How are people like this getting elected?

[zinfamous]

No, they make assertions in the abstract. Are you always so easily convinced?

Anyway I found the full paper.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3979732/

shit, I forgot that I am not the moron shepherd. I'll resume my normal activity.

Carry on.

 

[zinfamous]

/facepalm.

The part you italicized is the problem that the paper was written to address.

Moron: "I have a question and no one is showing me any evidence to address that question!"

--Paper addresses the exact question, word for word, then publishes a study, with methods, and discussion, addressing that exact question. Citing no less than 4 independent uses of the same method.

Moron: "They are speculating on a problem and not providing any evidence!"


This is what happens when one refuses to read.


Buckshot: you are an idiot.

 

[buckshot24]

shit, I forgot that I am not the moron shepherd. I'll resume my normal activity.

Carry on.

Yeah, why don't you take a break.

 

[buckshot24]

Moron: "I have a question and no one is showing me any evidence to address that question!"

--Paper addresses the exact question, word for word, then publishes a study, with methods, and discussion, addressing that exact question. Citing no less than 4 independent uses of the same method.

Moron: "They are speculating on a problem and not providing any evidence!"


This is what happens when one refuses to read.


Buckshot: you are an idiot.

Since I didn't say any of those things you can't be talking about me. I think you're suffering from confirmation bias again.

This paper may or may not address my exact question, you see some words in it and assume that it does. Did you read it? What did they do? What complex molecular machine came into existence here? None.

Behe addresses this here.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/a_blind_man_car055021.html

 

[buckshot24]

The part you italicized is the problem that the paper was written to address.

Well, does it address it? Tell us how it does.

 

[fskimospy]

Well, does it address it? Tell us how it does.

You asked for evidence and it was supplied. Whatever summary someone would do for you here would be less informative than you simply reading what you already have in front of you.

It says a lot that you read the abstract and immediately picked out the line that you thought told you what you wanted to hear. The problem being your reading comprehension is so poor it actually said the opposite.

You've been given EXACTLY what you asked for. Are you going to move the goalposts again or actually read it? (You already know which one my money is on, haha)

 

[buckshot24]

Not sure why I ask a question to somebody on my ignore list. haha Sorry about that.

 

[fskimospy]

Not sure why I ask a question to somebody on my ignore list. haha Sorry about that.

What makes even less sense is why you're reading the posts of people you claim to be ignoring.

Thanks for confirming that your requests for evidence were lies. You are an extremely dishonest individual.

 

[kage69]

I want to send this thread's link to Ken Hamm, as a "cheer up butter cup, least you ain't this guy" gesture.

I don't think he's been 'quite right' since Bill Nye did those horrible, horrible things to him in front a crowd.


Buckshot: you are an idiot.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

No.

Ok, I suppose you're also evading material questions.

No I don't.

It's pretty much fundamental that for any argument to withstand scrutiny the definitions of its key terms must be evaluated for consistency and correlation to reality. The fact that you can't define such a fundamental aspect of your arguments basically invalidates them all.

Well I wasn't. None of that matters anyway.

You said:

...it is coming because of the chemical properties of the molecules.

To which I responded:

No, it's coming from the physical properties of the atoms.

To which you said:

haha, you got me except you didn't. Do you think this quibble is significant? But you're wrong anyway.

(emphasis added)
And still you maintain:

You were wrong.

So here's where you explain how I was wrong, according to you, or we'll just add this to the tally of arguments you're abandoning.

And just for fair warning I'm preparing an actual accounting of the various stupid claims and arguments you've abandoned in this thread that'll likely appear later when I have more time to finish it up.

No but that isn't relevant anyway. Way to miss the point

But of course it is! You can't model the processes of organisms using inanimate objects and expect to represent the reality of their replicative nature.

The point is the dominos fall and do what they do because of the arrangement they have been placed.

No, the point is that living things do what they do because they are alive. Dominos are not.

They don't get put into the patterns they are in the video because of the properties of the dominos.

Of course not, dominos aren't alive.

I think you realize this but can't admit you blew it.

I realize what everyone else realized ages ago: you're just talking out of your ass.

That's what we are talking about.

But you don't have any evidence that there was a "first domino" of life, so like I correctly identified, the analogy fails, so it is irrelevant.

No.

Then they will not model living things.

Can you point to any instance where living systems, following the patterns within the constituent parts, form all on their own while not coming from other living systems?

What's a "living system" according to you? If you don't know what "life" is, you can't know what a "living system" is.

We can do that for crystals.

So what?

Nothing within the parts that make up life make them form the way they do. Period.

What's "life," according to you?

Oh that's right. You don't know.

Your idiot questioning implied that was where you were going.

Not in the slightest. You are just eager and all too accustomed to erecting strawmen.

To this I agree.

Then your request was disingenuous.

Again, and still, this is why everyone thinks you're an asshole.

Well, hacks gonna hack. Good job hacking.

It's mildly amusing how you don't seem to realize that your persistent use of this particular ad hominem quite transparently telegraphs your stark inability to support the very foundation of the totality of your arguments. Your lack of self-awareness is hilarious.

buckwheat: [Outlandish claim about X]
Cerpin: Define X
buckwheat: hack hack hack hack hack

That pretty much summarizes this entire thread.

Actually we do...

And your evidence of that is... ?

...but you are so pathetic that you have to argue is if we don't because you know you lose.

[hack hack hack hack hack]

1. There hasn't been and can't be an infinite number of moments going into the past.

Why not? How long is a "moment" according to you? You do not seem to understand the significance of the continuity of space-time.

Same reason we can't count to infinity.

Maybe you can't, but I can.

2. If there hasn't been an infinite number of moments then there can't have been an infinite number of replications of living things.

3. Since there hasn't been an infinite number of replications then life cannot have been here forever.

Too bad you haven't gotten outta the gate yet from establishing the truth of (1) above.

Yes. Really.

Not hardly. Do you think this is the first time I've seen that silly argument? Hell, I can probably find multiple occasions that I've refuted it on this very forum when it was put forth by several of the last few loons like you that we've had come through. I've been doing this a long, long time.

Most of what you are saying doesn't even address my points. Why would I defend myself from an infant intruder?

Excuses, excuses, bucky. Who do you think is buying them?

Convincing other darwinists of your delusion isn't a requirement for you to be deluded. I'm sure some of them see my point and that you are deluded to think you hadn't handed me my rear end on the addition point.

You wanna take a poll? How do you think that would turn out? To anybody reading along right here that would care to casually register their vote, I offer an open invitation.

It shows that we're not talking about a linear progression.

But you didn't say that. You said it wasn't additive

It shows that some changes will never happen, its pretty hard to add something that never happens.

Except for the fact that it doesn't show that at all. "Not all equally likely" does not entail "the likelihood of some is zero."

So if we see any species changing at all that means the features of every living thing was caused by those changes?

Nope..

Huge leap of logic there.

Huge strawman constructed out of your own stupidity.

Go back to the baby crawling to the moon.

Why? It was a shitty analogy then and its a shitty analogy now for irrefutable reasons given aplenty.

That isn't my burden. You need to show that it wouldn't.

Bull fucking shit it isn't your burden. You claim an obstacle exists, you incur the burden of supporting that claim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_catastrophe

It happens, you're wrong again.

You don't appear to understand that this is a selection pressure like anything else. Your argument has taken the basic form of "since some organisms experience extinction, all organisms should be extinct." In other words, it is a false generalization.

How would I put my money where my mouth is? What do you suggest?

You and I each send $500 to a third party. If I can present evidence that I am nothing like what you describe, I get the money and you never come back to the forum. If my evidence instead reveals that I resemble your description, you get the money and I never come back.

Deal?

I could be wrong but you act like a real life twerp who gets some anonymity then turns into an abusive name calling tough guy online.

Then, as with so many other things, you are a poor judge of reality.

Not as if this has anything to do with genetic copying errors and natural selection. Another red herring.

We're not talking about that, we're talking about the science of evolution, and it has everything to do with it.

So: Is it true that pluto orbits the sun? How do you know? This a test of your ability to apprehend reality, and to this point you are failing miserably.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I'm asking questions about Darwinist dogma.

Let's answer this question:

Which model is scientific?

Then let's answer this question:

Which model is most useful?

Why don't you ever try to answer those, buckwheat?

 

[DrDoug]

Not sure why I ask a question to somebody on my ignore list. haha Sorry about that.

Because you're pretending to use the ignore function...lol!

 

[buckshot24]

It's pretty much fundamental that for any argument to withstand scrutiny the definitions of its key terms must be evaluated for consistency and correlation to reality. The fact that you can't define such a fundamental aspect of your arguments basically invalidates them all.

Ironically you appeal to something being "alive" later in this post but you haven't defined exactly what that means. You won't and don't think you need to do that but I do because you're a complete hack.

So here's where you explain how I was wrong, according to you, or we'll just add this to the tally of arguments you're abandoning.

So I need to show why you were wrong while you don't need to show why I was wrong? More hacking.

But of course it is! You can't model the processes of organisms using inanimate objects and expect to represent the reality of their replicative nature.

These dominos were presented for one thing and one thing only. You are in such a frenzy to attack me that you can't and/or won't see it.

No, the point is that living things do what they do because they are alive. Dominos are not.

Since we don't know what being alive means this statement is nonsense. Amirite?

Of course not, dominos aren't alive.

Please point to the chemistry of organic molecules that makes them form into living things (whatever living means :\)

But you don't have any evidence that there was a "first domino" of life, so like I correctly identified, the analogy fails, so it is irrelevant.

Dominos were presented only illustrative on how you were blowing it. Not that dominos model or represent living things.

Then they will not model living things.

Only a moron would think I was modeling life via dominos, I go with dishonesty as to why you are doing this since I don't think you're a moron.

What's a "living system" according to you? If you don't know what "life" is, you can't know what a "living system" is.

While you, a hack, can appeal to something being alive, I can't. Transparent idealogue is what you are.

So what?

Crystals as an analogy to increasing biological complexity is completely off base.

And your evidence of that is... ?

This shows you don't read my reply before you start attacking it. Hacking keeps on coming.

[hack hack hack hack hack]

This is the most honest bit of text you've posted, ever.

Why not? How long is a "moment" according to you? You do not seem to understand the significance of the continuity of space-time.

A moment can be any length of time.

Maybe you can't, but I can.

Demonstrate this.

Too bad you haven't gotten outta the gate yet from establishing the truth of (1) above.

Count to infinity please, you'll never reach it.

Not hardly. Do you think this is the first time I've seen that silly argument? Hell, I can probably find multiple occasions that I've refuted it on this very forum when it was put forth by several of the last few loons like you that we've had come through. I've been doing this a long, long time.

Then do so and shut up about it.

But you didn't say that. You said it wasn't additive

I've said a few things on that. Adding more and more things doesn't necessarily mean it is going to go past a limit.

Except for the fact that it doesn't show that at all. "Not all equally likely" does not entail "the likelihood of some is zero."

Near zero and since we don't have an infinite time of the development of life some changes would never (within the timeframe we're talking about) happen.

Nope..

Agree with you.

Huge strawman constructed out of your own stupidity.

How about you explain yourself?

Bull fucking shit it isn't your burden. You claim an obstacle exists, you incur the burden of supporting that claim.

No I don't. You assume none exist, that isn't very convincing to me.

You don't appear to understand that this is a selection pressure like anything else. Your argument has taken the basic form of "since some organisms experience extinction, all organisms should be extinct." In other words, it is a false generalization.

I didn't say nor imply any such nonsense. You made the claim that I was wrong because living things (which you didn't define) are distinct things and don't have limits (something close to that) so I point out a limit.

You and I each send $500 to a third party. If I can present evidence that I am nothing like what you describe, I get the money and you never come back to the forum. If my evidence instead reveals that I resemble your description, you get the money and I never come back.

Deal?

No deal. I don't care enough about you to go through all this and I am NOT that confident in my assessment. I still think it is true but like I said, I could be wrong.

Then, as with so many other things, you are a poor judge of reality.

No I recognize the uncertainty within my claim, you should try it sometime.

We're not talking about that, we're talking about the science of evolution, and it has everything to do with it.

You don't get to decide what I talk about. If you want to control the conversation have a go with the voices in your head.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Ironically you appeal to something being "alive" later in this post but you haven't defined exactly what that means.

Do I? You think so? Let's just see about that.

You won't and don't think you need to do that but I do because you're a complete hack.

If you think that I am using an uncommon definition of "life" in my arguments, you are cordially invited to point out where that is and I will gladly submit the definition.

So, in other words, fuck you, you have no idea what you're blathering about.

So I need to show why you were wrong while you don't need to show why I was wrong? More hacking.

I did show why you were wrong. Can't you read? It's that part that comes after the "no."

These dominos were presented for one thing and one thing only. You are in such a frenzy to attack me that you can't and/or won't see it.

Were they presented to highlight your own mental ineptitude? Because that is all that they have accomplished.

Since we don't know what being alive means this statement is nonsense. Amirite?

No, since YOU don't know...

Please point to the chemistry of organic molecules that makes them form into living things (whatever living means :\)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_bond

Dominos were presented only illustrative on how you were blowing it.

Quite the backfire then, eh shit for brains?

Not that dominos model or represent living things.

If they don't model living things they they are not relevant to our discussion of living things.

Only a moron would think I was modeling life via dominos, I go with dishonesty as to why you are doing this since I don't think you're a moron.

Now you're just misrepresenting your own argument and projecting that dishonesty on me.

While you, a hack, can appeal to something being alive, I can't. Transparent idealogue is what you are.

I said that the dominoes are NOT alive. Is that a point of contention? What disability kept you from properly apprehending that elementary distinction?

Crystals as an analogy to increasing biological complexity is completely off base.

For any particular reason... ? Or are you just doing more meaningless gainsaying because you don't have any actual arguments?

This shows you don't read my reply before you start attacking it.

No, it shows that you don't even understand your own "arguments." Even assuming arguendo that the past has a finite history it does not establish that life has not always existed.

And now, in your pathetically ignorance you're screaming "how can that be," yes? Go on an tell me that you don't understand why that is, and I will explain it to you.

Hacking keeps on coming.

"You're a hack" = "I can't muster a rational rebuttal"

This is the most honest bit of text you've posted, ever.

Oh so you agree that you simply do not have a rational rebuttal. Great.

A moment can be any length of time.

Like a billion years? Who do you think you're kidding, fuckwheat?

Demonstrate this.

Piece of cake

Say I start counting at time t with 0. Then at time t plus 1 second I'll mark 1. Then 1/2 second later I'll mark 2. Then 1/4 of a second I'll mark 3. Then 1/8 of a second later mark 4. 1/16th of a second later I'll mark 5. 1/32 of a second later I'll mark 6. I'll continue on like so and at the end of 2 seconds I will have reached infinity.

Doubt me? Then tell me which number I didn't count and I'll tell you precisely when I counted it.

Count to infinity please, you'll never reach it.

Only took me 2 seconds.

Then do so and shut up about it.

I love how your repeated responses get more impatient. Fuck's sake you're like a Martian.

I've said a few things on that. Adding more and more things doesn't necessarily mean it is going to go past a limit.

It does if those things are properly modeled by the natural numbers. It does if those things are properly modeled by the integers.

Near zero and since we don't have an infinite time

Baseless assertion.

(that the nice way of saying "bullshit, you're talking out of your ass")

of the development of life some changes would never (within the timeframe we're talking about) happen.

False premise, false conclusion.

[quite]Agree with you.[/quote]
No, you don't, and you don't even realize it.

How about you explain yourself?

Explain what? You said you agree.

No I don't. You assume none exist, that isn't very convincing to me.

Like I've been saying since the beginning this is because you haven't even the most elementary understanding of science and the epistemology of empiricism.

You're the one saying that there's a big invisible pink elephant in the room. When we look all around us and do not see any evidence that such an invisible pink elephant exists, you can't be surprised that everyone is going to know you're a just a nutjob for endlessley shouting "You haven't shown that the pink elephant doesn't exist!"

You need to get yourself a proper education, and it'd probably do you some good to take issue with any adults that should've been responsible for seeing that you received one. I'm gonna guess that they were probably a bunch of religidiots like yourself. Such a shame.

I didn't say nor imply any such nonsense. You made the claim that I was wrong because living things (which you didn't define) are distinct things and don't have limits (something close to that) so I point out a limit.

But it isn't a limit. It's just a selection pressure.

It is interesting to note the phenomenon you brought up pertains particularly to viruses.

Are viruses alive, fuckwheat?

No deal.

Pussy.

I don't care enough about you to go through all this and I am NOT that confident in my assessment. I still think it is true but like I said, I could be wrong.

Pussyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.

No I recognize the uncertainty within my claim, you should try it sometime.

Why would I do that? Maybe you shouldn't make such a habit of just pulling shit out of your ass and throwing it against the wall to see if it sticks.

You don't get to decide what I talk about.

Do you not agree that we are talking about evolution? All I said is that we're talking about evolution... so what are you talking about? Do you even know?

If you want to control the conversation have a go with the voices in your head.

What an odd comment.

 

[buckshot24]

Do I? You think so? Let's just see about that.


If you think that I am using an uncommon definition of "life" in my arguments, you are cordially invited to point out where that is and I will gladly submit the definition.

I'm definitely not using an uncommon definition of life either. You get to throw the term around without defining it but I can't? Hackery.

I did show why you were wrong. Can't you read? It's that part that comes after the "no."

No you didn't. You just made an accusation and an assertion. This is completely and ridiculously irrelevant anyway.

Were they presented to highlight your own mental ineptitude? Because that is all that they have accomplished.

They were presented to show that you were talking about the wrong phenomenon as far as living systems are concerned. The fact that while in the arrangement we find "living systems" that they act with explicable chemical reactions has NOTHING TO DO WITH how they got in that arrangement in the first place.

Crystals form BECAUSE of the straight forward chemistry of their parts. Living things do not. (use any text book definition of life you want).

Again, you're wrong.

No, since YOU don't know...

I know. You know. How about we cut the crap?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_bond

hehaheha. You are an idiot. haha.

Quite the backfire then, eh shit for brains?

Why? Because you moronically assumed I thought dominos were a model for living things?

If they don't model living things they they are not relevant to our discussion of living things.

Only to how you were missing the point and continue to miss the point.

Why don't you explain how I was using dominos, I've explained it a few times now.

Now you're just misrepresenting your own argument and projecting that dishonesty on me.

Moron or incompetent or dishonest?

I said that the dominoes are NOT alive. Is that a point of contention?

Is the fact that "alive" things once did not exist an actual point of contention? I don't think so, you just like to filibuster absurd quibbles to avoid any actual discussion.

How can you say something is NOT alive when you won't define what alive actually is? You're throwing this term around as if it means something but can't or won't simply define it.

This is the ridiculous argumentation you're applying to my words while not applying them to your own.

For any particular reason... ? Or are you just doing more meaningless gainsaying because you don't have any actual arguments?

I've already told you why.

No, it shows that you don't even understand your own "arguments." Even assuming arguendo that the past has a finite history it does not establish that life has not always existed.

I understand them perfectly well, you either don't or you are a liar when talking about them.

Piece of cake

Say I start counting at time t with 0. Then at time t plus 1 second I'll mark 1. Then 1/2 second later I'll mark 2. Then 1/4 of a second I'll mark 3. Then 1/8 of a second later mark 4. 1/16th of a second later I'll mark 5. 1/32 of a second later I'll mark 6. I'll continue on like so and at the end of 2 seconds I will have reached infinity.

Now this is just ridiculous. Are you serious with this?

First, you can't do this since you'll never get to an infinite number of "marks" ever. Secondly, this is basically Zeno's paradox but reversed. Thirdly, if I am wrong and you can count to infinity within 2 seconds make a youtube video of yourself counting to infinity within that time frame. Fourthly, this is confirmation that you don't care about truth but complete hackery.

Doubt me? Then tell me which number I didn't count and I'll tell you precisely when I counted it.

You didn't count an infinite number of marks.

Only took me 2 seconds.

youtube.com, lets see it.

I love how your repeated responses get more impatient. Fuck's sake you're like a Martian.

No this shows I am human and only so much idiocy and dishonesty that I can take. I'll be done with you forever soon enough.

It does if those things are properly modeled by the natural numbers. It does if those things are properly modeled by the integers.

Still waiting on that demonstration....

Baseless assertion.

Which part? The time or the near zero part?

(that the nice way of saying "bullshit, you're talking out of your ass")

Thank you for being so nice then.

Like I've been saying since the beginning this is because you haven't even the most elementary understanding of science and the epistemology of empiricism.

You're the one saying that there's a big invisible pink elephant in the room. When we look all around us and do not see any evidence that such an invisible pink elephant exists, you can't be surprised that everyone is going to know you're a just a nutjob for endlessley shouting "You haven't shown that the pink elephant doesn't exist!"

You couldn't be more wrong but why stop now? You're saying that there is no limit, well show this and prove your own case don't ask me to disprove your own assertions. This is completely inappropriate. PROVE YOUR CASE! Prove your own assertions! Prove there is a "limitless" progression from a microbe to you.

But it isn't a limit. It's just a selection pressure.

Remember why I brought this up? Probably not.

At this point, you're back on the list and will not be taken off. You are a complete waste of time.

 

[Jeff7]

Yer doin' God's work, Cerpin.

 

[DrDoug]

Yer doin' God's work, Cerpin.

No shit...lol! I have to give BS24 one thing; he's like the Energizer Bunny of stupid.

He keeps going and going and...

Good luck with that CT! :biggrin:

 

[buckshot24]

Yer doin' God's work, Cerpin.

Do you still think crystals have any relevance to the origin of biological complexity?

 

[Jeff7]

Do you still think crystals have any relevance to the origin of biological complexity?

Do you still think it's intellectually sound to say that life developing and evolving on its own is too complex to happen, so it's therefore necessary to assume that an even more complex entity exists to create it all, and to then not ask where that entity came from?




(And yes, I do. Life developing on its own is a result of inherent properties of matter and energy in the Universe, when given the right set of conditions, just as cubic crystals developing on their own are the result of inherent properties of matter and energy in the Universe when given the right set of conditions. Life's not that special. Rare, maybe, but that owes more to the fact that most of the Universe is empty or outright hostile to life.)

 

[buckshot24]

Do you still think it's intellectually sound to say that life developing and evolving on its own is too complex to happen, so it's therefore necessary to assume that an even more complex entity exists to create it all, and to then not ask where that entity came from?

I haven't said that it is. I am asking for proof and/or evidence that genetic copying errors can build complex biological machinery.

(And yes, I do. Life developing on its own is a result of inherent properties of matter and energy in the Universe, when given the right set of conditions, just as cubic crystals developing on their own are the result of inherent properties of matter and energy in the Universe when given the right set of conditions. Life's not that special. Rare, maybe, but that owes more to the fact that most of the Universe is empty or outright hostile to life.)

Do you have any evidence of these properties being able to do these things? We can do this for crystals. If you can't do it for life then this is an inadequate analogy.

To me this sounds like a statement of faith.

What do you mean by life not being that special?

Life is special because of the arrangement of ordinary elements into extremely and mind boggingly complex interdependent machinery. An Iphone is made up of ordinary elements as well but it is the arrangement of those elements that makes it special. A living cell is orders of magnitude more complex than an iphone.

So, what are the inherent properties of energy of matter that make life form completely on its own?

 

[mysticjbyrd]

I haven't said that it is. I am asking for proof and/or evidence that genetic copying errors can build complex biological machinery.
Do you have any evidence of these properties being able to do these things? We can do this for crystals. If you can't do it for life then this is an inadequate analogy.

To me this sounds like a statement of faith.

What do you mean by life not being that special?

Life is special because of the arrangement of ordinary elements into extremely and mind boggingly complex interdependent machinery. An Iphone is made up of ordinary elements as well but it is the arrangement of those elements that makes it special. A living cell is orders of magnitude more complex than an iphone.

So, what are the inherent properties of energy of matter that make life form completely on its own?

Here...

macroevolution

Now you can quietly educate yourself.

 

[buckshot24]

Here...

macroevolution

Now you can quietly educate yourself.

Would you kindly give me your best evidence for the power of genetic copying errors and selection to create molecular machinery?

 

[buckshot24]

Oh, and what are the inherent properties of mass and energy that make them "want to" form into living things?

 

[mysticjbyrd]

So you want me to do the research for you?

What do you mean by power?

There is no want, merely probability.

 

[abj13]

Would you kindly give me your best evidence for the power of genetic copying errors and selection to create molecular machinery?

Already posted:

Long M, VanKuren NW, Chen S, Vibranovski MD. New gene evolution:little did we know. Annual Review of Genetics. 2013;47:307-33.

Your response: Purposely ignoring and hiding from it