Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • "it's a goddamn massage board" for Christ sakes.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages -

The only thing that would help dave is for Dave to wake up one morning and discover that he he really is the messiah.

But how would he know. Would he just "believe"?
Politics and Current Events / Re: Trumpocalypse
The Mooch.

Nuff said.
If that makes you feel better... Okay...

Thinking that you are deluded is slightly more comforting than thinking you are deliberately lying I guess.

But for fuck's sake, Dave, start observing reality before it's too late.

Think you might be being a bit optimistic there, Pingu. :D
Maybe Dave's had a farming mishap. That could explain the sudden spree of desperate posting in the other thread.
I'm done arguing about your misrepresentation - if that wording makes you feel better than the word "lie" - you misrepresented reality.  Seems intentional to me, but whatever.
Just wondering. Are you performing for an unseen YEC audience? Because for your audience here you are just fortifying all the bad things they already believe about you.

Something like that would go a long way towards explaining Dave's bizarrely high levels of desperation.
Fucking English. How does it work!!!
That's funny ... because I think you are an unclear writer and he is quite clear.  I've done some thinking about your unclearness too .... the best comparison I have is to salespeople I've ridden with on sales calls who talk too much[/b].  There's this one woman who's new and they have sent her out with me twice on sales calls for me to train her and I hate doing it because she talks too much.  She's very eager and she interrupts my nice flow I have going with some off the wall blurb that she's real excited about and just has to interrupt my flow and tell the customer.    Now don't misunderstand ... I'm not saying that you post too much ... that would be Raffy.  I'm talking about your explanations.  To me there's often too much there and a lot of it is propaganda, instead of just bare facts and explanations of your points.

Fuck, there goes an irony meter!!!
I'm used to Dave's hubris and DK skills, but this thread is taking it to a new plane beyond my wildest imagination.
...Dave, please, for God's sake go to whoever was your philosophy teacher and demand double your money. They left you worse off than you were when you didn't know the word "subjective".

You are conflating two roles Lenski plays. Lenski could control the environment and have anyone else make the observations. In fact, I would be a bit surprised if he were the one making observations - that's what grad students are for. The fact is, anyone could fill that role; if they performed the same steps, they would get the same outcome. The measurement is objective.
Well sure ... the measurement (of how often they reproduce) is objective.  No argument there.

What's subjective is whether this makes them "more fit" or not.  And THAT depends on the environment.

Bluffy, the environment those bacteria are in is the environment that Lenski is saying the acquired mutations are beneficial in. That's the point.

One could say that any mutation is deleterious if you put the organism into an environment in which it's deleterious. Despite that mutation may be completely beneficial in every other environment.

This, what passes for reasoning in your mind, is ludicrous. It is the epitome of sucking at science. I think the only more ludicrous sucking at science statement I've ever seen was Stoopeed Spurt's Eye Beams.

Hahahah. That was epic. I remember that.

What a bluffoon. What a totally bogus, utterly militantly ignorant narcissistic DK posterboy bluffoon. I'm almost surprised you haven't been committed for your own safety. But, hey, this is rural Misery.

But it's so lol!
Wow. This thread is a greatest hits from Dave as he carefully ties his snare to the strongest, springiest tree in the forest.
I take it this thread was "marketed" as a review of Noble's paper, but then either Dave wasn't able to review it because that would require two neurons to rub together, or he started reading it and decided he didn't like the outcome, and now Dave is on a hit and run trolling spree?
And Dave rolls out another sales pitch.
I sense another Pingu pwnage in development.

I can see Dave carefully tying the snare around his own foot testicles now
Came here to read the "review".
I am disappoint.
Given your propensity for 'failing to read', how are you going to write a review?
Are copying errors as I have defined them (i e accidental changes during copying that are not fixed by error correction mechanisms) necessary to produce long lineages.
Are the mutations caused by the biological processes of horizontal gene transfer considered "errors"?  Transduction, transformation and conjugation all have an inherent randomness to them.  Genes get knocked out when bits of DNA recombine into the genome.  Odd bits of DNA end up being accidentally packaged in phages, or transferred during conjugation.  It's not like "copying a file from one biological computer to another" like you seem to imagine.
I'll ask you the same question I asked the other person - can't remember who - that asked if gene duplication fit my definition.

Are there systems in place within cells to prevent transduction, transformation and conjugation?  Or to revert sequences back to their original state should one of these event "slip past" the prevention system and actually happen?

So what?
Yabbut, Hawkins is a fruitcake.
Wow. Is it time for another Dave tantrum already? Seems like only a couple of days since the last.
By realizing that, by the definition she used, either recombination is an "error", or it doesn't even make sense to ask if it is an error.
YOU are the one not reading carefully. 

When she talks about an "error rate" that's low but non-zero being best for adaptability and long lineages, she is definitely not referring to regular old vanilla recombination.  She's talking about the same thing the Nature article describes which the cell works very hard to prevent, but it happens an little bit anyway.

You people are idiots.
She explicitly said "i.e. in which every offspring is identical to its parent"

That doesn't happen with recombination.
I assumed she meant "perfect recombination" ... which living cells approach closely, but don't quite ever achieve.

If she didn't mean that, then WTH did she mean?

Did the post I put up immediately after yours not give you a clue?
Lol @ Team Darwin teammates trying to save their Dear Leader, Pingu.

So I take it you just figured out your mistake.
Are you familiar with the concept of sexual and asexual reproduction?
I think this is Dave's 'apology' for his mistake/error equivocation.