget "cowards".

get out of the kitchen
I am in the kitchen because I feel that we can win the PR battle that creationists wage by presenting our scientific facts carefully, properly, and yes, politely. If you feel that calling people names is the key to a winning strategy, fine, but I genuinely don't see how it helps.

Notice how, after spending several posts admonishing me for name-calling, you resort to a bald-faced ad hominem?
Please show me my ad hominem argument. Please be specific.

Which they are good at having. In case you haven't noticed, the posts where the evidence was presented are still available on this.
Good. Let's point them out and continue this discussion and let's consistently point out why Sal's supposed point is fallacious instead of resorting to ad hominem.

If that's a clear expiration date, I don't know what is.
I didn't realize that scientists should be discourteous to those who are discourteous to us. You catch more flies with honey.

Which has already occurred, and concluded.
Not for people in the future who ask "What ever happened to ERV's supposed dismantling of Behe", and Sal points to this thread and says "See, they answer simple questions with Ad-Hominems". This is a PR nightmare, and a creationist's dream.

You admonish us for not falling into the trap,
The trap of discussing science carefully with the likes of Sal? If you do not want to get muddy, don't start wrestling with pigs. We both know that evolutionary science will continue with or without ERV's insighful posts on why Behe is utterly wrong. So why should ERV bother writing these posts if not to convince creationists/IDers they are wrong?

Given that is the motivation, you now want to complain that the people you are arguing with are underhanded? What did you expect? And further, you want to suggest that "since they are underhanded and sneaky we can call them names and not worry about convincing anyone of anything?? To win this battle I believe that scientists have to be better than that. We do ourselves no favors by sinking to this level.

I still suspect you're concern trolling, despite your ostensibly "cordial" attitude.
Believe whateve you would like.

Then you haven't looked very carefully, "creotard", "IDiot", etc are all common terms and are often found in well written and well reasoned posts.
And they are the worst-written and ill-conceived parts of those posts. It's the equivalent of making a point about the Bush administration and calling people "Republitards" - it does you no favors with the very people you are trying to convince.

And did all of them have to be polite? Like you say, points should stand or fall on their merits.
The most effective ones were polite. I was never convinced of an opposing viewpoint when some called someone else a "Demoncrat" or a "Republitard", in fact I found that those statements to be distracting from valid points.

No, I never said that. You can stop using strawmen any time you wish. What I did say was that there was no valid reason to be on the fence at this point.

You wrote something very specific: anyone sitting on the fence is either a creotard themselves or lacks an IQ above temperature.

Excoriating posters who don't share it is a waste of everyone's time.
So you believe that posting disagreements on blogs is a waste of time? Or just discussing this particular disagreement is a waste of time? I am not forcing you to be polite, and as I mentioned - this is ERV's blog, she may certainly do as she wishes.

Yes. Like I said, I at least have enough respect for people to call a spade a spade.
So calling people who are undecided "creotards" is not condescending, but suggesting that people might not have the time to fully digest these arguments is condescending? Are you serious?

/out for the weekend

ERV said...

Yo! People who say this has happened to them before. To quote Adam Sandler "... you know, that information might have been a little more useful to me yesterday."

Drop me an email and lets put together a guide for dealing with UD, for people who have not been assaulted yet.

Hermagoras said...

Sal,

The question is BS, and you know it. You demonstrated this clearly when you wrote, "Of course, which ever way you answer you know I'll be able to successfully take issue. If you say YES, I will win the argument. If you say NO I will win the argument. If you avoid the question, you avoid the coup de grace." Everybody knows this, including you.

You won't even quote the whole of my answer on UD, as any decent person would do. Quit quoting me there, or quote me responsibly.

You are behaving in a way that is beneath contempt. All the nasty language on ERV can't hold a candle to your loathsome behavior.

Hermagoras

Tyler DiPietro said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tyler DiPietro said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tyler DiPietro said...

"It also makes the story of this thread going forward for Sal very catchy - "they called me names! they can't answer a simple question! Behe is vindicated!""

Yes, Sal's a slimy liar, and some people will inevitably taken in by slimy liars. The relevant info is here for everyone to see, and in my opinion everything up to the banning was sufficiently "cordial", your annoying hand-wringing to the contrary notwithstanding.

"Meanwhile, your response to all these is to call those who disagree with you "concern trolls", or "creotards", and let's not forget "cowards"."

And I stand by every accusation (but to be specific, the concern trolls were you and another poster making the same accusation as you, hardly "everyone who disagrees with me").

"I am in the kitchen because I feel that we can win the PR battle that creationists wage by presenting our scientific facts carefully, properly, and yes, politely. If you feel that calling people names is the key to a winning strategy, fine, but I genuinely don't see how it helps."

Helps in what? Disagreement can be very vociferous, and that has always been the case. What's wrong with a little personal passion on the periphery of the debate? Nothing, in my estimation. At least nothing that would induce me to forgo it.

"Please show me my ad hominem argument. Please be specific."

Associating "name-calling" specifically with "creationists" is an invalid attack on both name-calling and (I am loathe to admit this) creationists. Even if creationists never uttered a personal insult, their premises and arguments would still be laughably, gobsmackingly false. And a well-reasoned, well argued post would be no less correct no matter how violent the rhetoric.

"I didn't realize that scientists should be discourteous to those who are discourteous to us. You catch more flies with honey."

Well, once again, I think you're assuming a uniformity that doesn't exist. There is no requirement for a scientist to be polite, and I see no reason to be such at this point.

"The trap of discussing science carefully with the likes of Sal?"

This is really funny. Where we you when the actual discussion was going on? I'll admit, I was absent for most of it (I had obligations in meatspace to fulfill), but if your primary concern was the evidence, your absence from the discussion here all the way up to the banning of ERV, factician, etc. is quite conspicuous.

"Believe whateve you would like."

I appreciate the invitation.

"The most effective ones were polite. I was never convinced of an opposing viewpoint when some called someone else a "Demoncrat" or a "Republitard", in fact I found that those statements to be distracting from valid points."

Well I'm sorry to hear that, the internet doesn't appear to be a proper venue for you."

"You wrote something very specific: anyone sitting on the fence is either a creotard themselves or lacks an IQ above temperature."

Which I stand by 100%, and isn't substantively different from what you quoted, just less specific.

"So you believe that posting disagreements on blogs is a waste of time?"

No, excoriating us for our language is a waste of time. Legitimate disagreement on relevant content certainly is, but I don't see that from you. All I hear is "WHHHHAAAAH YOU GUYS SHOULD BE NICER THAN THIS." Sorry, the time for being nice was before the dissidents at UD were banned for disquieting the rhetorical circle jerk is otherwise always is.

"So calling people who are undecided "creotards" is not condescending..."

No, it's honest, and perhaps a bit insulting. But it's not "condescending". Your idea that people can't discern reasoned argument because of a few caustic jabs here and there is.

olegt said...

tyler,

Since you keep editing your post, why don't you sleep on it and come back tomorrow? Have a nice weekend.

Tyler DiPietro said...

"Since you keep editing your post, why don't you sleep on it and come back tomorrow? Have a nice weekend."

Thanks, but I'm finished anyway. Internet posts don't have to be perfect, the previous two were just horribly ill-formatted.

waldteufel said...

Ol' Sal reminds me of Smeagol Gollum:
Hissing: ". . . What does the nassssty Hobbittssssss have in its pocketsesss . . . . . . .. gollum . .gollum . . ."

art said...

So apparently Sal is of the opinion that the appearance, from scratch, of 4 "CCC"'s in an HIV lineage before it "found" humans does not contradict Behe.

Some friendly advice, Sal. You're conversing with a possible instructor on this board, and it's most unwise to show him how little regard you have for the words and ideas of others (even those you claim to agree with). (That's a big hint, Sal. Your claim does not square with the EoE.) He probably won't want to be reminded of this if and when he ever needs to read a class paper of yours (no one is going to want to go thru the problem of comparing your each and every sentence with original sources, to make sure you aren't the liar in class that you are here).

By Behe's own reckoning, 4 "CCC"'s are way, way beyond the Edge of Evolution, and the fact that they appeared from out of the blue, totally randomly and by chance, ruins his argument. This absurd and comical game you are playing does not rescue Behe, but in fact makes his claims even more absurd.

Oh yeah, there's the matter of this question. Why are you ducking, Sal? (from before)
--------------------

On UD, you said: This was the more interesting of the assertions offered as a counter example to Behe. But there is a subtle Equivocation in this statement that only make it appear Behe’s points were refuted when in fact they weren’t.

There are at least two notions of “protein-protein binding”:

1. protein-protein binding within the same organism upon which a critical function depends.

(i.e. see the bindings of a protein as function in Protein Dark Energy)

2. protein-protein binding between one organism’s protein (like HIV) to another organism’s protein (like human CD4)

Mike was referring to #1, and Ms. Smith to #2, therefore, because this is an equivocation, #2 cannot be used as a counter example to #1.


Behe, in contrast, spends a fair amount of time telling us how Darwinian mechanisms cannot allow Plasmodium to overcome resistance conferred by the sickle cell trait. All of this discussion is in the context of protein-protein interactions. In other words, Sal, Behe is talking exactly about interactions between proteins encoded by different genomes and organisms. What's with this - why do you need to alter Behe's words and ideas so radically? Did you think no one would notice?

caligula said...

"lets put together a guide for dealing with UD, for people who have not been assaulted yet."

Here's a short but complete guide for handling debates at UD:

DON'T.

Hermagoras said...

Where'd Sal go?

Sal?

Sal?

Bueller?

Salvador T. Cordova said...

I asked:

"Is it Ms. Smith's premise that Vpu existed in HIV prior to entry into humans?"

YES or NO?

Hermagoras said: "YES"

Smokey said:

"she's already answered it already"

She may have, but I guess I'm a a little slow, Smokey, and I probably missed it, so can you spell it out. Did she say YES or NO?

Could you clarify the matter for us and affirm that Hermagoras is correct that the answer is YES?

But a little re-iteration and clarification from Ms. Smith would be most helpful. I'm having to appeal right now to secondary sources like Dr. Hermagoras. I would prefer something more authoritative from Ms. Smith, wouldn't you?

How about Dr. Hunt, I'm glad to get his opinion of what Ms. Smith's answer was. Was it YES or NO?

Hermagoras said...

Sal,

Welcome back! But I did not say "Yes," or not simply. My whole answer was as follows:

". . . my understanding from ERV's first post is that the novelty is found in HIV-1 Vpu, and that, as ERV puts it, 'HIV-1 Vpu and SIVcpz Vpu are totally different genetically, biochemically, and functionally.' So the answer to your question is Yes, but it's not a relevant question, and never was."

But it's ok to abuse my quote like that, right? NO (there's a simple answer) because I also said this to you:

"You won't even quote the whole of my answer on UD, as any decent person would do. Quit quoting me there, or quote me responsibly."

And then you do the same thing again. After I've asked you not to.

It's a simple request. Let me say it again: quote the whole of my answer or don't quote. It's irresponsible.

This is what people mean when they say you are quote-mining. You are developing a reputation for dishonesty that will last for decades.

art said...

My theory (maybe it's a prediction) - Sal knows his "coup-de-grace" is DOA, so he's going to keep asking the question, over and over. It doesn't matter if one answers "YES", or with a longer exposition, or by referring back to the several places on two blogs wherein the answer may be easily found and understood. The answer is not what Sal wants, but rather a forum to spam repeatedly with the same moronic question.

Will we ever see this "coup-de-grace"? Methinks the odds of this are on the far side of Dembski's line-in-the-sand.

Salvador T. Cordova said...

Hermagoras said:

"And then you do the same thing again. After I've asked you not to.

It's a simple request. Let me say it again: quote the whole of my answer or don't quote. It's irresponsible. "

My apologies Hermagoras, allow me to make a remedy. I will post this at UD as well along with links to this discussion in deference to you, so they can see everything in exact detail from the source of the discusison.

Hermagoras said:

======

Hey, Sal: I already spelled Yes, and I already clarified it for you. Let me repeat it, with added emphasis:

my understanding from ERV's first post is that the novelty is found in HIV-1 Vpu, and that, as ERV puts it, "HIV-1 Vpu and SIVcpz Vpu are totally different genetically, biochemically, and functionally." So the answer to your question is Yes, but it's not a relevant question, and never was.

10:10 AM
======

Hermagoras said...

Sal,

Thank you.

H

olegt said...

Over at UD Sal writes: But she knows up front that I will call her on an equivocaqtion that was in the minds of some PT’ers when she made an appeal to HIV-2 to make it seem that HIV-1 developed a new Vpu gene after it entered humans.

Dear Sal,

This is a gross distortion of what ERV wrote and I am going to call you on that. Please provide quotes proving ERV's intent to mislead the PT readers.

If you can't do that I suggest that you retract your accusation and apologize to the parties involved, both here and at UD.

With best wishes,

OT

Hermagoras said...

Well, it seems that Sal's posting of my whole comment has brought his argument out of the woodwork. He wants to say that the sentence “HIV-1 Vpu and SIVcpz Vpu are totally different genetically, biochemically, and functionally" is ambiguous. (Later he confuses ambiguity and equivocation, but never mind.) Of course it's ambiguous in isolation like that -- it's a summary statement, and my quotation is a summary of a summary -- but in the original post the differences are clear. It's only ambiguous if you isolate it.

Hermagoras said...

olegt,

It's worse than that. ERV's original post was eminently clear, with careful elaboration of how and why the differences are important. Even I could understand it. What happened is that ERV keeps having to explain the differences in simpler terms, without the fine points of the original. Sal wants to push her into agreeing with a statement that is so general as to be meaningless; failing that, he wants to take a summary statement and complain that it lacked the nuances that were in the original post!

H

Hermagoras said...

Sal wrote that ERV "made an appeal to HIV-2 to make it seem that HIV-1 developed a new Vpu gene after it entered humans."

Absolutely, utterly wrong. In the original post, ERV wrote, "Of the five major phylogenetic groups of SIV, Vpu is only found in one group-- Chimpanzee SIV (SIVcpz) and its descendants—including HIV-1."

Can you read that? A form of Vpu is found in Chimpanzee SIV, of which HIV-1 is a descendant. Straight up. Retract and apologize.

olegt said...

hermagoras,

I agree with your assessment. However, in the quoted post Sal went even further. He stated in no uncertain terms that ERV knowingly misled PT readers. This is a pretty strong accusation. To prove it, he needs to show that (a) readers at PT were indeed confused and (b) ERV intended to mislead them. I don't see how he can do that.

ERV said...

oleg He stated in no uncertain terms that ERV knowingly misled PT readers.
Thanks for relaying this stuff, guys, as I havent read the thread in days.

Okay-- show of hands-- Does anyone disagree with my 'stupid cow' and 'lying sack of shit' comments anymore? Anyone?

ERV said...

Hermagoras--
Can you read that? A form of Vpu is found in Chimpanzee SIV, of which HIV-1 is a descendant. Straight up. Retract and apologize.

No, he cant read. That comment has been typed, copy/pasted, and reworded ad nauseum for several days now. And the day a Professional Creationist apologizes for being a lying sack of shit is the day Jesus comes back.

olegt said...

Apparently, Sal is leaving the public arena to pursue a master's degree in applied physics. Good timing.

In other news from the dark side, the nonexistent Evolutionary Informatics Lab at Baylor, has been shut down by the university. It was proudly promoted by creationists and IDers, but in reality the "lab" was nothing but a web server with papers by Marks and Dembski squatting on the official web site of Baylor University. Someone at UD posted an apparent hoax letter from Baylor president. The crowd is not amused.

Siamang said...

Dang.... I guess no Coup De Grace then.

The Factician said...

But if scordova goes away, who will read UD?

franky172 said...

Helps in what?
Helps to convince people that the points being made are strong; that the ToE is valid, and ID is vacuous. I'll ask you again - if not for this reason, why do people like ERV and other scientists bother to write blog articles about the science that disproves ID? You have argued that: (a) there is no one who is undecided (your "who are these people?" quote) or (b) everyone who is undecided is a creotard or an idiot. To which of these demographics are posts like ERV's original one directed? Or is PT intended to be a "circle jerk" (as you put it) as well?

Disagreement can be very vociferous, and that has always been the case. What's wrong with a little personal passion on the periphery of the debate?
I have never argued that passionate discussion is "wrong". Passion in a debate is a good thing, but calling people "shit bags" isn't "passion". People like Thomas Jefferson and Bertrand Russel argued with passion. People like Rush Limbaugh call people "shit bags".

Associating "name-calling" specifically with "creationists" is an invalid attack on both name-calling and (I am loathe to admit this) creationists.
I have no idea what you are talking about here. An ad hominem has a specific definition - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem. "Shit bag" is ad-hominem. Criticizing the tactics associated with a PR movement is not.

There is no requirement for a scientist to be polite,
Of course, I have never said there was a "requirement" for anyone to do anything. I have repeatedly stated that I believe that being polite helps convince people. And if convincing people isn’t ERV’s goal, what is?
and I see no reason to be such at this point.
You've mentioned this several times, but your logic appears to be 1) they do it! which is a fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque, or 2) it doesn't matter because the people on the fence are creotards and idiots, which makes posts like ERV's and other scientific blogs pointless. I find neither of these arguments convincing.

This is really funny. Where we you when the actual discussion was going on? I'll admit, I was absent for most of it (I had obligations in meatspace to fulfill), but if your primary concern was the evidence, your absence from the discussion here all the way up to the banning of ERV, factician, etc. is quite conspicuous.
I am not an HIV expert. I am also banned at UD. I fail to see what this has to do with any of the points I have made. Perhaps you can elucidate? Or explain why impugning my motives for posting is not a form of ad hominem? Or explain why my absence from the ID-HIV debate up to this point is germane to the discussion, while yours is not?

Well I'm sorry to hear that, the internet doesn't appear to be a proper venue for you
Actually, as I have pointed out, and you have conveniently ignored, the internet is a very proper venue for me - my mind has been changed by several coherent and well-thought out posts on various matters. My mind has never been changed by posts involving derogatory name-calling.

Legitimate disagreement on relevant content certainly is, but I don't see that from you.
I believe that I have made several distinct points on this thread. You have chosen to ignore them and suggest that since IDers are rude, scientists should be rude right back.

All I hear is "WHHHHAAAAH YOU GUYS SHOULD BE NICER THAN THIS."
I am sorry that you feel that pointing out that we might do better in this PR war is the equivalent of whining. Should I add this to the list of your arguments? 1) IDers are rude, 2) it doesn't matter because no one is being convinced anyway, and now 3) "you're just whining"?

No, it's honest, and perhaps a bit insulting. But it's not "condescending".
I see. So calling people who are undecided "creotards" is "a bit insulting", but assuming that we might catch more flies with honey is "condescending". Please.

Your idea that people can't discern reasoned argument because of a few caustic jabs here and there is.
I never suggested that they "can't". I am merely suggesting that they are less likely to be convinced of arguments from scientists when they contain phrases like those used previously. But according to your logic, the people on the fence are all idiots and retards - so maybe by your logic no one on the fence can discern these arguments anyway, right?

Hermagoras said...

I am very glad that scordova has done the right thing:

"My third loose end which I would like to tie up is that I would like to apologize to Ms. Smith if I have said anything that may be construed as an accusation of dishonesty on her part. Some concern has been expressed that any suggestion of dishonesty could be damaging to her career and I do not wish to damage Ms. Smith’s career as I’m in a similar boat as her. I vigorously disagree with her on various matters, but this should not imply that I am accusing her of lying or dishonesty. Perhaps I made some ill-tempered remarks, but it was not my intent to accuse her of lying or dishonesty. I simply disagree and at times was very irritated."

Good for him. Seriously. I'm not going to take anything away from that.

olegt said...

Good for you, Sal. Don't go there next time.

That said, I can't help laughing at your little victory dance directly following the apology. Have you noticed that ERV's "concession" about Vpu predating HIV-1 was made before your interrogation even began? Here is what she said on August 2 in her original post at PT: Of the five major phylogenetic groups of SIV, Vpu is only found in one group– Chimpanzee SIV (SIVcpz) and its descendants – including HIV-1. That was 26 days prior to her first appearance at UD. She has since repeated it many times and even documented when and where she mentioned that here.

In this light, your declaration of victory rings hollow. It may be enough to rally troops over at UD, but any objective observer will see a complete lack of reading comprehension on your part, and that would be the most charitable interpretation of your actions.

Perhaps while tying those loose ends you might want to reflect on this and post your thoughts in response at UD.

OT

truth machine said...

I'm not a scientist, and part of how I must evaluate the arguments is by the manner in which people argue.

Then you're dumber than shit. "the manner in which people argue" is an ad hominem consideration. The only basis for evaluating arguments is the content of the argument.

truth machine said...

But why then do ERV and others waste everyone's time with all of the bluster and insults?

What's with these jerks who think that expressing justified contempt is a waste of time? Are they all autistic?

truth machine said...

The whole point is that undecided people don't know whom to trust

It's moronic to decide a factual issue by deciding whom to trust and then believing whatever they say. If you don't already understand how to evaluate arguments, you won't get your answers here, and ERV calling Sal a lying shitbag (which any non-moron can see for themselves is true) doesn't have any bearing.

truth machine said...

Your evidence that I am a troll

The evidence that you are a troll is that you are stupid fucking asshole who has nothing to contribute other than ad hominem whines about what language people use. You're a common type on the internet, and thus there's a specific term coined for your sort; concern troll.

truth machine said...

I am in the kitchen because I feel that we can win the PR battle that creationists wage by presenting our scientific facts carefully, properly, and yes, politely.

Then you're a fucking idiot and an ignoramus. The PR battle won't be settled in this blog, and the PR battle goes far beyond the scientific facts. Scientific facts are germane to scientific debates, but that's not what the war being waged by DI is about.

The presence of assholes like you never leads to more polite discourse, only less -- in my case, deliberately. If you were at all sincere, you would shut your stupid fucking self up so as to avoid the consequence you so decry.