Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Blinn · 10-12-2002, 05:14 PM

While I wait for scigirl or someone to explain to you the points in the paper that you clearly didn't understand, I just wanted to say I got the biggest chuckle out of this part:

Quote:

Now, the authors do imply some type of inducement:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...Sectioning showed that FLDX labeling was restricted to the lens, indicating that the restored eye parts were derived from the cave fish (Fig. 2, B and C). The results show that a surface fish lens can induce the development of anterior eye parts that have been lost during cave fish evolution.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It would seem that this is a hasty conclusion, since it is possible that the mere presence of a viable transplanted lens would cause general early embryonic eye development to continue towards the formation of a near-complete eye.

Yeah, no signal of any kind - the lens just said, "Let there be development. And there was development. And the lens saw the development: and it was good..."

Do you under stand that between any cause and effect, there is a mechanism? Obviously not.

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

[ October 12, 2002: Message edited by: Zetek ]

Coragyps · 10-12-2002, 05:18 PM

VZ, would you please give up your worrying about "tentative statements" already??!! We went over that a month or two ago, AND THAT'S THE FREAKIN' WAY SCIENTIFIC PAPERS ARE WRITTEN, DAMMIT!
My pleasure to provide the reference, but I will defer to a biologist to talk about induction.

pz · 10-12-2002, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Coragyps:
VZ, would you please give up your worrying about "tentative statements" already??!! We went over that a month or two ago, AND THAT'S THE FREAKIN' WAY SCIENTIFIC PAPERS ARE WRITTEN, DAMMIT!
My pleasure to provide the reference, but I will defer to a biologist to talk about induction.

Hey, I'm a biologist, and my specialty is even development...unfortunately, when I see the degree of obtuseness and generally craven evasiveness by Vanderzyden, I'm really not inspired to reply. It's just too pointless.

Coragyps · 10-12-2002, 05:56 PM

pz - I sympathize.

Vanderzyden · 10-12-2002, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Coragyps:
.... AND THAT'S THE FREAKIN' WAY SCIENTIFIC PAPERS ARE WRITTEN, DAMMIT!

Touchy, are you?

Vanderzyden

[ October 12, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]

monkenstick · 10-12-2002, 06:04 PM

vanderzyden, now that you've demonstrated your complete lack of understanding about developmental biology and yet called the validity of the experiment into doubt anyway, i'm wondering if you'd like to finally answer my challenge - you've had about a month to come up with an explanation - surely you've got one now

Vanderzyden · 10-12-2002, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by monkenstick:
vanderzyden, now that you've demonstrated your complete lack of understanding about developmental biology and yet called the validity of the experiment into doubt anyway, i'm wondering if you'd like to finally answer my challenge - you've had about a month to come up with an explanation - surely you've got one now

Well, since your invitation is so "attractive"

....

Really, monken, if you really think I'm incapable of learning about various aspects of biology, then why are you asking me to evaluate your presentation? Quite puzzling, to say the least.

Actually, I have been busy with work, my studies, my newborn child, my wife, etc. Also, I have been participating in other forums.

Now, as I remember your "Urate Oxidase challenge", it was presented in only slightly better fashion than the "sub-optimal design" or "chromosome fusion" challenges. So, I would like to ask you to do me a favor before I engage you any further.

Please repost your challenge with a properly descriptive title (without my name). More importantly, provide better, fully corroborating references and explain why anyone should take this seriously. Also, don't bother to focus on generic sequence similarity. Instead, elaborate upon the SPECIFICS and avoid the use of obscure, difficult terminology. That will ensure that we have an efficient discussion.

Whatever you do, don't simply throw a bunch of raw data around and claim it supports common ancestry. Good explanations must accompany persuasive theories.

Vanderzyden

[ October 12, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]

Vanderzyden · 10-12-2002, 06:23 PM

[ October 12, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]

lpetrich · 10-12-2002, 06:55 PM

Vanderzyden:
Really, monken, if you really think I'm incapable of learning about various aspects of biology, then why are you asking me to evaluate your presentation? Quite puzzling, to say the least.

An irrelevant side issue.

Actually, I have been busy with work, my studies, my newborn child, my wife, etc. Also, I have been participating in other forums.

Grow up. You have been able to find plenty of time to participate here. Why do the rest of us have to spoonfeed you? Especially when you do not seem to care about what they have commented.

(a lot of whining about poor presentation of the cases for suboptimal design, chromosome fusion, and urate-oxidase comparison...)

O VZ, I'm unwilling to spoonfeed you much further, especially when it strongly appears that you do not want to learn about evolution.

rebelnerd · 10-12-2002, 07:18 PM

Vanderzyden,

Is there a nose on your face?

Filo

10-12-2002, 06:23 PM	#98
Vanderzyden Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: California Posts: 694	[ October 12, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-12-2002, 05:18 PM	#92
Coragyps Veteran Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Snyder,Texas,USA Posts: 4,411	VZ, would you please give up your worrying about "tentative statements" already??!! We went over that a month or two ago, AND THAT'S THE FREAKIN' WAY SCIENTIFIC PAPERS ARE WRITTEN, DAMMIT! My pleasure to provide the reference, but I will defer to a biologist to talk about induction.

10-12-2002, 05:56 PM	#94
Coragyps Veteran Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Snyder,Texas,USA Posts: 4,411	pz - I sympathize.

10-12-2002, 06:04 PM	#96
monkenstick Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 214	vanderzyden, now that you've demonstrated your complete lack of understanding about developmental biology and yet called the validity of the experiment into doubt anyway, i'm wondering if you'd like to finally answer my challenge - you've had about a month to come up with an explanation - surely you've got one now

10-12-2002, 06:55 PM	#99
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Vanderzyden: Really, monken, if you really think I'm incapable of learning about various aspects of biology, then why are you asking me to evaluate your presentation? Quite puzzling, to say the least. An irrelevant side issue. Actually, I have been busy with work, my studies, my newborn child, my wife, etc. Also, I have been participating in other forums. Grow up. You have been able to find plenty of time to participate here. Why do the rest of us have to spoonfeed you? Especially when you do not seem to care about what they have commented. (a lot of whining about poor presentation of the cases for suboptimal design, chromosome fusion, and urate-oxidase comparison...) O VZ, I'm unwilling to spoonfeed you much further, especially when it strongly appears that you do not want to learn about evolution.

10-12-2002, 07:18 PM	#100
rebelnerd Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: 47°30'27" North, 122°20'51" West - Folding@Home Posts: 600	Vanderzyden, Is there a nose on your face? Filo

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.