That’s convenient - any time you can’t back up a claim, you can just write off the question as “not serious.”
You’ve really turned intellectual dishonesty into an art form, haven’t you?
Not true. If the person is not on my shit list and says that he’s seriously skeptical, I will try to back up my claim.
If they are on my shit list, I don’t engage with them.
I find this claim to be totally believable.
Totally.
Thanks. Anyway, it’s easy enough to check – just see if Paranoid Randroid states that he is seriously skeptical. That’s all it will take.
I’m not skeptical. She did, in fact, make that argument. You just didn’t understand it.
She claimed that mutations in the genetic code don’t always translate into changes in the protein. That is true. It’s called “redundancy”. There are several different ways for a DNA chain to “spell” the amino acids that go in proteins.
Let’s take the amino acid Leucine for example. It is coded by one of the following: CTT, CTC, CTA, CTG, TTA, or TTG. That’s a lot of different ways for the DNA to “spell” leucine. This means that if there is a mutation that changes the third spot from a Thymine (T) to a Cytosine (C) i.e. CTT to CTC, the protein is still going to have a Leucine in that spot. Therefore, no change in the protein. Capiche?
You have apparently jumped on this simple, simple fact, to argue that Honesty is stupid, when it’s just you.
- Yes. Put up or shut up, asshole. 2) All of them, since you have never done so for anyone on your ‘ban’ list, asshole.
Did I mention that you’re an asshole?
And it must use those exact words, “seriously skeptical”, or it doesn’t count, and you’re ‘strawmanning’ him, and thus are in violation of rule 1, and he will ‘ban’ you unless you apologize.
Fucking dipshit.
With all due respect, Cheshire, I think you are missing the most ridiculous part of this. There is no reason to be skeptical of that claim by brazil84. Honesty did in fact claim that, but…
Honesty’s claim is completely factual. brazil84 is trying to pull some rhetorical bullshit here.
“Are you skeptical that my opponent claimed the square root of nine is three?!!!”
“um… no.”
“Aha! I win!”
I want to Pit all the Pitters in this pitiable Pitting thread. Smiling bandit Pits Honesty; other pitiful Pitters could at least have the grace to pick sides in that dispute. Instead, everyone piles up pitilessly on poor brazil84. Let me step up in Mr. 84’s defense, to say I Pit this hijacked Pitting. If I were in his shoes I’d resent it. (Not so much resent the direct insults, as resent the implied insult that Mr. 84 is too pitiably insignificant to deserve his own Pit thread.)
At least I tried to Pit Mr. Bandit for this comment:
I know nothing about the Detroit bankruptcy, but if Honesty’s perspective is even partially valid, the state government of Michigan is guilty of malice and hypocrisy, somewhat reminiscent of the Friedmanist mischief perpetrated against South Africa, some of the former Iron Curtain countries, and Iraq. Yet Honesty’s charges were not addressed at all in the cited thread. Please join Honesty’s complaint or debunk it.
I Pit the state government of Michigan, the GOP, and corrupt Friedmanist hypocrites.
More importantly, I Pit all the pitiful Dopers in this thread who are comfortable to Pit low-lying fruit rather than to explore the charges of billion-dollar corruption.
You shouldn’t, and I’ll tell you why.
Smiling Bandit started this pit thread, and hasn’t posted since. That is fucking cowardly. Honesty bothered to post and defend herself, but Smiling Bandit has been conspicuously quiet. I’m not letting him off the hook at all, but there is just nothing to respond to.
brazil84 just jumped forward to be Smiling Bandit’s proxy. I don’t think that’s what the bandit intended, but again… the dude’s been awful quiet for a pit thread he himself has started.
It was a stupid fucking boring lazy Pitting to begin with, and smiling bandit himself wasn’t interested enough to continue with it. Honesty has defended herself on the genetics charge, and smiling bandit’s Pitting on that issue fails miserably.
brazil84 has had at least four previous Pit threads. These are the ones in which his name appears in the thread title, in reverse chronological order:
brazil84: preening, sexist, self-imortant, gynophobic douche
I pit brazil84 for: his rules of debate; “quote me”; bailing out. (Nothing new under the sun)
You’ll notice how the titles have become progressively more disdainful as people have gotten to know him better. He’s a target because he’s changed his behavior not one iota despite all the Pittings, and seems incapable of learning anything. He’s hardly worth any new Pittings of his own; it suffices to ridicule him when he sticks his snout in other threads.
If you’re actually interested in this, there’s nothing keeping you from discussing it in the original thread. There’s no reason it has to be discussed again here if neither smiling bandit, Honesty, or anybody else cares to rehash it.
There was no point in making this post. **Brazil84 **lacks the intellectual capacity to actually have a conversation about genetics; his only role is to act as a little yapping dog at the heels of Chief Pedant, to post cites to papers he hasn’t read and couldn’t understand even if he did read, to “ban” people who call him out on his ignorance, to make repeated claims that have been previously discredited, to make repeated strawman claims while claiming that everyone else is strawmanning, and to be a general douchebag. He suffers from autism and obsessive repulsive disorder, and is incapable of human interaction. He’s like a particularly stupid Eliza.
The part where your behavior crosses into stupid is you repeating this behavior, with the same results. Trying to imagine how you might profit from doing this makes my mind boggle. Why would you continue to do this if you were an intelligent, reasonable person? Surely there is a better way to occupy your time.
Ehh, either way, have fun. <waves hands, finds something better to do>
No, Honesty claimed that this was the general rule:
Chief Pedant: That Eurasion group had a mitochondrial eve somewhere around 35-75K years ago, may have mated with Neanderthals, and acquired a set of genes (including, for example, broad penetrance of the haplotype D version of MCPH1) which are not present in the Africa group.
Honesty:Would you consider taking a college-level molecular biology class to further your knowledge in this subject? I think you’ll find the subject enlightening. Here’s a bit of foreshadowing. Read carefully, I get paid to teach this stuff, there’ll be a test at the end: Human haplogroups consist of mostly silent mutations which means there’s a change in a nucleotide but due to the degeneracy (e.g. or, in layman’s terms: redundancy) of the genetic code, there’s no change in the resultant protein (the physical expression of the gene, or the phenotype).
Now, using your example, this means while Europeans and Blacks have a change in nucleotide sequence, there is no change in the final protein. I’ll repeat: there’s no change in the final protein. There are evolutionary examples in which groups carry real, phenotypic changes that are passed down (e.g. Southern Europeans & CCR5 and Sub-saharan Africans & Hemoglobin S) but these were due to infection-induced bottlenecks, and these should be considered the exceptions not the rule.
Of course nobody can seriously dispute that there are lots of genetic differences among people and groups of people which don’t result in measurable differences among people and populations.
What Honesty disputes – and what is stupid – is that there are lots of genetic differences among people and groups of people which DO result in measurable differences among people and populations.
How exactly are you profiting from posting on an internet message board?
Will I start getting a monthly check for $100 if I become one of the popular kids?
As I’ve mentioned here before, I’m doing a PhD in Biology right now. Everything Honesty says in this quotation is factually accurate. One could, perhaps, if one was being extremely pedantic, criticize her for slightly over-generalizing in the last paragraph, but I think the context makes it clear what she’s trying to say, and she is absolutely correct. Your interpretation of what she is saying is inaccurate. It is absolutely true that most of the genetic changes between various human genetic groups are silent mutations.
However, I’m starting to remember now that you were one of the active participants on the “virulently racist” side of the Summer O’ Pseudoscientific Racism we had a while back. So it’s clearly pointless to attempt to engage with you on a purely factual level. You’ve got a massive, impenetrable +10 Filter of Prejudice in place, allowing you to live comfortably within your own personal world, unbothered by input from the outside.
brazil84 and the Chief are indeed a demonstration of another quality I see coming from many extremists, past experience has showed that when they do follow one big woo item, there is a big chance that they fall also for other stupid pseudosciences. I have seen then follow the same cherry picking “logic” when they defend climate change denial and in this case biological and genetic science.
And that takes us to the OP, IIRC the OP has a lot of trouble with history when it does not fit with right wing parameters, particularly when defending the military overthrow of the government in Honduras a few years back. A very disturbing trend is seen when he sees the Chief and brasil in action and then he chooses to pit Honesty.
I have a Ph.D. in Biology and 33 years professional experience in the field. I agree with Smeghead’s assessment of Honesty’s post.
Honesty knows far more about genetics than brazil84, who is both massively ignorant of the subject and too stupid to realize it.
Also too stupid to understand that “profit” here is being used in a figurative sense.
And you’re not merely “unpopular,” you’re toxic. Not one poster here has agreed with you here, not even those who might potentially be on your side politically. I certainly wouldn’t want you on my side of a debate. You discredit any position that you take because of your sheer dishonesty.
No response, brazil?