How to control the people : Keep them stupid and uninformed

[xthetenth]

I skipped 10 pages. What did I miss?

Oh, it's just bucky making himself an example of the thread's topic. Okay!

 

[BxgJ]

When you can't provide justification for your faith, insults are all you have left.

You know this is the situation you are in, not everyone else. Right?

Oh wait no you probably don't realize this.

 

[agent00f]

This post helps to shed a little light on the views of buckshot regarding more than just evolution.

We were discussing star formation, as in how clouds of gas in space collapse to form stars (that wasn't the main discussion in the thread, just one part). He actually doubted that stars could form that way, and when confronted with basic evidence and questioned on his doubts, this was his eventual response. Notice the use of 'fairy tale'? He considers the whole thing, not just evolution, to be a fairy tale.

I think it's relevant here to remind people there's little reason for true discussion with him regarding somewhat complex evolutionary topics, when he cannot grasp fairly basic physics. You could practically lay the evidence right in front of him (as I think Paratus did regarding eyes) and he wouldn't be able to understand it.

Now whether that lack of understanding is due to lack of ability, or a willing denial to protect his beliefs, I don't know. I would say some of both.

edit - that linked thread was large, the discussion referenced started on about page 22 I think, and continued to the end.

BxgJ, buckyball would need two neurons to rub together to actually grasp how science worked, and since his middle eastern saint didn't bless him with those, he will never actually understand any of this.

Best to just let him stay in the cave, he's pretty happy there.

buckshot isn't too dumb to understand science any more than Trump's too dumb to understand what David Duke represents.

 

[BurnItDwn]

buckshot isn't too dumb to understand science any more than Trump's too dumb to understand what David Duke represents.

I'm fairly certain that Trump is illiterate and likely he doesn't know what David Duke represents.
On the other hand, I believe buckshot is quite intelligent, and likely just pretending/trolling.

 

[agent00f]

I'm fairly certain that Trump is illiterate and likely he doesn't know what David Duke represents.
On the other hand, I believe buckshot is quite intelligent, and likely just pretending/trolling.

Trump perfectly knew who Duke was given he's spoken about the guy, even publicly, previous to those denials. He was just playing dumb same as that sort often do, which is why they identify together. In all fairness liberals love it when conservatives play dumb to cover dishonesty, because it feeds the liberal ego to be right/smart. That sort of mutually beneficial dependency is difficult to break.

 

[buckshot24]

You know this is the situation you are in, not everyone else. Right?

Oh wait no you probably don't realize this.

Then it should be trivial to demonstrate that mutation and selection could do what is required. Thus far all you see is somebody lining extant eyes up and assuming mutation and selection could account for those differences to show that they could. You have another example where e.coli DNA Polymerase III's active site changed slightly to not allow binding of the antibiotic which kept it from killing the mutants. Changing an active site's shape is trivial and not evidence nor an example of how things like krebs cycle, sexual reproduction, or any other multi part molecular function could have come about. If you know of any better examples I'd love to hear them.

I thought your side didn't have blind faith but it appears that I was wrong.

 

[buckshot24]

On the other hand, I believe buckshot is quite intelligent, and likely just pretending/trolling.

If I'm not pretending, am I a moron?

 

[jackstar7]

Then it should be trivial to demonstrate that mutation and selection could do what is required.

What makes you say this?

Why your consistent misuse of language in this thread?

 

[abj13]

The changing of the shape of an active site of an enzyme would NEVER lead to anything other than a differently shaped active site. That is a limit of that kind of change.

It is statements like this that highlight the very problems already discussed in this thread. Not only are people blatantly ignorant of facts and refuse to try to understand the world around them, you also have the usual false statements by this poster. Here you have someone trying to discuss fundamental biochemistry and biology whose posts reflect zero understanding of the topics at hand. All enzymes have an active site. That is the very definition of an enzyme includes at least one active site in which the chemical reaction is catalyzed. The activity of an active site is determined by the shape and amino acid residues within the site. Making statements that "changing the shape of an active site would NEVER lead to anything other than a differently shaped active site" highlight how absolutely uninformed he is on the topic.

Furthermore, a single mutation can have a dramatic effect on enzyme activity and specificity. There are many well known examples in biology of the effect of mutations on enzyme activity. For example, one mutation can completely change the substrate specificity of an enzyme, see:

Shi D, Yu X, Cabrera-Luque J, Chen TY, Roth L, Morizono H, Allewell NM, Tuchman M. A single mutation in the active site swaps the substrate specificity of N-acetyl-L-ornithine transcarbamylase and N-succinyl-L-ornithine transcarbamylase. Protein Sci. 2007 Aug;16(8):1689-99.

The above example was chose specifically because we all know Buckshot googles up information to sound informed. These are the fundamental issues the world faces when people try to act informed when they are purposely ignorant of the world around them.

 

[agent00f]

It is statements like this that highlight the very problems already discussed in this thread. Not only are people blatantly ignorant of facts and refuse to try to understand the world around them, you also have the usual false statements by this poster. Here you have someone trying to discuss fundamental biochemistry and biology whose posts reflect zero understanding of the topics at hand. All enzymes have an active site. That is the very definition of an enzyme includes at least one active site in which the chemical reaction is catalyzed. The activity of an active site is determined by the shape and amino acid residues within the site. Making statements that "changing the shape of an active site would NEVER lead to anything other than a differently shaped active site" highlight how absolutely uninformed he is on the topic.

Furthermore, a single mutation can have a dramatic effect on enzyme activity and specificity. There are many well known examples in biology of the effect of mutations on enzyme activity. For example, one mutation can completely change the substrate specificity of an enzyme, see:

Shi D, Yu X, Cabrera-Luque J, Chen TY, Roth L, Morizono H, Allewell NM, Tuchman M. A single mutation in the active site swaps the substrate specificity of N-acetyl-L-ornithine transcarbamylase and N-succinyl-L-ornithine transcarbamylase. Protein Sci. 2007 Aug;16(8):1689-99.

The above example was chose specifically because we all know Buckshot googles up information to sound informed. These are the fundamental issues the world faces when people try to act informed when they are purposely ignorant of the world around them.

There have been numerous threads in the past where people spent considerable time debunking the lines he pastes from degenerate media. The right wing basically consist of people like that, because if factual information mattered to them they wouldn't be conservative.

 

[cytg111]

You can't account for the formation of Krebs cycle via changing the shape of active sites in enzymes even if you do it 10^100 times.

http://courses.chem.indiana.edu/c582/documents/Krebs-cycle.pdf

Our analysis demonstrates that although there are several different chemical solutions to this problem, the design of this metabolic pathway as it occurs in living cells is the best chemical solution: It has the least possible number of steps and it also has the greatest ATP yielding. Study of the evolutionary possibilities of each one—taking the available material to build new pathways—demonstrates that the emergence of the Krebs cycle has been a typical case of opportunism in molecular evolution. Our analysis proves, therefore, that the role of opportunism in evolution has converted a problem of several possible chemical solutions into a single-solution problem, with the actual Krebs cycle demonstrated to be the best possible chemical design. Our results also allow us to derive the rules under which metabolic pathways emerged during the origin of life.

Keep em coming .

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

You know he's not gonna read it, don't you? He's not here for honest debate or learning.

 

[cytg111]

You know he's not gonna read it, don't you? He's not here for honest debate or learning.

I am forever the optimist... and persistent like a witness of jehovah... I must save his soul hehe .

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

He hasn't got a soul to save. He long since bargained it away to be on the "winning team."

 

[Engineer]

Do you have the first clue why you believe this theory or is it just what you've been told?

It's not a theory. It's been proven many times.

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

Stop engaging with the dumb bastard. We've shown him all the evidence and he's flat-out ignoring it.

 

[buckshot24]

It is statements like this that highlight the very problems already discussed in this thread. Not only are people blatantly ignorant of facts and refuse to try to understand the world around them, you also have the usual false statements by this poster. Here you have someone trying to discuss fundamental biochemistry and biology whose posts reflect zero understanding of the topics at hand. All enzymes have an active site. That is the very definition of an enzyme includes at least one active site in which the chemical reaction is catalyzed. The activity of an active site is determined by the shape and amino acid residues within the site. Making statements that "changing the shape of an active site would NEVER lead to anything other than a differently shaped active site" highlight how absolutely uninformed he is on the topic.

Furthermore, a single mutation can have a dramatic effect on enzyme activity and specificity. There are many well known examples in biology of the effect of mutations on enzyme activity. For example, one mutation can completely change the substrate specificity of an enzyme, see:

Shi D, Yu X, Cabrera-Luque J, Chen TY, Roth L, Morizono H, Allewell NM, Tuchman M. A single mutation in the active site swaps the substrate specificity of N-acetyl-L-ornithine transcarbamylase and N-succinyl-L-ornithine transcarbamylase. Protein Sci. 2007 Aug;16(8):1689-99.

The above example was chose specifically because we all know Buckshot googles up information to sound informed. These are the fundamental issues the world faces when people try to act informed when they are purposely ignorant of the world around them.

How many of your 550 posts have been in reply to mine? 100 wouldn't be an unreasonable guess, would it?

The above was chosen because it was in response to what was presented by a poster. You are simply wrong about that. This also doesn't change the accuracy of what I've said at all. Active sites shape do change and do inhibit binding and these sorts of changes cannot be realistically extrapolated out into the creation of multi part molecular machines we find in cells. I never said the shape was the only thing that could affect catalysis either.

 

[buckshot24]

It's not a theory. It's been proven many times.

How about an example of this proof then?

 

[Engineer]

How about an example of this proof then?

I'm not going to argue with you......

 

[IronWing]

I'm not going to argue with you......

 

[buckshot24]

http://courses.chem.indiana.edu/c582/documents/Krebs-cycle.pdf



Keep em coming .

Did you read what you quoted from me? It appears not.

Does this search page look familiar?

https://www.google.com/search?q=evo...rome..69i57.4255j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

I think you should read the entire paper and come back and tell me how it meets the requirement you thought it met.

 

[buckshot24]

I'm not going to argue with you......

Then don't. Just believe what you've been told.

 

[cytg111]

He hasn't got a soul to save. He long since bargained it away to be on the "winning team."

I feel like half the problem this world has, in our context of being "post factual", is that stuff like this not challenged enough thus it gains a platform and before you know it we have cascades of flat earthers and worse(back to the title/topic at hand). I strongly believe we must fight misinformation wherever we can.

 

[Engineer]

Do you have the first clue why you believe this theory or is it just what you've been told?

How about an example of this proof then?

You do realize that a theory hasn't been proved or disproved, correct?

 

[buckshot24]

I feel like half the problem this world has, in our context of being "post factual", is that stuff like this not challenged enough thus it gains a platform and before you know it we have cascades of flat earthers and worse(back to the title/topic at hand). I strongly believe we must fight misinformation wherever we can.

Which is what I'm doing.