How to control the people : Keep them stupid and uninformed

[Azuma Hazuki]

No you're not, you blind Quixote. You're spreading the misinformation. On any other forum I've ever been to you'd have long since been permbanned for your bullshit.

 

[buckshot24]

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

I think you're confused. You said it wasn't a theory and by "it" I'm assuming you mean modern theory of evolution (which is a theory). You said it wasn't a theory (incorrectly) and that it was proven over and over again. So I asked for this proof.

The modern day theory of evolution (better known as the "Modern Synthesis") IS a scientific theory.

 

[abj13]

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

Hilarious. And how many of your posts do you actually offer a cognitive thought? How many derail thread topics? You should be the last person commenting on posting history.

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.

"changing the shape of an active site would NEVER lead to anything other than a differently shaped active site"

You got caught once again posting false information. Changing the shape of the active site alters substrate specificity and function of the enzyme. Man up to it.

If you cannot even understand the fundamentals of biochemistry and biology, then your secondary claims about evolution are meaningless since you cannot even grasp fundamental concepts. In addition, it is EXACTLY these types of changes that lead to new gene functions, new regulatory pathways, and enzymatic pathways. These already have been discussed in publications, including:

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

I think they should change the title, "New gene evolution:little did Buckshot learn by Google."

 

[cytg111]

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.

Funny part is, why didnt you do that search before spouting that nonsense? Its like a 20 second effort to not set your self up for immediate debunking. It makes me think that you are copy/pasting this stuff uncritically from some very non-scientific source. You should always question your sources you know, its how science works.

I think you should read the paper and come back and tell me why it does not address the requirements of an iterative evolutionary cycle explaining Krebs.

 

[abj13]

Which is what I'm doing.

Then why post statements like: "changing the shape of an active site would NEVER lead to anything other than a differently shaped active site"

That is blatant misinformation.

 

[Engineer]

I think you're confused. You said it wasn't a theory and by "it" I'm assuming you mean modern theory of evolution (which is a theory). You said it wasn't a theory (incorrectly) and that it was proven over and over again. So I asked for this proof.

The modern day theory of evolution (better known as the "Modern Synthesis") IS a scientific theory.

I didn't say it was a theory. You did, hence the quotes from you, first calling it a theory and second, asking for proof. Why would you ask for proof if you think it's a theory? Or do you?????

Why do I care about the modern day theory of evolution and what does that have to do with the theory of idiots?

Damn, you almost had me.....whew!!!!

 

[cytg111]

Which is what I'm doing.

No, buckshot, you are being a flat earther is what you are doing.

 

[buckshot24]

I didn't say it was a theory. You did, hence the quotes from you, first calling it a theory and second, asking for proof. Why would you ask for proof if you think it's a theory? Or do you?????

Why do I care about the modern day theory of evolution and what does that have to do with the theory of idiots?

Damn, you almost had me.....whew!!!!

You said it wasn't a theory and that it has been proven. Not me. Go bake some cookies if you don't want to talk about this.

 

[Engineer]

Proof.......

(and I don't have any cookies)

Good luck all....

 

[buckshot24]

Hilarious. And how many of your posts do you actually offer a cognitive thought? How many derail thread topics? You should be the last person commenting on posting history.

Well, 100? Or is that too high? It wasn't meant to be a slight.

"changing the shape of an active site would NEVER lead to anything other than a differently shaped active site"

You got caught once again posting false information. Changing the shape of the active site alters substrate specificity and function of the enzyme. Man up to it.

But you still are left with a different shaped active site. How can I be "caught" when you're just making things up about what I've said?

If you cannot even understand the fundamentals of biochemistry and biology, then your secondary claims about evolution are meaningless since you cannot even grasp fundamental concepts. In addition, it is EXACTLY these types of changes that lead to new gene functions, new regulatory pathways, and enzymatic pathways. These already have been discussed in publications, including:

I wasn't wrong first of all. I'm remembering how you argue again, quibble about irrelevancies (like mutation rates for individual nucleotides) and act like it makes one jot or tittle worth of difference. Oh and bluster.

In the provided example nothing new happened. The antibiotic couldn't bind to the polymorase so it couldn't kill the bacteria. Hardly a convincing demonstration that mutation and selection could produce the kinds of results your theory requires. If the opposite happened then that would be more interesting.

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

Thank you for the reference. I'll take a look at it.

Here is the link to the full paper for those interested.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4281893/

 

[buckshot24]

No, buckshot, you are being a flat earther is what you are doing.

Earth is a globe. It is observable. All I want is observable evidence that mutation and selection can actually generate the vast levels of complexity we find in living systems.

 

[buckshot24]

Funny part is, why didnt you do that search before spouting that nonsense? Its like a 20 second effort to not set your self up for immediate debunking. It makes me think that you are copy/pasting this stuff uncritically from some very non-scientific source. You should always question your sources you know, its how science works.

I think you should read the paper and come back and tell me why it does not address the requirements of an iterative evolutionary cycle explaining Krebs.

You're welcome to search for my words anywhere on the internet, if I were copying and pasting them it would be readily apparent. And ironically enough it was you who copied and pasted from an article that appears you didn't read or understand.

 

[Paratus]

Which is what I'm doing.

Where in this thread have you provided any information?

 

[Paratus]

Earth is a globe. It is observable. All I want is observable evidence that mutation and selection can actually generate the vast levels of complexity we find in living systems.

Wrong.

The Earth is not a globe. It's an oblate spheroid. Seems you struggle with observable facts.

 

[abj13]

But you still are left with a different shaped active site. How can I be "caught" when you're just making things up about what I've said?

Keep on spinning in circles. It is readily obvious how you preface your reply and ignore the preciseness of the language you selected. "changing the shape of an active site would NEVER lead to anything other than a differently shaped active site"

If you wanted to be accurate in saying that changing the active site leads to other effects, you would have never qualified your statement with that language ("never lead to anything other"). It is clear that you said that changing the active site only changes the shape. It doesn't matter how bad you try to spin it, you said it. If you are fighting against misinformation, then you should be correcting your false statement.

Furthermore, I have already provided one example of a single mutation leading to a completely different function of an enzyme, contradicting your false statement above. Your response? Nothing.

I wasn't wrong first of all. I'm remembering how you argue again, quibble about irrelevancies (like mutation rates for individual nucleotides) and act like it makes one jot or tittle worth of difference. Oh and bluster.

I actually provide arguments. Repeatedly. With Evidence. You provide nothing of content. Do you ever wonder why everyone on this board criticizes your inability to provide anything of value to this forum? Then once you are caught providing misinformation, you either repeatedly post meaningless replies or off topic details (like talking about someone's posting history) and devolve the situation to the point where you think blocking people is a substitute for actually providing posting meaningful content.

In the provided example nothing new happened. The antibiotic couldn't bind to the polymorase so it couldn't kill the bacteria. Hardly a convincing demonstration that mutation and selection could produce the kinds of results your theory requires. If the opposite happened then that would be more interesting.

See the previously posted example I have provided, which you have repeatedly failed to acknowledge.

Thank you for the reference. I'll take a look at it.

That has been posted numerous times on this forum and you still refuse to read it.The reason? You cannot find a google search that interprets the information and formulates an argument against evolution. That is the reason why you repeatedly refuse to discuss that review of the literature.

 

[Paratus]

@buckshot24
.. continued...
Which is probably why you've missed the fact that the evidence that supports the theory of evolution is:

• Entire fossil record
• The entire plant and animal kingdom
• DNA

You do realize the theory was created to explain the vast level of complexity in living systems alive and dead we've observed.

It's made many accurate predictions and is proven useful.

You have yet to prove anything about it is suspect.

 

[soulcougher73]

Earth is a globe. It is observable. All I want is observable evidence that mutation and selection can actually generate the vast levels of complexity we find in living systems.

I dont think we have the time to prove what you want. It took billions of years to get where we are now and you want all that in like 1 minute LOL Get real.

 

[Jhhnn]

Y'all been feeding the troll, again. Look at how he's directed the conversation into evolution when there's a helluva lot more important stuff that shapes the general misperception on the Right. You know, like how to spot a con man. How to avoid emotionally pleasing traps of rhetoric. How to think with the head on your shoulders instead of the head of your dick.

 

[Engineer]

Y'all been feeding the troll, again. Look at how he's directed the conversation into evolution when there's a helluva lot more important stuff that shapes the general misperception on the Right. You know, like how to spot a con man. How to avoid emotionally pleasing traps of rhetoric. How to think with the head on your shoulders instead of the head of your dick.

Again, my quote (from earlier in the thread).......

PROOF....

 

[greatnoob]

Keep on spinning in circles. It is readily obvious how you preface your reply and ignore the preciseness of the language you selected. "changing the shape of an active site would NEVER lead to anything other than a differently shaped active site"

Yeah, I realised this too and called him out on it earlier In the thread. It sounds like a 7 year old tossing around words they don't understand:

Not the sort of hypothesis I'm suggesting. Are you done swinging and missing?

That was all I needed to read to know the guy was either an uneducated 7th grade dropout or an actual inbred. I'm starting to think he's both because there is no way somebody can be this stupid.

 

[nickqt]

Yeah, I realised this too and called him out on it earlier In the thread. It sounds like a 7 year old tossing around words they don't understand:



That was all I needed to read to know the guy was either an uneducated 7th grade dropout or an actual inbred. I'm starting to think he's both because there is no way somebody can be this stupid.

As I've said, here's the rebuttal without multisyllable word salad:

Things are complicated, because God.

 

[zinfamous]

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

yep, and it has nothing to do with belief. But we already know why this entire concept confuses you: it is written in the phrases in this quoted post.

You simply don't understand the scientific method. Some idiot poisoned your brain at an early age, and taught you creation alongside evolution, treated them equal, and pissed all over the scientific method. Being an unquestioning, uncurious, malleable child, you just accepted what your betters taught you, and never dared quesiton this.

see: you challenge actual skeptics with being unable to question knowledge, when this behavior is written all over your face. Everyone knows this, we have always knows this. It's plainly fucking obvious. You're the only one that doesn't get it. not at all. You're a fucking tunnel-visioned moron that hasn't spent a second of your life questioning the things you were taught back when you were an idiot kid.

not once. not one fucking time.

this is why you are a fucking idiot, and rightfully ridiculed. you come into these threads, project your own obvious failures onto everyone else, then ask "who me? prove it!" You're useless, buckshat. stop wasting everyone's time.

 

[zinfamous]

I won't insult you or your intelligence. I apologize for doing so before, please forgive me.

But genetic copying errors and selection is still not demonstrated to be able to produce the result your blind faith in "evolution" requires. You should examine your faith instead of succumbing to your indoctrination blindly.

fuck you, buckshit. fuck you and your fucking genetic heritage. you should be arrested as a child abuser, spreading this type of poisonous idiocy. No wonder your town and quite possibly your jobless family are addicted to opioids and voted for Trump.

 

[buckshot24]

Keep on spinning in circles. It is readily obvious how you preface your reply and ignore the preciseness of the language you selected. "changing the shape of an active site would NEVER lead to anything other than a differently shaped active site"

This is one of the most ridiculous criticisms I've ever seen. In the cited article (by woolfe) the shape differences caused the inhibition of binding of the antibiotic and allowed the e.coli to NOT BE KILLED. Obviously your ridiculously wooden reading of my words were not my intent. I have now told you it wasn't my intent, twice now. Of course there are consequences to these differing active site shapes but at the end of the day you have different shapes, and that's it. As for the substrates, irrelevant.

 

[buckshot24]

@buckshot24
.. continued...
Which is probably why you've missed the fact that the evidence that supports the theory of evolution is:

• Entire fossil record
• The entire plant and animal kingdom
• DNA

You do realize the theory was created to explain the vast level of complexity in living systems alive and dead we've observed.

It's made many accurate predictions and is proven useful.

You have yet to prove anything about it is suspect.

Could you tell me how story telling about extant eyes while assuming mutation and selection created the differences demonstrates that mutation and selection could actually do it?