Customer Discussions > Science forum

Why the dishonesty related to science?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 2526-2550 of 2737 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 23, 2012 12:37:48 AM PDT
John Smith says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 23, 2012 12:39:12 AM PDT
John Smith says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 20, 2012 9:02:54 PM PDT
John Smith says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on May 20, 2012 9:14:11 PM PDT
John Smith says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 22, 2012 5:39:35 AM PDT
Lisareads says:
"you have no idea how this happens"
============================
For every answer there are more questions. That is what science is. You can never be at rest as there is not rest as in beliefs.

In reply to an earlier post on May 22, 2012 7:06:32 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 22, 2012 7:07:24 AM PDT
noman says:
RE:John Smith says:
[You are ignoring this customer's posts. Hide post again. (Show all ignored posts)]

1) "The point I have been making all along is that digestion and metabolization are related."

**Related? Digestion *is* metabolism. Metabolism is simply a general term that covers all chemical reactions in a living organism.

2) "... This is especially true when referring to a single species. It would be another matter, if the digestion were from one species, and the metabolization from another. "

**Since the E. coli developed a new pathway they *became* a new species. And different species often share similar metabolic pathways. Which is what would be expected from evolution.

****
Metabolic pathway alignment between species using a comprehensive and flexible similarity measure

Yunlei Li1,2,3*, Dick de Ridder1,2,3, Marco JL de Groot1,3,4 and Marcel JT Reinders1,2,3

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1752-0509/2/111

****
Reconstruction of metabolic pathways for the cattle genome
Seongwon Seo1 and Harris A Lewin*1,2
Address: 1Institute for Genomic Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA and 2Department of Animal Sciences,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA
Email: Seongwon Seo - swseo@uiuc.edu; Harris A Lewin* - h-lewin@uiuc.edu

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1752-0509-3-33.pdf

****

RE:"...That is the same as someone saying Goddidit. "

**Except for the actual experiment. Which can be found in detail here:
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/index.html

ALSO:

***
Experimental evolution with E. coli in diverse resource environments. I. Fluctuating environments promote divergence of replicate populations.

Authors:
Cooper, Tim F.
Lenski, Richard E.
Source:
BMC Evolutionary Biology; 2010, Vol. 10, Special section p1-10

Abstract:
Background: Environmental conditions affect the topology of the adaptive landscape and thus the trajectories followed by evolving populations. For example, a heterogeneous environment might lead to a more rugged adaptive landscape, making it more likely that replicate populations would evolve toward distinct adaptive peaks, relative to a uniform environment. To date, the influence of environmental variability on evolutionary dynamics has received relatively little experimental study. Results: We report findings from an experiment designed to test the effects of environmental variability on the adaptation and divergence of replicate populations of E. coli. A total of 42 populations evolved for 2000 generations in 7 environmental regimes that differed in the number, identity, and presentation of the limiting resource. Regimes were organized in two sets, having the sugars glucose and maltose singly and in combination, or glucose and lactose singly and in combination. Combinations of sugars were presented either simultaneously or as temporally fluctuating resource regimes. This design allowed us to compare the effects of resource identity and presentation on the evolutionary trajectories followed by replicate populations. After 2000 generations, the fitness of all populations had increased relative to the common ancestor, but to different extents. Populations evolved in glucose improved the least, whereas populations evolving in maltose or lactose increased the most in their respective sets. Among-population divergence also differed across regimes, with variation higher in those groups that evolved in fluctuating environments than in those that faced constant resource regimens. This divergence under the fluctuating conditions increased between 1000 and 2000 generations, consistent with replicate populations evolving toward distinct adaptive peaks. Conclusions: These results support the hypothesis that environmental heterogeneity can give rise to more rugged adaptive landscapes, which in turn promote evolutionary diversification. These results also demonstrate that this effect depends on the form of environmental heterogeneity, with greater divergence when the pairs of resources fluctuated temporally rather than being presented simultaneously.

****
OR
**
Expression Profiles Reveal Parallel Evolution of Epistatic Interactions Involving the CRP Regulon in Escherichia coli.

Authors:
Cooper, Tim F.
Remold, Susanna K.
Lenski, Richard E.
Schneider, Dominique
Source:
PLoS Genetics; Feb2008, Vol. 4 Issue 2, p1-10, 10p

Abstract:The extent and nature of epistatic interactions between mutations are issues of fundamental importance in evolutionary biology. However, they are difficult to study and their influence on adaptation remains poorly understood. Here, we use a systems-level approach to examine epistatic interactions that arose during the evolution of Escherichia coli in a defined environment. We used expression arrays to compare the effect on global patterns of gene expression of deleting a central regulatory gene, crp. Effects were measured in two lineages that had independently evolved for 20,000 generations and in their common ancestor. We found that deleting crp had a much more dramatic effect on the expression profile of the two evolved lines than on the ancestor. Because the sequence of the crp gene was unchanged during evolution, these differences indicate epistatic interactions between crp and mutations at other loci that accumulated during evolution. Moreover, a striking degree of parallelism was observed between the two independently evolved lines; 115 genes that were not crp-dependent in the ancestor became dependent on crp in both evolved lines. An analysis of changes in crp dependence of well-characterized regulons identified a number of regulatory genes as candidates for harboring beneficial mutations that could account for these parallel expression changes. Mutations within three of these genes have previously been found and shown to contribute to fitness. Overall, these findings indicate that epistasis has been important in the adaptive evolution of these lines, and they provide new insight into the types of genetic changes through which epistasis can evolve. More generally, we demonstrate that expression profiles can be profitably used to investigate epistatic interactions.
****
In *actual* scientific inquiry the specific methods, results or conclusion are discussed.

Summary: Not even wrong.
You don't understand enough biology to even form a question, let alone understand the answer.

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2012 11:15:24 AM PDT
A customer says:
John Smith - "Voting can give you the scientific edge you need to cut through the bologna."

Poor taste, that man.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-20/earthquake-strikes-near-bologna-in-italy/4022242

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 2, 2012 12:29:26 AM PDT
John Smith says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Jun 2, 2012 12:33:56 AM PDT
John Smith says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Jun 2, 2012 1:15:01 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 2, 2012 1:16:58 PM PDT
John Smith says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 2, 2012 8:57:33 PM PDT
Re Smith, above: "As far as the Lenski experiment is concerned, the object going into the experiment is the same as the object exiting: E. coli." Once again, you are totally clueless about evolution. The species is similar enough to warrant the same name -- but it is different in its metabolism. Evolution cannot predict the specific pathway that an evolved characteristic might take; what Lenski did was to simply give things an opportunity to happen -- and, lo and behold, something interesting DID: a mutation occurred which was beneficial to the organisms under study.

Posted on Jun 3, 2012 8:34:16 PM PDT
P„l Brekke says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 3, 2012 9:54:29 PM PDT
Re Brekke, above: Sounds like an interesting book, but this isn't the place to publicize it: Amazon has a special thing called Meet the Authors which is intended for that purpose.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 4, 2012 9:02:01 PM PDT
John Smith says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 4, 2012 9:06:19 PM PDT
John Smith says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Jun 4, 2012 9:22:24 PM PDT
Spinoza says:
The moon is about 4.5 billion years old. Happy now?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 6, 2012 5:35:44 PM PDT
Lisareads says:
"No rest for the wicked? "
====================
Subjective thinking is not science. Science depends on objective datum.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 6, 2012 5:52:35 PM PDT
Julian says:
No one has ever claimed that evolution was predictive. The process in inherently unpredictable. Evolutionary theory explains the mechanisms of the process and how these have influenced what we see in nature today. In certain animals such as cows, sheep, dogs, cats, etc. we have selected for traits to achieve a certain characteristic but we cannot predict the exact outcome of our meddling. Anyone that claims evolution can be predicted or that the theories should predict the outcome of a situation are completely ignorant of the basic principles of the theories. The rest of your argument only continues to demonstrate how unfamiliar you are with what you are arguing against.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 6, 2012 6:40:50 PM PDT
Tero says:
Ok I metabolizated your post. It has now been flushed.

That was a lot of words, but no nutritional value.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 6, 2012 6:58:54 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 6, 2012 7:33:34 PM PDT
noman says:
Actually evolutionary theory *does* make predictions. Rather than repeat my previous posts on the subject I'll append this url w/ various links:

DOES EVOLUTION MAKE TESTABLE PREDICTIONS?
(Yes, it does.)
http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/list-o-links/#testable

EDIT:

ALSO

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 6, 2012 8:31:11 PM PDT
Re John Smith, 6-4 9:02 PM: "evolutionists are not adept at designing experiments which would either confirm or deny the primary postulate of evolution theory: common descent." Once again, your abject ignorance is showing. See:
Theobald, Douglas L, A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry. Nature, vol. 465, 13 May 2010, p. 219.
Carroll, The making of the fittest: DNA and the ultimate forensic record of evolution. Nature, vol. 443, 26 Oct. 2006, p. 910.

Posted on Jun 7, 2012 3:49:33 AM PDT
Julian says:
I should have been more explicit. I meant evolutionary theory does not allow us to predict the outcomes of interactions with absolute certainty. Of course we can formulate testable predictions but it is possible for genetics to take the organism in an unforeseen direction as with the E. Coli in a previous post.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 7, 2012 6:54:20 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
Exactly. We cannot reliably predict where FUTURE evolution will go (although the constraints are gradually becoming better understood), but evolution can and does predict what historical developments will be found in the fossil record. Those, of course, are testable claims... and evolution has passed every test so far.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 7, 2012 9:14:56 AM PDT
Doctor says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 7, 2012 9:23:28 AM PDT
Re Doctor, above: More garbage posts from a garbage poster who cites garbage web sites. A waste of potentially good neurons.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  95
Total posts:  2737
Initial post:  Apr 9, 2011
Latest post:  Jul 11, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 7 customers

Search Customer Discussions