TalkOrigins Archive glitch

Everyone is wondering what happened to the TalkOrigins Archive — it's currently inaccessible. Don't panic! The commercial host juggled servers around a little bit, it got its IP address changed, and those who run the show are are scrambling to update the IP with the domain name registrar. It shall return soon. You can use a backup domain at toarchive.org until everything is realigned.

Tags

More like this

The website www.talkorigins.org is now back up, although links to the temporary archive www.toarchive.org/ still work for now. The story is roughly this - the company (joker.com) we bought the domain name from reassigned the IP number for the site as part of changing their data centre. They…
The talkorigins domain has been inaccessible for some time now…but no more. All the problems have been resolved and you can now find all the content back online at talkorigins.org.
Pattern Recognition in Physics (or, if you prefer, Pattern Recognition in Physics) appears to have finally shuffled off this mortal coil; h/t DM. As late as January 2016 its arid mummified cadaver was propped up at http://www.pattern-recognition-in-physics.com/. But it would appear that either the…
If you're looking for a website that gives a nice intro to the nature of science and evolution, but doesn't use lots of jargon, you should check out This View of Life. From the About page: The aim of this project is to present the topic of evolution in a scientifically accurate manner that avoids…

I often talk to creationists on the internet (yeah, I know they're a waste of time), and I usually provide them with my favorite part of the TalkOrigins website, which is Ken Miller explaining evolution at the Dover trial. Since TalkOrigins started having this temporary problem, I've been giving the willfully ignorant creationists links to this video and this video which describe some of the lead-pipe evidence for evolution from molecular biology. Of course creationists can't understand anything no matter how well it's explained.

Please don't yell - I'm sure this is a "wow is he out of the loop question" but will the TalkOrigins feedback ever return?

By LibraryGuy (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

bob, you should take that seriously.

...since it comes from someone with tremendous personal experience in projecting.

OTOH, maybe it's just projecting itself again.

yeah, that's more likely.

Mr. Stimpson, if you want to prove I'm wrong about the willful ignorance of creationists and their inability to understand even the most simple concepts, why don't you see if you can understand my two favorite videos (see #4).

Or this: tinyurl.com/5zswzq

By Intraquarkic (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

why don't you see if you can understand my two favorite videos

BobC

Why don't you see if you can stop assuming that I didn't make it past the 3rd grade.

That said, I wonder of PZ would be willing to comment on the accuracy of the information presented in the videos?

Did I see another glich just now?
The top of your web page has an ad for the Salvation Army !

By Richard Otter (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

One some of the christianist sites I occasionally lurk on and diddle them once in a while they have actually banned links to http://talkorigins.org because it is an "anti-Christian" site (or something.)

Well, it does objective reality such as detected through the scientific method, so yeah, they've got a point.

By Brownian, OM (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

That said, I wonder of PZ would be willing to comment on the accuracy of the information presented in the videos?

Maybe, but what would be the relevance to you? I mean, I could discuss noun classes in Swahili, but you wouldn't understand that either.

By Brownian, OM (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

Mr. Stimpson (#11), every biologist in the world agrees with the information in those two videos. Of course you didn't understand any of it, did you? If you did understand it you wouldn't still be a creationist.

One some of the christianist sites I occasionally lurk on and diddle them once in a while they have actually banned links to http://talkorigins.org because it is an "anti-Christian" site (or something.)

I'm not surprised some cowardly Christians would ban links to a science website.

Why don't you see if you can stop assuming that I didn't make it past the 3rd grade.

because we've been waiting for months for you to indicate otherwise?

That said, I wonder of PZ would be willing to comment on the accuracy of the information presented in the videos?

burden shifting again, are we stimpy, or is that too complex for you to parse?

I think that to say "scrambling" is the wrong term to use. Changing an IP address in the DNS tables only takes an hour or two.

I suspect there is more to this problem than has been reported.

You can't argue evolution with Randy, he has a precambrian bunny so despite all the evidence for evolution he's just going to complain about entropy and say that it's impossible.

Changing an IP address in the DNS tables only takes an hour or two.

takes about 10 seconds, actually.

sometimes it does take time to propagate after the changes are made, however.

I've seen changes I have made take over a day to fully propagate.

every biologist in the world agrees with the information in those two videos.

Really? How many of them did you talk to? I suppose I'll just have to assume that you talked to all of them and that your information is 100% accurate.

Really? How many of them did you talk to? I suppose I'll just have to assume that you talked to all of them and that your information is 100% accurate.

Are you really going to beg the issue on the words that BobC used? Whether every single one agrees or there is an overwhelming consensus on the issue is hardly the point of contention here. It's that you think you know better than 99.9% of the scientific community despite no biology training.

I suppose I'll just have to assume that you talked to all of them and that your information is 100% accurate.

why don't you just do that, then?

you can assume everyone here but you has spoken with all of them as well.

you have a lot of work to do to catch up.

Randy, how is your paper on your entropy ideas coming along? After all, you don't want to lose credit for them.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

Dale,

Changing in IP in a DNS table takes any competent admin about 30 seconds or to run a script if you're using a GUI to request a change on a hosting service's server. Depending on how often your host pushes changes it could be several hours after that that the rest of the world sees those changes (for example Speakeasy pushes every 4 hours). And after that depending on a lot of variables it can take up to three hours for the change to be visible to everybody. Granted that's less common these days but it still happens. If you have to get an admin to do it for you it can take shorter or longer depending on how well he likes or dislikes you and how much beer you bring her.

Are you really going to beg the issue on the words that BobC used?

Well, he certainly can't argue against evolution on biological grounds, can he?

By Brownian, OM (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

Ditto Randy. Shut up about evolution.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

Does anyone know what the problem is over there?

Randy's nebulous god (don't you dare insult him by suggesting it's merely the Christian Jehovah with some of the more sticky theology removed--Randy's thoughts are much more complicated than that) got angry and smote it?

By Brownian, OM (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

While I thank you for the continuous promotion of my blog (if I do it, it would just be wanking), I'm still going to point out every time you post that your idea is a precambrian bunny of which you ignore all other evidence. You go against the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community on an issue that has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. Hell it's even addressed on Talk.Origins in several places.But of course that isn't good enough for you Randy, you won't be shaken out of thinking you have a precambrian bunny. You just keep going and going thinking that your opinion is more important than the entire scientific community. If you really want your idea taken seriously, so what NoR suggested and submit it for peer review.

Dear lord. It very definitely isn't "TalkOrigin.org". That was a costly typo.

By Guy Incognito (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

Randy, SHUT THE FUCK UP!
You stupid assgit, do you know how stupid you look when you continually post the Kelosophy page? You are made to look like a moron, becasue you have completety failed to respond to questions, in addition to being shown to know nothing in the process! I've also personally given links that proved how retarded you are. Multiple times, on the Evolving the Mona Lisa Thread, for instance. So either find some GOD DAMN EVIDENCE, or leave!

You stupid assgit, do you know how stupid you look when you continually post the Kelosophy page? You are made to look like a moron, becasue you have completety failed to respond to questions, in addition to being shown to know nothing in the process!

hahahahahahahahahahahaha

Why don't you see if you can stop assuming that I didn't make it past the 3rd grade.

What evidence do we have that you made it as far as the 3rd grade? Someone who rejects science for mythology cannot be said to be well educated.

By 'Tis Himself (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

Randy,

I'm having trouble following what you are trying to say. Do you have a problem with what either of those two videos is saying? If so, what exactly is the problem?

I'm relieved the Talkorigins site is still active. Far too valuable a resource to lose. I assume everything is well backed up PZ ?

However, the "what's new" section is still a dead link.

It's also a shame they abandoned the monthly feedback. I always enjoyed reading this, especially the answers to the numerous claims from various YECs.

By Peter Henderson (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

sng wrote...

about it taking a few hours for DNS changes to propagate out.

Yep, I know that - I've got a DynDns service and based my statement on the values they give. My point in raising this is that talkorigins has been down for days (weeks?) not hours.

The explanation that it is only a DNS update that is needed doesn't fit with the evidence.

I was going to ask Mr. Stimpson the same question echidna asked. Do you have any problems with the two videos I linked to in #4? If you have no problems with it, congratulations, you have given up your belief in magical creation. If there's something you don't like, what is it? I'm betting you think God inserts ERVs into creatures, being careful to insert the ERVs into the exact same locations of more than one species, because your fairy enjoys deceiving biologists. Is that what you believe?

ScienceBlogs glitch: as of the past day or so, sometimes the only bit of a page which loads is the banner advert at the top with no other content at all (and the browser status bar warning that there were errors on the page). A refresh brings up the page properly but at times that means as many as 1 in 2 attempts aren't working.

I'm having trouble following what you are trying to say. Do you have a problem with what either of those two videos is saying? If so, what exactly is the problem?

He can't right now, echidna; he's busy poring over the videos so he can jump on some tangential point to misinterpret and declare the Rosetta Stone of God's Own Glorious Language. He mayeth protest too much, but here he's in perfect company with the biblical creationists in that the totality of support for his theory involves finding gaps or problems in evoplution.

It's like they say in the Bible, "ignore the entire fucking forest of redwoods in thine own theory so that thou mayest focus on the mote in thy brother's theory."

I don't recall the chapter that's taken from, but it's clearly a verse from Jesus' Sermon on Mount Rainier to his Faithful Disciples of the Discovery Institute.

By Brownian, OM (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

There is indeed more to the TO Archive's current kerfluffle than just changing an IP in a DNS table. Among other things, there's also a company that doesn't answer its telephone... Seethis TO thread (sorry for the Google groups link, but it's just easier for me) for further details...

Grrr... I went to the toarchive site. I used the search function. It gives links to the original talkorigins site.

By Reginald Selkirk (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

David #13 and replies thereto:

So just decimalize the IP address or use binary octets or even a single 32 bit binary for the address such as:

http://3519607736/subdirectory/path/to_article.html

That is the decimal address for talkorigins.org.

The binary is:

http://11010001110010001111001110111000/subdir/path.... etc.

One of many sites that provide similar functions is:
http://www.allredroster.com/iptodec.htm

I just did an nslookup on darwin.talkorigins.org and it does not resolve so the problem may be with the local DNS server at talk origins, the overall domain registry appears to be fine.

If talkorigins has been down for days I suspect it has been cracked again, even creationists can be script kiddies if they read a book or two. If the site is actually hosted at a commercial server farm this would be no surprise. Years ago I had a server co-located for the bandwidth advantage and despite my best efforts it would get hacked into every two or three months because the co-lo admins couldn't care less what their clients ran on the LAN. At one point I found 3 packet sniffers running on the same LAN as our server so it came as no surprise that we were getting cracked. For a while we went to running SSH for all admin functions and that worked but it was burdensome because I never found an SSH client that would run correctly under any windoze OS and hence was unable to do any admin when traveling because I didn't have a unix laptop.

I have missed the feedback and post of the month features of TO as well. They were never restored after the last hack job on Darwin, what? two years ago now? I strongly suspect that it is because it is a non-trivial exercise to write such application scripts securely and even harder to bombproof any freeware that might be available...

I'll stop now before this turns into a rant.

Cheers,

By Krubozumo Nyankoye (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

BobC

I thought the videos were interesting. I have questions about the accuracy of the information. I am wondering if PZ could would be willing to weigh in how acurrate the information is -- and if not 100% accurate what is wrong or has been exhagerated.

I thought the videos were interesting. I have questions about the accuracy of the information. I am wondering if PZ could would be willing to weigh in how acurrate the information is -- and if not 100% accurate what is wrong or has been exhagerated.

What information are you concerned about the accuracy of specifically?

Mr. Stimpson (#47), the same information can be found in countless places in the internet. Just search for it. I selected these two videos because I thought their explanations were well done and easy to understand. When I said every biologist in the world knows about these important discoveries I wasn't making that up. The information in those videos are undeniable facts. And yes this information is 100% accurate, unless you want to call thousands of biologists liars.

exhagerated.

Is that like witch burning?

Mr Stimpson - the videos demonstrate clearly common descent of chimpanzees and humans. What beef could you possibly have with that? Are the scientists misunderstanding the results? Are they, and many on this site, simply lying? If you took the time to study for years at a difficult subject, then possibly you might be in a position to question their methodology or results, but I must warn you that you would find nothing amiss - though it would make you a great deal less ignorant about science. This and similar evidence shows conclusively that we are descended from a common ancestor with chimps, evolution is a fact, and that's that. Oh, and as for calling PZ in to assert the veracity of the science here well....why aren't you just satisfied with his trained monkeys. like me?

Oh

BobC,

How about pointing me to a good science reference -- not an apologetic reference like talkorigins.org.

I have tried to explore this question some time ago using software tools at the University of Santa Cruz's genome database website but as far as I could tell the tools required to verify the information don't exist.

I was hoping someone had organized the retrovirus sequences into a relational database like Access or SQL Server so that someone could see which genomes they appear in by executing some simple SQL statements. Has that work been done to your knowledge? If so, point me to it.

Mr Stimpson - the videos demonstrate clearly common descent of chimpanzees and humans. What beef could you possibly have with that? Are the scientists misunderstanding the results? Are they, and many on this site, simply lying? If you took the time to study for years at a difficult subject, then possibly you might be in a position to question their methodology or results, but I must warn you that you would find nothing amiss - though it would make you a great deal less ignorant about science. This and similar evidence shows conclusively that we are descended from a common ancestor with chimps, evolution is a fact, and that's that. Oh, and as for calling PZ in to assert the veracity of the science here well....why aren't you just satisfied with his trained monkeys. like me?

Well, aside from the fact that the videos provide evidence that conflict with his previous convictions, creationists seem to think science is like some kind of racquetball pyramid wherein one becomes the champion by defeating the prevailing champion in debate.

I wonder if that has to do with the scala naturae they all seem to inherently believe in.

By Brownian, OM (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

How about pointing me to a good science reference -- not an apologetic reference like talkorigins.org.

There's nothing wrong with Talk.Origins, you are just trying to paint it as untrustworthy as a reason to dismiss the content.

How is it that creationists are sooooo baaaaaad at searching out references- library skills that they should have mastered in grade school. I was going to give Randy the benefit of the doubt on his 3rd grade education- maybe not. A simple, easy to read reference with enough original citations to keep you occupied is Richard Dawkins' 'The Ancestors tale.' Look it up on Amazon for more details. Any bookstore carries it.
A book lighter on original citations but not quite so far above your level is Bill Bryson's A Short History of Everything. If you want primary literature, just pick up the latest edition of the British Journal Nature: warning- it can has maths.

Oh, and as for calling PZ in to assert the veracity of the science here well....why aren't you just satisfied with his trained monkeys. like me?

AnthonyK, I have my reasons. Also, as far as I know you could be some highschool kid. You don't link to a blog or myspace profile or anything that would tell me something about you.

I prefer to talk to someone I know something about, which is why I will usually respond to Kel but not to RickrOll. But today I am making an exception for BobC.

Randy,

Here's PubMed. Type "ERV" in the box following

Search PubMed For

and click "Go".

You'll get 301 papers as of this comment. Pick one. Read it.

Repeat as necessary.

By Brownian, OM (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

Well, that told me. I am suitably humbled.
PZ - Randy's saying I'm insignificant to him!

The Berkley page on evolution:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

This is on their site - "Browse the Talk Origins Archive, a rich source of information about evolution and the evolution/creation controversy."

What scientific american had to say about talk origins - "Talk.Origins archive (www.talkorigins.org). This wonderfully thorough online resource compiles useful essays and commentaries that have appeared in Usenet discussions about creationism and evolution. It offers detailed discussions (some of which may be too sophisticated for casual readers) and bibliographies relating to virtually any objection to evolution that creationists might raise."

What the Smithsonian says about talk origins - " A great site for the interested student. While the aim of the site is to be a forum for debate between creationist and paleoanthropological thinking, there is still a lot of generally interesting information here."

In Oxford's Encyclopedia of evolution - "Talk.origins Archives. http://www.talkoriggins.org [sic]. Best online source for overviews of evidence for evolution and analyses of creationist claims recarding science and evidence. Includes M. Isaak's "What is Creationism" (2000), with its links to sites advocating most of the full range of American creationist positions, both Christian and non-Christian, and an introduction to creation myths generally."

@Anthony K. That might be a good thing since Randy may go postal when he finds his world view overturned by facts.

@Brownian Your answer was delivered with more patience and detail than mine. I react badly to the 'shuck and duck' method of (not)answering direct questions employed by Randy.

I prefer to talk to someone I know something about, which is why I will usually respond to Kel but not to RickrOll. But today I am making an exception for BobC.

Do you still love me Randy?

Doesn't google have all of this in the USENET archive they bought from DejaNews?

-jcr

By John C. Randolph (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

Posted by: Randy Stimpson | December 16, 2008 7:30 PM: "BobC, How about pointing me to a good science reference"

Don't ask me. I know next to nothing about science. Did you know there's a search engine called google? Do you think you could use that instead of having somebody hold your hand?

Rev. I was referring to one of your blog entries. I can't seem to find it now. Three people on a motor cycle or something talking about Barak Hussein Obama.

But I don't have access to PubMed. A subscription costs $198 a year.

Randy, you don't need a subscription to search the literature. Whether or not you can have access to specific journal articles is a different matter.

Many journals allow free access to articles, many don't. Be prepared to be either pleased or disappointed when you look. Be aware though, that your limited access to the primary literature is going to be an impediment, so you'll have to either ease up on your criticism of references like talkorigins or be prepared to shell out for an alumnus or community member library card, if any of the universities or colleges near you offer them.

Outside of the primary literature, you can certainly look for texts in bookstores, including many university and college bookstores that sell to non-students, or otherwise have copies of good texts that aren't reserved for students taking courses. Google-fu might help you find out what books are being assigned for courses you're interested in, and there'll for sure be offers from students from previous terms itching to ditch their copies at reasonable prices (why anyone would willingly get rid of a book is beyond me, but...).

Finally, for stuff that's aimed at the layperson, there's most certainly a Barnes & Noble nearby with a large 'Science' section that you can simply wander through but strangely haven't yet, and great suggestions for books to look for have already been made upthread).

It's bizarre that a man with such faith in his intellect would need to be told all this, but there you go.

By Brownian, OM (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

I never met a creationist who wasn't willfully ignorant. If presented with powerful evidence, they refuse to talk about it except to lie about it or say it's not accurate. Ask them to do their own research and all they want to do is talk about "sandwiches for me to eat" or some other nonsense. They want to change the subject because they are terrified of reality.

mothra @ #55- "How is it that creationists are sooooo baaaaaad at searching out references- library skills that they should have mastered in grade school?"

I have no idea, but you're absolutely right. It's like they need to be led by the hand to information, the way you lead a child to the door marked "restroom".
Since good information is so easy to find these days, I sense some dishonesty in their motives.

BobC #70,

After this thread, Randy won't have any more excuses now, will he?

By Brownian, OM (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

BoBC #70, that is very true. On some recent thread I brought something up about that. It seems whenever someone asks a question that might require research or understanding suddenly you get a statement about some small part of someone else's posting, usually something small and unrelated, but never something related to the actual point.

BobC,

A youtube video is hardly powerful evidence. It might be for someone who knows next to nothing about science. I think its appropriate to investigate the veracity of claims such as those made by the video. I don't think you have done that.

You admit to knowing next to nothing about science. I don't think you are in a position to call others willfully ignorant. With your help I have proved my initial point in #6.

We're all delighted that you have proved yourself right. Thankyou for using our validation services.

In comment #73, Travis wrote:

BoBC #70, that is very true. On some recent thread I brought something up about that. It seems whenever someone asks a question that might require research or understanding suddenly you get a statement about some small part of someone else's posting, usually something small and unrelated, but never something related to the actual point.

In the very next comment, Randy Stimpson wrote:

BobC,

A youtube video is hardly powerful evidence. It might be for someone who knows next to nothing about science. I think its appropriate to investigate the veracity of claims such as those made by the video. I don't think you have done that.

You admit to knowing next to nothing about science. I don't think you are in a position to call others willfully ignorant. With your help I have proved my initial point in #6.

Travis, you wouldn't happen to know Friday's lotto numbers, would ya?

By Brownian, OM (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

Stimpson, this blog is full of very knowledgeable biologists and other scientists. So you ask one of the non-scientists here, me, to hold your hand, and when I suggest you do your own research, you say "A youtube video is hardly powerful evidence, therefore god created all creatures out of nothing." I'm not impressed with your laziness, dishonesty, and hopeless stupidity. Any child could have understood the information in those videos, which represented years of hard work by brilliant scientists, but you didn't understand because, well, you tell me what your problem is. Are you insane, stupid, an asshole, or what?

Brownian ommmmmm, you're showing off with that formatting. Such beautiful posts, and such nimble fingers!. Sigh

BobC wrote:

Are you insane, stupid, an asshole, or what?

I am a double-checker.

I'm not impressed with your laziness, dishonesty, and hopeless stupidity.

I think we have more projection going on here. Why is it that you know next to nothing about science?

AnthonyK, that's funny! I have to cancel out the Rev. BDC's typos lest the universe annihilate itself.

Incidentally, I'm also an Anthony K in RL, so it kinda freaks me out when I see your name!

(That, and I'm a teensy bit baked. Uh-oh. Munchies. I'm gonna go put rosemary on something and eat it.)

By Brownian, OM (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

Randy,
Being wilfully ignorant is to ignore those who are actually in the know in favour of your own opinion. When it comes to history, I know next to nothing. But if I wanted to learn about say world war 1, I would go to historians that have spent decades researching the matter. To state that an alien crash started world war I would be ignorance, to say that in the face of all the historians who point to an assassination as the start would be wilful ignorance. When you don't know better, you consult the people who actually study the matter.In the case of evolution, it's listening to biologists, microbiologists, zoologists, geneticists, palaeontologists, and seeing what they have to say on the matter. They could all well be wrong, but to assert contrary to evidence is wilful ignorance.

Heh, Stimpy the truthseeker.

Except when truth seeking involves a sacrifice like $198.
Opinions don't cost no thing.

By Ryan F Stello (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

Me too. Chocolate raisins...mmmm...say do you think Randy will ever learn anything about science, or will he just lamely wander the internet being told to fuck off?

Except when truth seeking involves a sacrifice like $198.

Or when a site doesn't contain the "truth" he wants, then he'll dismiss it as apologetics despite it's endorsement from major biologists and biological faculties. But he knows better, he has a precambrian bunny.

Randy Stimpson wrote "I am a double-checker."

OK asshole. Do your double checking and then please get back to us. Then you can either be congratulated for joining the 21st century, or you can explain why you know more about molecular biology than all the world's biologists.

I think we have more projection going on here.

You said it, Randy.

Why is it you're commenting on other people's knowledge or lack thereof when you've admitted you don't even know how to find the information you're dismissing?

Now fuck off. You've been told what you need to research before anyone here will entertain your criticisms of it, so go and do it. Your pathetic and obvious attempts to shift the burden are boring us.

By Brownian, OM (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

Yeah Randy (hides behind twin giants of Truth and Knowledge shaking fist) like the gentleman says, fuck off!

Randy, the January issue of Scientific American is the theme issue with evolution being the theme. Each of the articles contains links and/or recommended reading.

http://www.sciam.com/

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

Kel noted,

Or when a site doesn't contain the "truth" he wants, then he'll dismiss it as apologetics

What's even funnier is that he's a "double checker" who won't even double-check apologetics, which never stopped me.

I'd kinda like to know what sources he would double-check, other than blog comments that are being really mean to him....it's not as if he double-checks his own writing.

By Ryan F Stello (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

do you think Randy will ever learn anything about science, or will he just lamely wander the internet being told to fuck off?

[Looks thoughtful for a moment.

That's up to him, Little Timmy, that's up to him.

[They both stare off into the sunset. Fade out then credits.}

By Brownian, OM (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

Randy,

There are literally thousands of reference books, text books, and peer reviewed papers supporting evolution. Are you calling each and every one of them false?

Fewer than 1% of biologists accept evolution. Are you saying the vast majority of a profession are liars?

Mainstream Christian churches, including the Catholic and Mormon churches, have no problem with evolution. Are you calling them heretical?

Just what is your problem with evolution? If the professionals say it's true, then you had better come up with some very good reasons why you know better than them. So what is your "proof" for any competing theory?

By 'Tis Himself (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

Fewer than 1% of biologists accept evolution.

?! Psst. Tis' Himself. Your fly is open.

By Brownian, OM (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

'Tis Himself said:

Fewer than 1% of biologists accept evolution

I'm guessing this is a case where an edit button would be nice.

In my #91, the statement should be "Fewer than 1% of biologists don't accept evolution."

By 'Tis Himself (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

Oh, that's right, change the evidence to fit the theory...

Humans and chimps share 16 ERV sequences. These are my questions:

1) How many ERV sequences to humans have? How many do chimps have?

2) Do these 16 shared ERV sequences match exactly. If not, how many mutations do they differ by?

The video asserts that we do not find ERVs in the same position in two distantly related species without also finding it in the intervening species.

3) How can I verify that this claim is true? Is there a database of ERVs and what genomes they belong to. Does this hypothetical database map locations of, say, a mouse genome and a human genome?

I think these are fair questions. Can anyone answer them?

Oh, that's right, change the evidence to fit the theory...

If that tactic's good enough for creationists/IDers, it's good enough for the rest of us.

You have a right to your own opinions, you do not have a right to your own facts. -D.P. Moynahan

By 'Tis Himself (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

Can anyone answer them?

Yeah. You. Read the literature. Verify them for yourself.

Ever hear of reference librarians? They get paid to help do your research for you.

Now quit stalling and go do your homework!

By Brownian, OM (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

Okay Randy, that's just pathetic. I spent maybe two minutes searching Pubmed, with absolutely no prior knowledge of the subject, and here's a very small sample of what I found:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/8/266

http://www.hindawi.com/GetArticle.aspx?doi=10.1002/cfg.216

http://www.retrovirology.com/content/3/1/67

You could have easily done this. But I suppose it's easier to just claim that BobC doesn't have enough experience. So no more bullshitting. Read the literature or admit you are willfully ignorant.

By Matt, Sexual J… (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

Randy,
You said you were a "double-checker" so please go check. Matt has listed a few papers, the second one looks very useful and I know that one is openly available.

I look forward to your summary and criticisms.

And if for some reason you cant access the articles, then put in the extra small effort, go to a college library, and look at journals there. That's what I did in high school when I wanted to learn.

By Matt, Sexual J… (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

Randy,
If you know how to submit comments to Pharyngula, you know how to type and use the internet. Embrace this knowledge, and let google show you the way to TRUE salvation!

By Another Lost Soul (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

'Tis Himself asked Stimpson a very good question: "Just what is your problem with evolution?"

What are creationists so afraid of? Would they become mentally disturbed if they knew they were distant cousins of chimps? Are they afraid evolution threatens their childish belief in heaven? Why are these cowards so terrified of modern biology? What about you Stimpson? Why do you prefer supernatural magic instead of modern scientific discoveries?

I wonder if Randy truly wants to know how evolution works, or is just simply looking for another precambrian bunny in order to dismiss common ancestry. If it's the former, good luck to him. But I can't help shake the feeling that he's just trying to look for excuses to dismiss the knowledge despite the overwhelming evidence for common descent.

And you better hurry, Stimpy...Nova starts in 30 minutes.

More science for you to not understand.

By BobbyEarle (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

Brownian,

You have been unusually nice today. You can have dessert tonight.

To Everyone else

Thanks for the references. I have to go now but I have marked my calender to check back on Friday to see if anyone has answered my questions.

But I can't help shake the feeling that he's just trying to look for excuses to dismiss the knowledge despite the overwhelming evidence for common descent.

Perhaps he's just a stupid asshole. It's obvious to me he's not interested in learning anything. Like many creationists, he enjoys wasting people's time. If he was really interested in understanding science, he would have thrown out his belief in magical creation many years ago.

There is another great PBS show that might interest you, Stimpy..."Wordgirl".

I recall an episode about the word dumbass.

By BobbyEarle (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

I have to go now but I have marked my calender to check back on Friday to see if anyone has answered my questions.

Aren't you going to try and find out for yourself by reading the peer reviewed literature on the subject?

Thanks for the references. I have to go now but I have marked my calender to check back on Friday to see if anyone has answered my questions.

Adults take care of their own fact finding. You should do the same. Otherwise, how can you expect us to take you seriously? Your homework assignment to find the answers to those questions you asked. Then, we can explain those answers to you if you have any questions at that point.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

I have to go now but I have marked my calender to check back on Friday to see if anyone has answered my questions.

And if nobody bothers answering them for you, what will that mean, to you?

I know what it'll mean to me: nobody wants to help out a lazy brat, especially not one as old as you.

By Ryan F Stello (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

Randy at 11

While I am not PZ, I am a published biologist (plant science) with a PhD and several years post-doctoral experience.

What was stated in those videos was good, correct science.

By Your Mighty Overload (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

but overload, you-re a plant scientist, how can you possibly know anything about humans and animals?

but since you're here, could you explain the big bang to me?

I have to go now

You know, this is the one part of a creationist's conversation you can always count on. Over on Richard Dawkins' site, I've seen people predict within a post or two when a creationist is about to 'have to go'. It always happens after you've spent forever giving them step-by-step instructions on how to educate themselves. Then, when the information is finally too obvious to ignore, its time to go. Like clockwork.

And then they can begin the same conversation anew at some later point, and feign ignorance of all the knowledge you presented in the previous session.

For all those creationist trolls who might come later, here is a perfect example of why we don't like to waste our time on you.

By Matt, Sexual J… (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

but since you're here, could you explain the big bang to me?

What the Mythbusters usually end with.

Or "BOOM" in 128 size type.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

Randy

If you give me a list of any papers you want, I can probably download most of them using my institutional subscription and email them to you.

You have no excuse.

(I will do this for pretty much anyone who asks nicely)

By Your Mighty Overload (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

Randy Stimpson said:

I have to go now but I have marked my calender to check back on Friday to see if anyone has answered my questions.

May I refer you to some of these other comments, instructing you on how to get your answer?

Travis, #100

Randy,
You said you were a "double-checker" so please go check. Matt has listed a few papers, the second one looks very useful and I know that one is openly available.
I look forward to your summary and criticisms.

Matt, Sexual Jihadist, #101

And if for some reason you cant access the articles, then put in the extra small effort, go to a college library, and look at journals there. That's what I did in high school when I wanted to learn.

Brownian, OM #98

Yeah. You. Read the literature. Verify them for yourself.
Ever hear of reference librarians? They get paid to help do your research for you.
Now quit stalling and go do your homework!

Brownian OM, #86

You said it, Randy.
Why is it you're commenting on other people's knowledge or lack thereof when you've admitted you don't even know how to find the information you're dismissing?
Now fuck off. You've been told what you need to research before anyone here will entertain your criticisms of it, so go and do it. Your pathetic and obvious attempts to shift the burden are boring us.

How many times do we need to tell you to do your own research? It's no surprise that you can't grasp evolution when, after multiple posts, you don't realize that not everyone who participates on this blog is here for the sole purpose of answering your questions.

By Another Lost Soul (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

not everyone who participates on this blog is here for the sole purpose of answering your questions.

What? We're not getting paid for this?

You have been unusually nice today. You can have dessert tonight.

I'm trying to turn over a new leaf. Thanks for the dessert. Have a good week and happy reading!

By Brownian, OM (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

It's obvious to me he's not interested in learning anything. Like many creationists, he enjoys wasting people's time.

It's looking more and more that way. Complaining about Talk.Origins or that youtube video and pining for peer review, but the moment he asks a question and peer reviewed literature is posted as a response, he shrugs it off and awaits one of us to give the answer instead.To me, it's like he's searching for any excuse to throw out evolution. Even if the number of ERVs that humans or chimpanzees have is not known, it doesn't count against common ancestry in the slightest. Dawkins talked about this in The God Delusion, where the ID tactic is to find a gap in knowledge and declare it too complex so it's an excuse to dismiss all the evidence that fits in with evolutionary theory. Randy's insistence that evolution violates Shannon entropy (despite Shannon Entropy not being applicable) is his precambrian, so to me he's just begging the issue until he can be absolutely certain his position is untenable - something that can never happen in science.Creationists really are the geocentrists of the 18th century.

Jadehawk at 113

Haha, yeah, well, actually I probably could.

Admittedly, my degree was Biology and my PhD Plant Science. Of course, I happen to be one of those people which is interested in pretty much everything. For example, recently I have published papers on protein turnover in leaves, photoassimilate partitioning in grasses, the effects of waterlogging on lucerne (alfalfa), a book chapter on plant parasitism and am currently working on a manuscript developing a significant extension to current seed germination models. One of my private passions is paleontology, although I don't get enough time to indulge it. Quite a mixed bag, really.

By Your Mighty Overload (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

Brownian, OM , put rosemary and ginger on chicken. Try some lavender, white raisins and honey in your corn bread. Yummm! That's what I make for Solstice cakes.

Our local weather guy thinks we are going to get 5-18" of snow for the Solstice, so I've 'chickened' out on the party. The guys are sniveling about the apple, mincemeat and pumpkin pies I usually bring.

There's a weather/pie glitch.

By Patricia, OM (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

but since you're here, could you explain the big bang to me?

It's sort of like this multiplied by the biggest number you can possibly imagine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOfEM4RlDgI

Of course, Roy Scheider and John Lithgow probably weren't present...or *were* they?

By Jimminy Christmas (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

If you give me a list of any papers you want, I can probably download most of them using my institutional subscription and email them to you.

You have no excuse.

(I will do this for pretty much anyone who asks nicely)

Look Randy, people are not only showing you which door to go through, but opening it for you as well. All you have to do is walk through it, we aren't going to carry you while you are kicking and screaming.

Kel

Randy's insistence that evolution violates Shannon entropy (despite Shannon Entropy not being applicable)

Okay, what? This sounds as shallow as the typical creationist misunderstanding of local vs. global entropy. Is it any different? Or did Randy really just lift his argument from some cheap pamphlet in a Baptist Church?

By Matt, Sexual J… (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

But I don't have access to PubMed. A subscription costs $198 a year.

poor Randy, too stupid to figure out how to go to a library, too poor to pay for easy access, too lazy to do anything else.

*yawn*

what a fuckwit.

If you give me a list of any papers you want, I can probably download most of them using my institutional subscription and email them to you.

fuck Stimpy, I could actually put that offer to good use!

I have about a dozen papers I don't have access to at the moment (being in limbo and all).

If only Talk.Origins was up, there is a concise article on there about just why evolution doesn't violate Shannon entropy. In the absence of that, here's the wikipedia article and I'm sure you could figure out for yourself why it simply doesn't apply to evolution.

I can recommend two big bangs to you.

One happens in America in August at Sturgis, South Dakota.
Another happens in England at Stonehenge on the Summer Solstice. Then there's Burning Man and Glastonbury...

There's four. That should get you started.

By Patricia, OM (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

hah, you're a busy little critter, aren't you, overload. :-p

i just had to make that troll-post, because i always thought it was hilarious how creationists insist that ALL science is just part of evolution (so every biologist should also know everything about astrophysics), while on the other hand rejecting the credentials of people that are talking to them because they're not the EXACTLY SPECIFIC kind of scientist.

kinda like catholics are sometimes christian, and sometimes not, depending on what's the more useful at any given time. :-p

I can recommend two big bangs to you.

One happens in America in August at Sturgis, South Dakota.
Another happens in England at Stonehenge on the Summer Solstice. Then there's Burning Man and Glastonbury...

There's four. That should get you started.

so much bang, so little time...

Ichthyic - So glad to see you back posting. I've missed you. The trolls are cheesier than ever. You'll get a snicker or two.

We got snow and ice, do you?

By Patricia, OM (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

I can recommend two big bangs to you.

One happens in America in August at Sturgis, South Dakota.
Another happens in England at Stonehenge on the Summer Solstice. Then there's Burning Man and Glastonbury...

There's four. That should get you started.

so much bang, so little time...

Nice set of articles, Matt.

Matt, Sexual Jihadist wrote:

And if for some reason you cant access the articles, then put in the extra small effort, go to a college library, and look at journals there.

Randy shouldn't have any trouble getting these, though--the articles you selected are all open access.

That's what I did in high school when I wanted to learn.

Ah, now I see the problematic assumption...

Jadehawk,
Snerks, yep - lot's of bangs out there.

I expect to get many:
Patricia, you ignorant slut! You forgot blah, blah - as everyone will chime in with their favorite bang. Mardi Gras and Oktoberfest fans will be pissed.

I wonder if the big tomato fight, and the running of the bulls are a big bang number too?

As you said, so many bangs, so little time.

By Patricia, OM (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

We got snow and ice, do you?

actually, yes! as of yesterday, there is a ton of snow at the higher elevations here in the desert.

I plan to instead enjoy a sunny beach scene next week in NZ.

Thalarctos @134

Thanks! To be honest, I wasn't even sure what I was looking for when I went there. I just typed in ERV and guessed from a few results that it had to be the endogenous retroviruses. Interesting stuff, though.

And I checked Stimpson's original articles, Kel, though I spent the next few minutes killing brain cells. I actually couldn't keep from laughing when he conflated microscopic and macroscopic phenomena here:

http://randystimpson.blogspot.com/2006/05/10-penny-experiment.html

Or when he claimed that repetition implied design:

http://randystimpson.blogspot.com/2008/03/why-repetitive-sequences-dont…

I thought that maybe he had heard of a salt crystal before, but I guess that god must be sticking his fingers into the lattice and arranging things.

By Matt, Sexual J… (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

Ichthyic

Feel free to email me (ljirving@gmail.com) any requests you might need for your research.

Hope you are having a good day.

By Your Mighty br… (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

#74 Homer Stimpson wrote:

A youtube video is hardly powerful evidence. It might be for someone who knows next to nothing about science.

Then, to you, it should be very powerful evidence indeed.

Ichthyic, How exciting! Are you going to see some of the places Lord of the Rings was filmed? That's probably considered too touristy by the locals.

I'm afraid if we get 18" of snow it will be over my chickens heads! I can just see me out back shoveling chicken paths.

By Patricia, OM (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

will do!

I'm currently in the position of not having institutional access at the moment, not being near (within 2 hours) of any major university, and my limited subscriptions don't cover a few of the papers I need for my upcoming trip. that will change (I'm hoping anyway) in the next few weeks if all goes well, but ITMT, your offer is appreciated.

In exchange, for whatever it's worth, if you have any questions at all about fish or sharks, I'd be happy to answer them (all my publications are fish/shark behavior related).

Hope you are having a good day.

oh, it's always a good day when I have time to play on Pharyngula for a little while.

Are you going to see some of the places Lord of the Rings was filmed?

I have one month for a whirlwind tour of NZ before I have to start work down there. I'm sure I'll run across that area at some point. Plan to do a little of everything, including a bit of bungee jumping on the south island.

:)

And I checked Stimpson's original articles, Kel, though I spent the next few minutes killing brain cells. I actually couldn't keep from laughing when he conflated microscopic and macroscopic phenomena here:

http://randystimpson.blogspot.com/2006/05/10-penny-experiment.html

Or when he claimed that repetition implied design:

http://randystimpson.blogspot.com/2008/03/why-repetitive-sequences-dont…

Oh wow. They would be quite embarrassing for him if he had any sense of shame.

This is your brain, this is your brain on creationism *whack*

Anyone else got an itchy killfire that they need to scratch because of Randy?

Nah, I feel sorry for him. That 10 penny example is laughably bad. There's an easy way of ordering the pennies again, it's called stacking them. But it takes energy to stack them, hence the entropy. Just as we need to eat in order to survive, but we won't survive by drinking petroleum. What a terrible experiment, a piss-poor analogy. Let's hope he gets an education soon.

Ichthyic

I used to live in NZ actually - I was there March 2005 - May 2007 as a Post-Doc. Avoid Palmerston North like the plague. If you are sucked into it, the "Celtic" is a nice Irish var to spend a Friday evening.

Te Papa in Wellington is nice, as is Wellie generally. Go to Rotorua and see the Champaigne Pool. The highest bungy on the north island is signposted on the way south going down SH1. I forget the name, but you should have no problem finding it. See "Huka falls" just outside Taupo. The jetboat ride there is well worth the dollars, if you're feeling rich.

On the south Island you can go whale watching (and see the seals) at Kaikoura. Very nice. when you get as far as Dunedin, don't pay to see the penguins, look at your lonely planet guidebook - there are heaps of free sites. Keep plenty of time in hand to head over to Te Anau, and Milford sound - definitely worthwhile. Also, see one of the glaciers (Fox / Franz Josef), and take in the pancake rocks. Very nice.

Oh, and don't neglect to try "hokey pokey" ice cream - ice cream with honey in it! Yum...

By Your Mighty Overload (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

As said, PubMed costs nothing to search, as does google scholar.

When articles are behind a paywall, I frequently have success in getting them anyway by looking up the author's home page at their university. Many people post pdfs of their papers, and if not, they will often send you one if you ask politely.

PS: hokeypokey icecream does not usually contain honey. It contains chunks of "honeycomb toffee", which is made from boiling sugar frothed up with bicarbonate of soda. I gather from google that this is called "sponge toffee" in the US.

Cath at 149

I bow before your wisdom.

By Your Mightily … (not verified) on 16 Dec 2008 #permalink

Krub @ 46 (if I may call you that),

Try Putty some time. Best Windows SSH client out there. It behaves like a proper terminal. Free as in liberty.

As far as masking the URL of talkorigins.org with various schemes, that would be fine but they are usually spotted by the mods. The "Science & Origins" subforum on that link never used to have more than a driveby moderator. Only if someone complained did anything get done. Which was pretty rare. Most of the members are complete morons. There is one who is pretty sharp though by the handle of JHud. He actually has some training in Biology but I think he got tired of Animal Husbandry and jerking off bulls and hasn't "touched it" since.

The new moderator is a complete twit. Prides herself at being "second generation home schooled" and her occupation is pastor's wife. No training in the sciences.

I leave all the religiousity alone and only discuss the science. I think one of the regulars has even posted here once or twice (Bettawrekonize (or something)) or perhaps it was on Panda's Thumb.

Anyhow... thanks for the suggestions.

-DU-

Randy Stimpson,
There is an online database of human ERVs at:
http://herv.img.cas.cz/
Another at:
http://www.daimi.au.dk/~biopv/herv/
is currently offline, but would be worth rechecking. I can't find any all-species ERV databases online. However there are three linked universal databases of DNA sequences (hosted in the USA, Japan and Europe), updated regularly and accessible from http://www.ebi.ac.uk/embl/Contact/collaboration.html

It took me about 15 minutes to find these using google and google scholar. You could have done that if you weren't such a lazy, dishonest, time-wasting, invincibly-ignorant little creep.

I doubt whether they will actually be of any use to you. You see, they are maintained for the benefit of working scientists who already have extensive knowledge; not for lazy, dishonest, time-wasting, invincibly-ignorant IDiots.

By Nick Gotts (not verified) on 17 Dec 2008 #permalink

Nick Gotts:

I can't find any all-species ERV databases online.

Repbase -> http://www.girinst.org/repbase/update/browse.php
...has ERV's from the 3 families (ERV1, ERV2, ERV3) in various organisms. Unfortunately chimps not included yet but ancestral shared ERV loci in humans and how deep they go phylogeny - mammals, eutherians, primates, haplorrhini, simiiformes, catarrhini, hominidae are cited.

Stimpson:

I was hoping someone had organized the retrovirus sequences into a relational database like SQL Server so that someone could see which genomes they appear in by executing some simple SQL statements. Has that work been done to your knowledge? If so, point me to it.

http://www.ensembl.org/index.html
has 29 eutherian mammal genomes in various database formats including MySQL and provides various API's for your research pleasure.
As Mr. Gotts noted, the names of HERV's from the Human ERV Database will get you started.
http://herv.img.cas.cz/cgi-bin/families.cgi

Foggg,
Great - thanks very much! Randy Stimpson has now been deprived of all possible excuses not to go away and spend five years accumulating the knowledge necessary to use these databases productively, and researching what's in them. Look forward to reading your first Nature paper, Randy!

By Nick Gotts (not verified) on 17 Dec 2008 #permalink

Look forward to reading your first Nature paper, Randy!

He's got to write that paper on Shannon Entropy first!

Rev. I was referring to one of your blog entries. I can't seem to find it now. Three people on a motor cycle or something talking about Barak Hussein Obama.

Oh yeah. Those idiots. Yikes.

David @ 151:

I complained to one of the administrators (Fred Alberti) at salemwebnetwork.com about the policy of excluding references to talkorigins.org, and received the following reply:

"After reviewing the site it is my conclusion that it has content that advocates in a sustained and forceful manner that the Bible is not God's Word and is thus anti-Christian. Therefore, it is a violation of our Terms of Service to link to this site.

"Thank you for your understanding and respect of our decision in this matter.

"This decision is final and is not open to further discussion or debate."

The TO Archive, of course, does not argue or even imply anywhere that the Bible is not God's Word.

As for Jhud, he is an IDer who responds to any argument against ID with obfuscation. He should apply for a position with the DI; he may have a bright future there.

RichardC,

Yeah. I agree about Jhud. He is an OEC, which, if interpreted the way most things are with that site, is a "violation of the TOS" but I guess they can't alienate too many of the flock. He is pretty good at the obfuscation, misdirection, straw-man, red herring, and plain lying forms of argument. He also trumpets TARD as if he were on the DI payroll.

They used to allow linkage to the TO archive until recently. Fortunately, for some subjects like Kitzmiller v. Dover there are several sites that link to or have the transcripts and decision.

Speaking of Salemwebnetwork.com it appears that there are a number of sites with different names and even different look and feel where the forum sections are essentially the same site. crosswalk.com, christianity.com, and salemwebnetwork.com are all linked in this way.

The words "range of doctrines" (RoD) appear nowhere in the Terms of Service (ToS) on their website(s). I never heard of the RoD until recently.
http://forums.christianity.com/Range_of_Doctrines/m_1014/tm.htm

Anyhow... I rarely post there and only occasionally read the inane discussions in the "science & origins" subforum.

-DU-

I think these are fair questions. Can anyone answer them?

Randy have you thought of asking ERV about this?

Indulging in a Roman desire to throw Christians to lions, are we Rev?

By Brownian, OM (not verified) on 17 Dec 2008 #permalink

Te Papa in Wellington is nice, as is Wellie generally. Go to Rotorua and see the Champaigne Pool. The highest bungy on the north island is signposted on the way south going down SH1. I forget the name, but you should have no problem finding it. See "Huka falls" just outside Taupo. The jetboat ride there is well worth the dollars, if you're feeling rich.
On the south Island you can go whale watching (and see the seals) at Kaikoura. Very nice. when you get as far as Dunedin, don't pay to see the penguins, look at your lonely planet guidebook - there are heaps of free sites. Keep plenty of time in hand to head over to Te Anau, and Milford sound - definitely worthwhile. Also, see one of the glaciers (Fox / Franz Josef), and take in the pancake rocks. Very nice.
Oh, and don't neglect to try "hokey pokey" ice cream - ice cream with honey in it! Yum...

looks like about 75% of my list of things to do already!

thanks for the tips; very much looking forward to it.

Plan to spend a month exploring, then settle in Wellington for a while; will be mostly pursuing some leads getting back into marine research.

Getting Randy to ask an expert in the field... would be amusing to watch.

Does Randy have enough background to understand his questions? Or the answers? I think I would need a bit of study to ask intelligent questions on the ERV problem and understand fully the answers from an expert. Reading the watered down version in Scientific American or American Scientist I can handle.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 17 Dec 2008 #permalink

Does Randy have enough background to understand his questions? Or the answers?

I don't think so, but it depends on what he wants to get out of it. If he's genuinely curious about the role of retroviruses on our ancestry, then he may be able to get a superficial understanding. If he's trying to look for a precambrian bunny, then he's going to fail from the outset. What he wants to know and why he wants to know it will determine the outcome of his ability to understand it.

To be fair, Randy did email me to thank me for the offer to supply him with primary literature pertinent to the question. He hasn't as yet taken me up on the offer, although when I have supplied peer-reviewed papers to creationists in the past they have tended to fall very silent on the situation, often claiming that "it's just one point of view". I wonder if they would claim that a cancer diagnosis is "simply a point of view"....

By Your Mighty Overload (not verified) on 17 Dec 2008 #permalink

The backup domain at toarchive.org seems to be down as well.

If this is the work of cretards hackers, they really reveal how scared they are and how weak their position in fact is.

Willful ignorance, pathological denial of empiric evidence, prejudice, scare tactics, pseudo science, sabotage, deliberate deception, manipulation of facts, falsification of history...
Haven't we seen this before in the recent century?

By Alphaimposter (not verified) on 19 Dec 2008 #permalink

I don't see any answers to my questions. In particular I don't see answer to this question:

The video asserts that we do not find ERVs in the same position in two distantly related species without also finding it in the intervening species.

3) How can I verify that this claim is true? Is there a database of ERVs and what genomes they belong to. Does this hypothetical database map locations of, say, a mouse genome and a human genome?

If the information to answer the above question doesn't exist the videos BobC supplied are proving their point using conjecture.

A lot of you have supplied links to information. For example Nick Gotts:

There is an online database of human ERVs at:
http://herv.img.cas.cz/

It should be obvious that an online database containing only human ERVs would not be sufficient to answer that question. Links supplied by others have been equally irrelavent. It would sufficient to answer part of (1) but I figured at least one person here would know that answer to that question of the top of their head.

From the reading I have done, and maybe you can send ERV over here to correct me, most of the research that has been done has focused on human and chimp ERVs.

I do find it interesting that some ERVs have been found to regulate gene expression. What are the chances that a random virus floating around could snap into a genome and perform an important function?

I am also suprised that only 16 ERVs between chimps and humans match. I would expect the number to be much higher.

The video also asserts that if an ERV intergrates into a germ cell it will be passed on to offspring. I would expect an event like that to render the germ cell infertile or perhaps cause a defect. Or perhaps it would be filtered out during recombination. So my question is, have we sequenced the genomes of parents and a child and actually discovered an ERV in the childs DNA that was not in the parents DNA?

I am quessing some bullshiter will pipe up and "say yes we have" to my last question without really knowing. If you are going to answer "yes" to my question please supply a reference.

That said, why are we spending loads of money sending probes into outerspace when we could be using that money to research genomes? It seems like the benefits to be gained by studying genomes vastly outweighs looking for water on Mars.

don't see any answers to my questions.

You've not only been shown the door, but had it opened for you. But you are going to need to walk in yourself.

I am also suprised that only 16 ERVs between chimps and humans match. I would expect the number to be much higher.

those were ERV-K, a certain type of ERVs

I would rather spend my money looking for water on Mars, than anything said by an "Intelligent Designer", who is neither.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 19 Dec 2008 #permalink

why are we spending loads of money sending probes into outerspace when we could be using that money to research genomes? It seems like the benefits to be gained by studying genomes vastly outweighs looking for water on Mars.

What we're spending loads of money on are wars and armies and conspicuous consumption. Research gets a miniscule amount of money spent on it compared to those; space gets even less.
As for the benefits of space exploration - don't you want to see the resources of a whole solar system exploited, rather than those of one planet therein? ;)

By John Morales (not verified) on 19 Dec 2008 #permalink

have we sequenced the genomes of parents and a child and actually discovered an ERV in the childs DNA that was not in the parents DNA?

Only one individual person--one!--has had his entire genome sequenced. You're going to have to wait a few years. And NASA's budget will not detract from such research in any way.

By Sven DiMilo (not verified) on 19 Dec 2008 #permalink

That's always the question of science, why are we researching one thing when we could be researching another. There's so much unknown and different professions have priorities. Why is genome research more important than space exploration? To satisfy your curiosity that evolution is really really true randy? There's a reason why the overwhelming majority of scientists support and accept evolution - it's supported by the evidence. It's been supported by the evidence for a century now and we have a good understanding of the mechanisms involved.Finding just one ERV-K in exactly the same position is highly improbable. Finding 16 is astronomical in odds. Yet this is just one of so many lines of reasoning that show common ancestry. Again I ask Randy, is your mission to learn more about how science knows what it knows or are you looking for another precambrian bunny to validate your opinion?

I suggest we stop helping Randy until he clarifies his position. I suspect he has switched from entropy to another imaginary flaw in evolution.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 19 Dec 2008 #permalink

That's what I thought.

I seriously doubt it means what you probably think it means.

hey, if you're looking for commentary on how sequencing the human genome relates to evolution, why don't you read Francis Collins' book?

he's a protestant who also, in the same book, purports a whacky theory you might actually like.

do make sure you read the parts on genetics, first.

I just read a few excepts from the his book Language of God. It looks like something I would have been interested in reading when I was a Christain. I don't plan to read that book but I would be interested to know what his wacky theory is.

Radny @180, I would be interested to know what your wacky theory is.

Have you ever articulated it here? I don't recall it.

By John Morales (not verified) on 19 Dec 2008 #permalink
only one individual person--one!--has had his entire genome sequenced.

That's what I thought

Hm.

Have you read about the human genome project? Do you understand that much more than one human genome was involved in the project to be sequenced?

By Owlmirror (not verified) on 19 Dec 2008 #permalink

Have you ever articulated it here?

Heh. Inarticulated it, actually.

But I snark.

By Owlmirror (not verified) on 19 Dec 2008 #permalink

Has Randy been declining in mental faculties at a steady rate, or am i just being paranoid? He certainly isn't getting any smarter.
But enough talk about gods in closets...

Randy, are you honestly looking to learn about how ERVs work, or are you just looking for another precambrian bunny since no-one is buying your Shannon Entropy rhetoric?

Finding just one ERV-K in exactly the same position is highly improbable. Finding 16 is astronomical in odds.

this asks to be creatively quote-mined, but I can't come up with anything :-p

i thought it was like 1/10^43-45- is that astronomical, or cosmological?

Finding just one ERV-K in exactly the same position is highly improbable. Finding 16 is astronomical in odds.

cdk007's video lays it out perfectly.

Kel,

I am interested in anything to do with genomes, especially the human genome ... including ERVs. Some of the stuff I have read about histones is of particular interest to me right now. It looks like they also contain information.

As someone suggested above, there is a blog on ScienceBlogs dedicated to ERVs. Maybe you'll find the information you are looking for there.

Kel,

I think we should talk about the specifications for an algorithm that might more closely match the probablities of natural selection. May you will write something on your blog. If you do let me know. There might be others waiting for a turn though.

Randy, you suck. Why are you still here? You have loads to look at and learn before you even have a single utterance that ought to be addressed here. Shoo, go away and come back after you have educated yourself on the finer points of what you profess to understand. It shall be a while, but there will still be a place for you here.
Additionally, it would still be ON YOU to put forth your hypotheses and write on Your own blog. Quit harassing others to do All the work for you, you lazy bum!

And stop changing aliases and spamming. Geez

Isn't ScienceBlogs.com an atheists only collection of blogs?

Seriously, what the fuck is this "atheists only" garbage that you keep spouting?

I defy you to find anything in scienceblogs.com that says "atheists only".

In fact, I defy you to comb through the archive of talkorigins

http://web.archive.org/*/talkorigins.org

and find anything that asserts that evolution is true because God does not exist, or anything else that even vaguely suggests that only atheists believe in evolution — and I know they don't because there is a whole section about theists accepting evolution.

You keep bringing this up. You keep on being wrong.

Knock it the fuck off.

By Owlmirror (not verified) on 19 Dec 2008 #permalink

@#193:

God, i just think it's unfair to you that Randy hide you away like some whore at a cheap motel! Why doesn't he just divorce Sanity if it does not love him anymore? Is Randy really such a scrotum-less twat? Is he Afraid of what Sanity will do to him if he admits to being a flaming homosexual godbot? I guess that's altogether plausible, but wow, i would hate to be such a spineless dick-on-a-leash. He is afraid of what he hates, and ashamed of what he loves. Such a pitiable existence.

My prayers to you that you may help him in this troubled hour.

For some reason I get the feeling that you hate me. If so, why?

it's not hate, it's irritation, you pedantic twit.

you're simply unworthy of hate.

I think we should talk about the specifications for an algorithm that might more closely match the probablities of natural selection. May you will write something on your blog. If you do let me know. There might be others waiting for a turn though.

I wrote something on by blog well over a month ago, it was there when you first started commenting on the monkeys at a typewriter post.

Why read ScienceBlogs.com now that I have been offered free access to PubMed. Isn't ScienceBlogs.com an atheists only collection of blogs?

Why is it that people went to the Feynman lectures instead of looking through the articles themselves? Sometimes it helps to have someone explain to you the context - especially when you have at best a peripheral knowledge of the subject. I'd prefer to ask those in the know than pour through peer-reviewed articles in a context I don't understand.

And as for atheist blogs... Who gives a shit what religion the author is as long as the science is good. I'll listen to Ken Miller when it comes to microbiology, Francis Collins when it comes to genetics and Robert T Bakker when it comes to palaeontology. As long as their science is good, they can believe whatever they like.

Oh and well said Owlmirror. There's no reason for Randy to keep going on about whether people are atheists, it's just him being evasive once again. There's someone on this site who not only studies the exact thing Randy wants to know but also blogs about it so is accessible for information, and suddenly Randy complains about him being an atheist?

For some reason I get the feeling that you hate me. If so, why?

Clearly, you get the feeling that people hate you because you are thin-skinned, narcissistic, and paranoid, taking any criticism as having to do with you personally rather than with your deceptive and malicious insinuations and assertions.

For some reason, I get the feeling that you hate being honest.

By Owlmirror (not verified) on 19 Dec 2008 #permalink

There's someone on this site who not only studies the exact thing Randy wants to know

you're wrong about that.

Stimpy doesn't want to know anything. That's not why it comes here at all.

Stimpy doesn't want to know anything. That's not why it comes here at all.

I'm beginning to come to that conclusion. The way he dances around everything in order to prevent himself from learning anything is pretty pathetic. It would look good if he were playing Dance Dance Revolution, or maybe not. Maybe he's deliberately miss the alloted pads on purpose because of the atheists who made the game ;)

I'm beginning to come to that conclusion

he's been coming here for months now, same song and dance every time.

play if you wanna, but don't expect much.

And yet, we still don't want to ban Randy for Insipidity/stupidity? I'm sorry, but i think by now he deserves the ax. Either that, or he has to agree to stop wasting everyone's time and patience here.

He never has brought anything good to a thread, only:
derailed the conversation and
ignored all proof that he is a dumbass.
Repeat as necessary.

he's been coming here for months now, same song and dance every time.

play if you wanna, but don't expect much.

I know, but I'm trying to keep some faith in humanity.

I know, but I'm trying to keep some faith in humanity.

remember the saying:

fool me once...

just sayin'

Either that, or he has to agree to stop wasting everyone's time and patience here.

This is an old thread. There is no one here that doesn't want to be here. I'm not wasting your time ... you are.

You should be aware that many of us here suffer from SIWOTI syndrome, you are wasting our time by being unwilling to actually learn about what you preach.

#212

Posted by: Intelligent Designer:

"You should be aware that many of us here suffer from SIWOTI"- Kel

"That's what makes you interesting."

----------+--------

And This is why we ban. Useless.

I was a little cheesed off last time Randy contributed to this conversation but not too badly. In the end I thought in the very least that arguement was over. Randy had some reading to do (he wouldn't dare come back and accuse the people here of not answering his questions after everyone made it so clear he had to read about this himself first) However, reading what has been said on here since then is so much more irritating. The dancing around and avoiding questions that Randy is doing simply amazes me today.

It's what makes you infuriating Randy. At those rare moments when you seem on the right track, you do your best to deviate. Still we all persist in the hope that you would understand the things you are arguing about.

walk me through the killfile process- someone. I tire of all this. Especially since he has spent a great proportion of his energy harassing me in particular. It's not worth it.

Travis said:

The dancing around and avoiding questions that Randy is doing simply amazes me today

Which questions in particular are you talking about? Is there an important one I should answer?

Randy the Unintelligent Liar,
You are a dishonest little creep. Foggg@155 gave you the URLs of two ERV databases with phylogenetic information, one an SQL database, plus a suggestion for how to start using them in combination with the database of human ERVs I found. These databases are as close as any reasonable person could ask to what you said you wanted - do you really think the whole of genetics should be organised for your personal convenience, you lazy slob? You're a liar: if you had really wanted information on ERVs you would now be deep into researching these databases. What you wanted was an excuse to continue your stupid evasions indefinitely, and it's been taken away from you. Go and do some of the research you claimed to want to do, you pathetic excuse for a human being.

By Nick Gotts (not verified) on 20 Dec 2008 #permalink

Incidentally, Randy, Owlmirror professes irritation rather than hatred for you. I don't hate you either - but I do have profound, complete contempt for your laziness, dishonesty, and systematic attempts to exploit others, including me, to do the work you would do if you were an honest seeker after knowledge. You're a shit.

By Nick Gotts (not verified) on 20 Dec 2008 #permalink

Randy, there are right ways and wrong ways to do things. When I challenged you to write up and submit your entropy paper to scientific journal, I was trying to get you to do it the right way. You failed. Now you are looking for another argument, but are too lazy/incompetent to do your own leg work. That is the wrong way. You need to do all that yourself.
If you want us to think of you as anything other than what Nick describes above, you need to start doing things properly. And that would start with you going away for at least two weeks, if not a month, and research the problem on your own. Use the time you normal post here to the research.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 20 Dec 2008 #permalink

What, this twerp's still here? Now let me see, boring, wanking, morphing - PZ is a saint for not banning him. Trouble is, we're too concerned here to explain ourselves reasonably, and too genuinely commited to scientific knowledge to let even one dumb creationist witter on without replying. And the worst is, he thinks that by encouraging people to be rude to him he is suffering for his faith.
Sigh.