Freethought & Rationalism Archive

pangloss · 07-24-2002, 08:48 AM

I read your post at ARN re: 'Mike Gene's' ID "prediction" about transcriptional proofreading.

WAYYYY back when ARN first started up, Gene and his back-patters presented this 'prediction' as proof that ID was valid, that a 'telic' worldview was valid, could guide research, blah blah blah..

IMO, Gene let the cat out of the bag when he explained that the 'prediction' came to him while writing an article on translational proofreading. The paper he cites to 'verify' his prediction, amazingly, shows up in just about every Pubmed search combination dealing with proofreading, including translational proofreading.

In other words, it seemed pretty obvious to me, what really hapopened is that he already knew about transcriptional proofreading prior to making his 'prediction'.

pangloss · 08-22-2002, 03:57 PM

IDiot, conspiracy monger, and egomaniac "Mike Gene" had this BS to say on ARN (gee - why didn't he come here? No moderator protection? No ability to lobby to get people he doesn't like banned? Awww - poor widdle "Mikey's" pooter hurts!):

*******************************************

Quote:

Now, I'm not suggesting rafe is hinting at the same accusation, but since pantrog has been telling this story (and various other versions) for years now (on various forums), I'd better set the record straight.

No, it is the same story. Stupid Mike should remember that the ARN archives are still available.

Quote:

Again, I never presented this prediction as any type of proof or demonstration that ID was valid. I simply offered it as a counter-example to the common claim that ID is completely useless for generating a scientific hypothesis. As for pantrog's suggestion that I am being dishonest, let's just say that I am in a position to know he is wrong.

Ahhh - one of those "I know what I really meant, it doesn't matter what anyone thinks" schticks. Looks like 'Mike' is resorting to some ego-protection.

Quote:

This is one of those rare cases where it's not a question of me suspecting, or inferring, or coming up with the "most likely" explanation. This is an example where I know pantrog is wrong.

Snore...

Quote:

I didn't write a paper on translational proofreading. As I explained, I posted about this originally for another forum. The science articles in question are discussed here:
<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000014" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000014</a>

I didn't find these articles through a PubMed search. I found them the way many people found them - by reading Science ! I didn't actually know about transcriptional proofreading before.

And for this all we have is the 'word' of an egomaniacal anonymous internet IDiot. Yeah, guess I owe 'him' an apology...
LOL!

Quote:

It came to me in the shower after posting the stuff on translational proofreading. I laid out the simple logic that I used. Then, I searched PubMed and found examples of transcriptional proofreading. Look, I was personally encouraged by this experience. Have you ever deduced that something should exist and been rewarded with a PubMed search that turns up articles already discussing data you thought would exist? Why do you think I expend so much late-nite energy on this stuff?

Ego stroking?

Quote:

Do I have a political agenda? Hopefully, the recent clash with Dembski should lay that misconception to rest once and for all. Do I have a religious agenda? I've laid out my highly unconventional theological views, rendering anyone who suspects religious motivation on my part into the realm of total cluelessness. So what motivates me? Might it actually be that I happen to think ID thinking is both exciting and full of potential that most won't touch? Hmmm. And just what would make me think that?

Megalomania?

All your amazing 'teleologic' has produced is a handful of self-aggrandizing internet essays about this might be just enough to arouse a suspiciuon of ID.

Now THAT is some amazing "research guiding" insight, yessirree.... Why, you seem to be on the verge of overthrowing orthodox Darwinism with just those amazing lit review essays on your website and ARN already!

theyeti · 08-22-2002, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pangloss:
<strong>IDiot, conspiracy monger, and egomaniac "Mike Gene" had this BS to say on ARN...</strong>

Play nice.

pangloss · 08-23-2002, 03:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theyeti:
<strong>

Play nice.</strong>

That WAS nice....

07-24-2002, 08:48 AM	#1
pangloss Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Posts: 1,302	for Rafe Gutman I read your post at ARN re: 'Mike Gene's' ID "prediction" about transcriptional proofreading. WAYYYY back when ARN first started up, Gene and his back-patters presented this 'prediction' as proof that ID was valid, that a 'telic' worldview was valid, could guide research, blah blah blah.. IMO, Gene let the cat out of the bag when he explained that the 'prediction' came to him while writing an article on translational proofreading. The paper he cites to 'verify' his prediction, amazingly, shows up in just about every Pubmed search combination dealing with proofreading, including translational proofreading. In other words, it seemed pretty obvious to me, what really hapopened is that he already knew about transcriptional proofreading prior to making his 'prediction'.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.