Still waiting, Y.O.O.
Nashton
How does the ToE contribute to the discovery, testing and approval of
medications? You made the claim that every single drug available today
is a direct result of research that is based on the ToE.
DO anything. Copy and paste something, quote somebody, anything.
I'll be here waiting.
As for the net goons that inhabit this ng, bring it on! I am sure there
will be no meaningful contribution from you, but I imagine that if the
only talent you possess is to secret vitriol, might as well use it, right?
;)
Ernest Major
<n...@nana.ca> writes
>Where are you today? Hiding?
>
>How does the ToE contribute to the discovery, testing and approval of
>medications? You made the claim that every single drug available today
>is a direct result of research that is based on the ToE.
>
>DO anything. Copy and paste something, quote somebody, anything.
So that can comment again about how quaint it is to read books?
>
>I'll be here waiting.
>
>As for the net goons that inhabit this ng, bring it on! I am sure there
>will be no meaningful contribution from you, but I imagine that if the
>only talent you possess is to secret vitriol, might as well use it,
>right?
>
>;)
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Devils Advocaat
> Where are you today? Hiding?
>
> How does the ToE contribute to the discovery, testing and approval of
>
> DO anything. Copy and paste something, quote somebody, anything.
>
> I'll be here waiting.
>
> As for the net goons that inhabit this ng, bring it on! I am sure there
> will be no meaningful contribution from you, but I imagine that if the
> only talent you possess is to secret vitriol, might as well use it, right?
>
> ;)
How about you quote verbatim the post in which Ye Old One made this
assertion or perhaps provide a link to it so that everyone can see the
original statement in context?
spintronic
P.O.O-head's gone quiet.
(Most likely *HOPING* nashtons question will go away).
He pulled the same dissapearing act a while back when I called him up
on his erroneous *CLAIM* of being a GR expert, and asked him a simple
question about black holes.
I doubt well here from him, (Only to C&P something like; *shunned* or
*Hohohoho*).
I am however *NOT* doubtful, that he *WILL NOT* answer nashtons
question.
Unfortunately, for P.O.O-Head *ACTUAL* "answers to questions" are
harder to "find - C&P" than B.S news bullitens.
Nashton
Actually, I was hoping for at least *one* of the goons to participate in
the discussions.
Had any road-rage today?
Nashton
The rush is on to suck up to YOO.
Nashton
At least YOO, POO, whatever has the sense to hide away when cornered.
The other clueless goons (you know who you are) are continuing to bang
their hard skulls against the wall trying to dig up things that happened
years ago and to boot, one of them, Chris (how's the book going?),
wanted *me* to dig up the evidence for my alleged "crime" of backing up
from a challenge.
Every now and then I pinch myself, it's hard to believe these posters
are for real.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <h3hseg$3b8$2...@news.eternal-september.org>):
Gee, Nastie, he's got friends. Such a pity that you don't. I wonder why that
might be?
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Chris
Since you're obviously so desperate for vindication on this point, I
will provide some. YOO made an error of fact when he asserted most of
the drugs in use today were developed using evolutionary theory. That
simply isn't so.
As to your other claim, let us clarify something. You are either
mistaken or lying when you claim I wanted you to "dig up the evidence"
for your alleged "crime". I wanted you to dig up evidence for your own
defense, and you have singularly failed to do so (that goes for the
discussions others have mentioned, too). Please stop claiming I wanted
you to provide evidence for *my* claims; you have enough problems of
your own you should be attending to.
One final note concerning YOO: Compared to your reprehensible and
puerile behavior in this thread, his error of fact was extraordinarily
inconsequential. But by all means keep crowing about it. You're
putting on quite a show, I assure you.
Chris
spintronic
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:07:43 -0400, Nashton wrote
> > The rush is on to suck up to YOO.
>
> Gee, Nastie, he's got friends.
Least that's one of you.
> Such a pity that you don't. I wonder why that might be?
As you can probably guess, people like myself and maybe nasthton,
don't come here to socialise.
There's a door behind you, and behind that theres a big whole world of
a little thing called *reality*.
What's sad is that *YOU* & *P.O.O* no doubt do come here for
friendship, because you have none in the real world.
I came here to give you a slap, so aren't really here for the
popularity contest you & Y.O.O seem to be caught up in.
As a side note. P.O.O has no friends here.
He has a queue of people bent on disagreeing with people like me,
nashton, & madman, who therefore side with P.O.O-stain not out of
friendship, but because their in the crap and need him as a piece of
L.O.O roll to wipe their dirty hands on, they then throw him away like
the piece of shit that he really is.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<d1cc9ee9-0042-48de...@h30g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>):
> On 14 July, 13:18, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:07:43 -0400, Nashton wrote
>
>
>>> The rush is on to suck up to YOO.
>>
>> Gee, Nastie, he's got friends.
>
>
> Least that's one of you.
True.
>
>
>> Such a pity that you don't. I wonder why that might be?
>
>
> As you can probably guess, people like myself and maybe nasthton,
> don't come here to socialise.
Well, you've succeeded at that.
>
>
> There's a door behind you, and behind that theres a big whole world of
> a little thing called *reality*.
>
Oh, the irony.
>
> What's sad is that *YOU* & *P.O.O* no doubt do come here for
> friendship, because you have none in the real world.
> I came here to give you a slap, so aren't really here for the
> popularity contest you & Y.O.O seem to be caught up in.
You didn't succeed in that.
>
>
> As a side note. P.O.O has no friends here.
Gee. I thought that you just said that he and I were friends. Do make up your
mind, dear boy.
>
> He has a queue of people bent on disagreeing with people like me,
> nashton, & madman, who therefore side with P.O.O-stain not out of
> friendship, but because their in the crap and need him as a piece of
> L.O.O roll to wipe their dirty hands on, they then throw him away like
> the piece of shit that he really is.
>
I have disagreed with him when he's in error. Why, Nastie was just referring
to the latest (and far from the first) time that I have done so. You really
do lack the ability to read for comprehension, dear boy.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<a31bc7e6-341f-4bbf...@d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>):
And this has been pointed out to him, repeatedly, by multiple 'evolutionists'
starting with me... and _we_ pointed this out to him well before any
creationist cretins said a damn thing about it.
This is a major difference between 'evolutionists' and creationist cretins:
'evolutionists' can and will point out errors made by other 'evolutionists',
and will do so quickly, while creationist cretins rarely if ever point out
errors made by other creationist cretins.
Of course, if the creationist cretins were to start pointing out errors made
by other creationist cretins they'd never get anything else done...
>
> As to your other claim, let us clarify something. You are either
> mistaken or lying when you claim I wanted you to "dig up the evidence"
He ain't mistaken.
> for your alleged "crime". I wanted you to dig up evidence for your own
> defense, and you have singularly failed to do so (that goes for the
> discussions others have mentioned, too). Please stop claiming I wanted
> you to provide evidence for *my* claims; you have enough problems of
> your own you should be attending to.
He won't stop. He can't stop. Stopping would mean admitting that he was in
error, and he will never, ever, do that.
>
> One final note concerning YOO: Compared to your reprehensible and
> puerile behavior in this thread, his error of fact was extraordinarily
> inconsequential. But by all means keep crowing about it. You're
> putting on quite a show, I assure you.
>
I've got out the popcorn...
Suzanne
"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:lRNtv+bN...@meden.invalid...
Y.O.O. shows that he believes that the theory of evolution
has made it's contribution to medicine. He does not say
that all medicines are the result of the theory of evolution.
Here is what Nashton is referring to. Y.O.O. said the
following:
"Doesn't it seem somewhat ironic, however, that people who do not
believe in evolution, may have been or will be treated by drugs
discovered with the help of this remarkable theory? Would they refuse
the treatment if they knew how the drugs were discovered or would
they
become believers?"
>
Ye Old One clearly is saying that some drugs are derived
from the theory of evolution. What he says above is
"may have been or will be treated by drugs discovered
with the help of this remarkable theory." This leaves some
leaway that in logic, there are some drugs that are not
created by the theory of evolution.
>
Suzanne
Devils Advocaat
I guess this means you are unable to comply with one simple request
and so have to try and dodge it by making yet another unsupported
assertion.
Ye Old One
Incorrect. It is ALL of the drugs in use today are tested with
appropriate reference to the ToE. The choice of animals for testing,
and indeed the choice of humans for testing, cannot be done without
the ToE in mind. Ok, today it is so inbuilt into the system that it is
just second nature. So it is correct to say that all drugs are derived
from the ToE.
Medicine is a biological science. In medicine there is a legal
requirement that drugs are tested whenever their production license is
renewed. There is also a requirement to test any new drug cocktail
that is developed. The only "drug" that escape are the so called
"herbal drugs". As soon as you start purification or distillation then
you need a license.
And yes, even old established drugs like aspirin get tested.
>
>As to your other claim, let us clarify something. You are either
>mistaken or lying when you claim I wanted you to "dig up the evidence"
>for your alleged "crime". I wanted you to dig up evidence for your own
>defense, and you have singularly failed to do so (that goes for the
>discussions others have mentioned, too). Please stop claiming I wanted
>you to provide evidence for *my* claims; you have enough problems of
>your own you should be attending to.
>
>One final note concerning YOO: Compared to your reprehensible and
>puerile behavior in this thread, his error of fact was extraordinarily
>inconsequential. But by all means keep crowing about it. You're
>putting on quite a show, I assure you.
>
>Chris
--
Bob.
spintronic
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 05:48:29 -0700 (PDT), Chris
> Incorrect. It is ALL of the drugs in use today are tested with
> appropriate reference to the ToE. The choice of animals for testing,
> and indeed the choice of humans for testing, cannot be done without
> the ToE in mind.
Silly boy.
I suppose oil manufacturers test their oil's per the evolution of
their cars.
> Ok, today it is so inbuilt into the system that it is
> just second nature. So it is correct to say that all drugs are derived
> from the ToE.
Charles Frederic Gerhardt 1853.
You should look him up.
I wonder how any drugs ever existed before darwin.
el cid
You've been corrected on this multiple times and yet continue
to make the same bald assertions. Provide citations.
Drug development and testing is nearly 100% empirical.
ToE provides no substitutive guidance. More distantly
related species can and often do provide for better testing
models for developmental compounds.
FDA guidelines for animal testing do not mention evolution.
My familiarity with European guidelines is less up to
date but I am unaware of the mention of evolution.
Note how easy it would be, if you were correct, to
supply documents to prove your point. Cite the guidelines
for drug testing that mention evolution.
Many drugs are not even tested in primates.
You mentioned the testing of old drugs like aspirin in
combination therapies and yet I provided a reference to
such testing occurring in humans and skipping animal
models entirely. These facts show inconsistency with
your claims and yet you repeat them, again and again,
like a parrot. Please stop. Educate yourself. Write a
retractions.
Testing for manufacturing needs to show bioequivalence.
This has nothing to do with ToE. Comparative toxicology
within mammals does not track with evolutionary distance,
so it makes no sense to invoke ToE.
Please please stop pretending ToE is more than it is.
Suzanne
"Chris" <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a31bc7e6-341f-4bbf...@d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 14, 8:11 am, Nashton <n...@nana.ca> wrote:
> spintronic wrote:
> > On 14 July, 12:36, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On 14 July, 12:08, Nashton <n...@nana.ca> wrote:
>
> Since you're obviously so desperate for vindication on this point, I
> will provide some. YOO made an error of fact when he asserted most
> of
> the drugs in use today were developed using evolutionary theory.
> That
> simply isn't so.
>
in use today were developed using evolutionary theory.
be treated" with drugs that were derived by scientists
using the theory of evolution. I believe that the point he
was making essentially is that someone opposing the
theory of evolution, may have been helped unknowingly
by some scientist's work that utilized the theory of
evolution.
>
Suzanne
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Keep out of things you do not understand until you actually learn to
read - those are not my words above, they are the words of the article
I quoted.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
** SHUNNED for forging, stupidity, lying and trolling. **
--
Bob.
el cid
> "Chris" <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a31bc7e6-341f-4bbf...@d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 14, 8:11 am, Nashton <n...@nana.ca> wrote:> spintronic wrote:
> > > On 14 July, 12:36, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > >> On 14 July, 12:08, Nashton <n...@nana.ca> wrote:
>
> > Since you're obviously so desperate for vindication on this point, I
> > will provide some. YOO made an error of fact when he asserted most
> > of
> > the drugs in use today were developed using evolutionary theory.
> > That
> > simply isn't so.
>
> Bob (Ye Old One) did not say that "most" of the drugs
> in use today were developed using evolutionary theory.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e557ea285dadd67f?hl=en
Nashton: Which meds are directly derived from the ToE?
Ye Old One: Just about all in current use.
> He only indicated that someone "may have been or will
> be treated" with drugs that were derived by scientists
> using the theory of evolution. I believe that the point he
> was making essentially is that someone opposing the
> theory of evolution, may have been helped unknowingly
> by some scientist's work that utilized the theory of
> evolution.
No. He has been very explicit and you can follow
him in the live thread.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9a010b8fc06812e8?hl=en
el cid: But I'll help you out. Which of these pharms was directly
el cid: derived from ToE
el cid: Lipitor, Plavix, Enbrel, Epogen, Aranesp, Prevacid, Singular,
el cid: Viagra, Advair, Nexium, Ibuprofen, Acetometaphin, Aspirin
YOO: All of them.
YOO: No biological science can be done without respect to the ToE. It
YOO: underpins ALL biology.
YOO: All modern drugs are tested on animals, those results would be
invalid
YOO: without a knowledge of the ToE.
Please take a lesson here. If you don't know what he said, don't
try to tell people what he said and meant. Don't pipe up about
things where you are not well informed. At this point, I expect
many with Ye Old One would heed a similar request.
g...@risky-biz.com
Your original challenge was to show that knowledge of evolution could
lead to useful drugs or treatments. I believe that the original
article had an example. <paraphrasing> It said that in the search for
the gene "needles' in the enormous genome "haystack", researchers look
for areas that are less modified as compared with other creatures DNA.
The logic in this, which only makes sense in the light of evolutionary
theory, is that the genes, although not identical across species, will
be more "conserved"; constrained by natural selection to retain a
function. The "junk" DNA is free to change with the general rate of
mutation and thus ends up much more different.
I have no personal knowledge as to whether the article is correct,
that this is one of the methods used. But it seems sensible. I hope
that this area of research, still in its toddlerhood, will indeed
yield new and effective treatments. Perhaps some of the more learned
T.O. denizens would like to comment.
I don't know to what degree evolutionary ideas have contributed to the
drugs we currently use (nor do you, I suspect), except to note that
practically all of them were developed by people educated in modern
biology, including evolutionary ideas.
Nashton
You're either lying or didn't read the post I am referring to. Not only
did he say *exactly* what I'm saying he said, I was definitely not the
only one that has called him on it.
For your perusal:
http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/33841faa78251c89?hl=en#
"On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 12:15:23 -0300, Nashton <n...@nana.ca> enriched this
- Hide quoted text -
group when s/he wrote:
>Ye Old One wrote:
>> You don't have to believe in evolution to reap the benefits of
>> research which relies on it
>> July 10, 4:14 PM · Asta Gindulyte - Popular Science Examiner
>>
http://www.examiner.com/x-16324-Popular-Science-Examiner~y2009m7d10-Y...
>> According to a recent Gallup poll taken on 200th anniversary of
>> Charles Darwin's birth, only 39% of Americans believe in evolution.
>> And then there is the ongoing debate about whether it's appropriate to
>> teach the theory evolution in schools.
>> Yet in the science world, the theory of evolution is widely accepted.
>> The focus is rather on understanding it further, and making a good use
>> of it. For instance, molecular evolution is routinely utilized in gene
>> discovery.
>> Given that human genome contains about 3 billion DNA base pairs, and
>> the vast majority of them are so called "junk", a task of finding a
>> gene of interest is like looking for a needle in a haystack. In fact,
>> only about 1.5% of human DNA contains the "interesting" code that
>> translates into proteins.
>> That's where molecular evolution comes in. By comparing DNA sequences
>> from different species, scientists look for similar segments. The DNA
>> sequence segments that code for genes, tend to be fairly similar among
>> different species, while the junk DNA varies widely. The fact that
>> different species have similar genes suggest, of course, that at one
>> point in time they were one and the same, but have since evolved.
>> Discovering a gene is no small achievement, and it's no wonder, that
>> such research is often announced on the news. Once a gene responsible
>> for a particular function in the human body is discovered, it becomes
>> a lot easier to design drugs that treat diseases associated with that
>> particular function. Still not a walk in the park, but it does open a
>> lot of leads for further research.
>> Doesn't it seem somewhat ironic, however, that people who do not
>> believe in evolution, may have been or will be treated by drugs
>> discovered with the help of this remarkable theory? Would they refuse
>> the treatment if they knew how the drugs were discovered or would they
>> become believers?
>Which meds are directly derived from the ToE?
Nashton
That is precisely what it means to be stupid. A thick skull and not
knowing when to stop is part and parcel of the picture.
YOO is just plain stoopid, as stupid as it gets.
Nashton
Suzanne, please do not stand between YOO and his flagrant stupidity.
Nashton
You suspect wrong.
, except to note that
> practically all of them were developed by people educated in modern
> biology, including evolutionary ideas.
Irrelevant. At least you were polite.
>
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Oh do shut up and learn to read.
--
Bob.
g...@risky-biz.com
You're claiming quite a bit of expertise here. Do you have a lot of
experience in medical research?
> , except to note that
>
> > practically all of them were developed by people educated in modern
> > biology, including evolutionary ideas.
>
> Irrelevant. At least you were polite.
Always. It's better for my mental health and it doesn't let the other
fellow off the hook on a technicality. What about the first part of my
post?
Greg Guarino
Nashton
It's a good thing you've got people fessing up and apologizing for you.
When will you be a man and take responsibility for your own actions?
Now, as far as your foray into the medical field, of which you are even
more clueless than you are in anything scientific, it is as much art as
it is science. It is as much empiricism as it is caring for ones patients.
And why are you not lambasting Chris for defending you, since you're
incapable of defending yourself and yet lashed out at Suzanne.
What a pathetic excuse for a human being you are.At least God loves you.
Nashton
I'm not being vindictive. You are probably projecting. You have spewed
your vitriol on many occasions here. I just want YOO and YOU to prove
all the nonsense you've been spewing.
And why are you apologizing for him and when are you going to back up
your claim that I am a liar, that I joined [sic] with spintronic and
that I back away from challenges?
This is not being vindictive, it's setting the record straight and
demonstrating the idiocy that pervades this group.
>
> As to your other claim, let us clarify something. You are either
> mistaken or lying when you claim I wanted you to "dig up the evidence"
> for your alleged "crime". I wanted you to dig up evidence for your own
> defense, and you have singularly failed to do so (that goes for the
> discussions others have mentioned, too). Please stop claiming I wanted
> you to provide evidence for *my* claims; you have enough problems of
> your own you should be attending to.
Here we go again:
You make the assertion-------->you back it up with facts.
HTH
>
> One final note concerning YOO: Compared to your reprehensible and
> puerile behavior in this thread, his error of fact was extraordinarily
> inconsequential. But by all means keep crowing about it. You're
> putting on quite a show, I assure you.
The comical relief comes from the fact that you're still unable to
provide evidence for your assertions concerning my character, and the
hoot, the real hoot, is the fact that you are apologizing for YOO.
So much entertainment, so little time.
>
> Chris
>
Nashton
You were a lot kinder to Chris than you are to Suzanne. I would love to
have you tell me to shut up in my face, but I'm sure you would run away
with your vestigial tale between your legs hoping I won't catch you.
But that's the kind of man you are. Intimidating women and getting
others to do your dirty work. And accusing others of being anti-science
when you can't admit your mistake.
You make me sick.
Nashton
Oh Chris, you are quite a piece of work.
Boikat
> > enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
Gee. How "grade school" can you get?
>
> But that's the kind of man you are. Intimidating women and getting
> others to do your dirty work. And accusing others of being anti-science
> when you can't admit your mistake.
>
> You make me sick.
Oh, shut up, you little prick.
Boikat
Suzanne
"Nashton" <n...@nana.ca> wrote in message
news:h3imbq$i4h$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
you printed the above website, it doesn't seem that I have
lied about what it said.
>
He said that what he wrote was a quote from what
someone else said. So, where in his post do you find
what you are saying that he said? I made a mistake.
Could you have done that, too? I did not notice his
link, and when I went back and looked, it was there.
Clicking on it shows that most of what he said is
truly a quote from someone else, and that includes
the last paragraph that I quoted that I thought,
mistakenly, he had written.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
"Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
news:mnip559nfag953287...@4ax.com...
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 09:40:16 -0500, "Suzanne" <shi...@flash.net>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:lRNtv+bN...@meden.invalid...
>> In message <h3hout$mis$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Nashton
>> <n...@nana.ca> writes
>>
f> >Ye Old One clearly is saying that some drugs are derived
> > from the theory of evolution. What he says above is
> > "may have been or will be treated by drugs discovered
> > with the help of this remarkable theory." This leaves some
> > leaway that in logic, there are some drugs that are not
> > created by the theory of evolution.
>>
> > Suzanne
>
> Keep out of things you do not understand until you actually learn to
> read - those are not my words above, they are the words of the
> article
> I quoted.
>
It turns out that you are right. I did not realize that you
were quoting someone else.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
"Suzanne" <shi...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:Lv37m.15683$bq1....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
Bob said that what I was commenting on was something
he was quoting and not something that he, himself, had
said. He did also include a link to what he was quoting.
>
Suzanne
Chris
Do you know the difference between "vindication" and "vindictiveness"?
Obviously not. Please- I know you don't think much of books but
there's one called a "dictionary" that serves a real purpose.
> You have spewed
> your vitriol on many occasions here.
Yes, I have, but not in this thread, and not recently at you. All I've
done is recite facts. You on the other hand have been a veritable font
of gratuitous insult, snide innuendo and condescending arrogance.
> I just want YOO and YOU to prove
> all the nonsense you've been spewing.
> And why are you apologizing for him
Where did I apologize for him? You're very confused.
> and when are you going to back up
> your claim that I am a liar,
You haven't stopped lying since you started posting here. Probably
quite some time before that, but I refuse to speculate.
> that I joined [sic] with spintronic and
> that I back away from challenges?
You've not met a single challenge since you started posting here.
You're a puffed-up blowhard, infused with self-importance and an
overblown ego, and you resort to dishonesty and insult when you're
called on your puerile behavior.
That, by the way, is vitriol.
>
> This is not being vindictive, it's setting the record straight and
> demonstrating the idiocy that pervades this group.
Again, go get that dictionary. That word doesn't mean what you think
it means.
>
>
>
> > As to your other claim, let us clarify something. You are either
> > mistaken or lying when you claim I wanted you to "dig up the evidence"
> > for your alleged "crime". I wanted you to dig up evidence for your own
> > defense, and you have singularly failed to do so (that goes for the
> > discussions others have mentioned, too). Please stop claiming I wanted
> > you to provide evidence for *my* claims; you have enough problems of
> > your own you should be attending to.
>
> Here we go again:
>
> You make the assertion-------->you back it up with facts.
I made a negative claim- that you had never partaken in a discussion
of vestigial structures. That you had, in fact, run from such
challenges. I presented a link that showed you ignoring the challenge.
My part is done.
You, however, made a positive claim. You claimed that you had partaken
in such a discussion that lasted several days and you presented real
data. That's your lie, because you never did. But still, you made the
claim, and now the burden of proof is on you to substantiate that
claim. But you cannot, because you lied about it. But are you so
lacking in basic logic that you cannot understand the burden of proof
is *always* on the one who makes a positive claim?
> HTH
>
>
>
> > One final note concerning YOO: Compared to your reprehensible and
> > puerile behavior in this thread, his error of fact was extraordinarily
> > inconsequential. But by all means keep crowing about it. You're
> > putting on quite a show, I assure you.
>
> The comical relief comes from the fact that you're still unable to
> provide evidence for your assertions concerning my character,
No, I made comments about your *lack* of character.
> and the
> hoot, the real hoot, is the fact that you are apologizing for YOO.
I don't think you know what "apologize" means, either.
Chris
Chris
> J.J. O'Shea wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 09:41:44 -0400, spintronic wrote
> > (in article
Running again, I see, and not even knowing to whom you're responding.
Chris
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>"Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
>news:mnip559nfag953287...@4ax.com...
>On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 09:40:16 -0500, "Suzanne" <shi...@flash.net>
>enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:lRNtv+bN...@meden.invalid...
>>> In message <h3hout$mis$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Nashton
>>> <n...@nana.ca> writes
>>>
>f> >Ye Old One clearly is saying that some drugs are derived
>> > from the theory of evolution. What he says above is
>> > "may have been or will be treated by drugs discovered
>> > with the help of this remarkable theory." This leaves some
>> > leaway that in logic, there are some drugs that are not
>> > created by the theory of evolution.
>>>
>> > Suzanne
>>
>> Keep out of things you do not understand until you actually learn to
>> read - those are not my words above, they are the words of the
>> article
>> I quoted.
>>
>It turns out that you are right. I did not realize that you
>were quoting someone else.
FFS woman - learn to bloody read!
It is very rare to find such unmitigated ignorance as yours and it
becoming clear that most of it is down to your inability to read and
comprehend. I've said before that you need remedial English lessons,
there is no need to go on proving it post after post.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <h3j0k3$2ia$2...@news.eternal-september.org>):
I'm not Chris, laddie.
You, however, are an idiot.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<6afb6e86-6525-4fba...@h2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>):
He's a creationist cretin. Running is what they do. And this is just one more
example showing that creationist cretins are clueless.
Nashton
You are *one* sick little pup, aren't you?
Why not just limit yourself to what you do best, ie copy & paste. Oh,
and I'm still waiting for you to act like a man and do the right thing:
admit that you were wrong.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <h3jgd6$clq$1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
Ph, the irony.
>
> Why not just limit yourself to what you do best, ie copy & paste. Oh,
> and I'm still waiting for you to act like a man and do the right thing:
> admit that you were wrong.
>
Oh, my God. My irony-oh-meter just blew up.
Rolf
> Where are you today? Hiding?
>
I think it would be a good idea for you to drop that subject.
You see, the ToE is so fundamental in almost every aspect of biology,
medicine and related fields that you run into the same kind of problem you
would have if you would try to separate deuterium oxide from your tap water.
And if you stop and think it over just a little bit - provided that is
something you are capable of, what does it matter what exactly he said,
whether he just made a quote, or whatever?
Isn't facts what it is all about - the facts that make the theory of
evolution such a strong theory? Why don't you face the music and realize:
You are not, not in this lifetime, not ever, even with the help of Ray,
T.Pagano, Madman and the few other idiots we have here going to falsify the
ToE.
Don't you think it is a sign of a little more hubris than good for you, when
you think you can tear down the results of 150 years of scientific research?
What are your qualifications?
Have you studied the ToE in order to learn what it is and what it isn't,
what it says and what it doesn't say? Is suspect you are far too ignorant to
be entitled to any opinion abot the ToE one way or the other.
That's it: You haven't even got sufficient knowledge to show why the ToE is
'true', to defend the theory in a coherent manner. Expressed another way:
You wouldn't be able to act as a Devil's Advocat for ToE.
OTOH, we evilutionists have lots of knowledge both about the ToE AND about
creationism, enough to know what we are tlaking about, whereas you fail
miserably in that respect.
Suzanne
You are stuffy.
>
You are also a troll.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
"el cid" <elcid...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:19547724-65e4-474c...@l32g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
seen in Talk Origins. The things that you show above
have not appeared in here. Someone else even asked
for the original post and no one answered. I found it,
but I did not find the thread because I pulled it up
solo on the Internet which one can do. I don't need a
lesson and I don't need someone to talk sharply to me.
To at least some of us, this thread just appeared and
it seemed to be new, but it seemed that the first post
or posts were missing. Thanks for supplying all that
you took the time to do above, that is appreciated.
>
Suzanne
Nashton
No problem, Suzanne. I can see how it was a mistake. Apologies.
Gregory A Greenman
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:41:43 -0500, "Suzanne" <shi...@flash.net>
> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >
> >>
> >It turns out that you are right. I did not realize that you
> >were quoting someone else.
>
>
> It is very rare to find such unmitigated ignorance as yours and it
> becoming clear that most of it is down to your inability to read and
> comprehend. I've said before that you need remedial English lessons,
> there is no need to go on proving it post after post.
Given the fact that she was actually trying to defend you, couldn't
you be a tad more gracious?
--
Greg
http://www.spencerbooksellers.com
newsguy -at- spencersoft -dot- com
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <i1h7m.10692$kA....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com>):
Because you use Yankee English... but not very well. You're poorly educated
and it shows.
> You are stuffy.
Nope.
>>
> You are also a troll.
Now that's the biggest whopper you've emitted in a long time.
>>
> Suzanne
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>"Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
>news:sm3q5552gv34cv5km...@4ax.com...
>On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:41:43 -0500, "Suzanne" <shi...@flash.net>
>enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> FFS woman - learn to bloody read!
>>
>> It is very rare to find such unmitigated ignorance as yours and it
>> becoming clear that most of it is down to your inability to read and
>> comprehend. I've said before that you need remedial English lessons,
>> there is no need to go on proving it post after post.
>>
>All this because I speak American English.
>You are stuffy.
Most of the regulars are Americans. I know of no other that writes
such torturously constructed screeds as you do.
But, in this case, it is you poor reading ability that has been
exposed.
>>
>You are also a troll.
And you are a liar.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 23:07:41 GMT, Ye Old One wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:41:43 -0500, "Suzanne" <shi...@flash.net>
>> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >It turns out that you are right. I did not realize that you
>> >were quoting someone else.
>>
>> =46FS woman - learn to bloody read!
>>
>> It is very rare to find such unmitigated ignorance as yours and it
>> becoming clear that most of it is down to your inability to read and
>> comprehend. I've said before that you need remedial English lessons,
>> there is no need to go on proving it post after post.
>
>
>Given the fact that she was actually trying to defend you, couldn't
>you be a tad more gracious?
No, she doesn't deserve it.
--
Bob.
spintronic
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 09:40:16 -0500, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net>
> Keep out of things you do not understand until you actually learn to
> read - those are not my words above, they are the words of the article
> I quoted.
Oh dear.
654879468795 more irony meters just blew.
This *FREEK* thinks we test cosmetics on rabits because their our
closest relative.
spintronic
> > Charles Frederic Gerhardt 1853.
>
> >You should look him up.
>
> >I wonder how any drugs ever existed before darwin.
> ** SHUNNED for forging, stupidity, lying and trolling. **
Fuck you dickwad.
You *shun*, because you *CAN'T* fight.
I would do the same, against someone I cannot win.
spintronic
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:46:24 -0500, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net>
> >Suzanne
>
> Oh do shut up and learn to read.
Respectful to the ladies as always.
A *true* gent.
Or a fin tard.
You choose.
spintronic
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:19:27 -0400, Nashton wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> > J.J. O'Shea wrote:
> >> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 09:41:44 -0400, spintronic wrote
> >> (in article
>
> - Show quoted text -
How do you feel about defending a woman abuser?
spintronic
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:41:43 -0500, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net>
> FFS woman - learn to bloody read!
Aww.
A ladies man to the last.
spintronic
> "Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in messagenews:mnip559nfag953287...@4ax.com...
> > Keep out of things you do not understand until you actually learn to
> > read - those are not my words above, they are the words of the
> > article
> > I quoted.
>
> It turns out that you are right. I did not realize that you
> were quoting someone else.
Gees, who smacked you into submission?
My guess, someone as cavalier as "P.O.O stain / shit-the brain"?
Suzanne
"spintronic" <spint...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:db9c61a3-de53-4b42...@r2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
Suzanne
>
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<8c25bb0e-1b45-42f5...@c36g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):
Where did I do that? I pointed out that Nastie made an error: he attacked
Chris when responding to one of my posts. And I pointed out that Nastie is an
idiot. Evidence supporting my position includes, well, includes the fact that
he is so far gone that he can't read far enough to find out who he's replying
to.
Perhaps you can point to where I defended _anyone_?
Didn't think so. You're a creationist cretin, and are therefore clueless.
Suzanne
"Gregory A Greenman" <s...@sig.below> wrote in message
news:MPG.24c779dc9...@news.newsguy.com...
>
Suzanne
Ye Old One
** SHUNNED for nym shifting, forging, stupidity and trolling. **
--
Bob.
Nashton
> On Jul 14, 3:31 pm, Nashton <n...@nana.ca> wrote:
>> g...@risky-biz.com wrote:
>>> On Jul 14, 7:08 am, Nashton <n...@nana.ca> wrote:
>>>> Where are you today? Hiding?
>>>> How does the ToE contribute to the discovery, testing and approval of
>>>> medications? You made the claim that every single drug available today
>>>> is a direct result of research that is based on the ToE.
>>>> DO anything. Copy and paste something, quote somebody, anything.
>>>> As for the net goons that inhabit this ng, bring it on! I am sure there
>>>> will be no meaningful contribution from you, but I imagine that if the
>>>> only talent you possess is to secret vitriol, might as well use it, right?
>>>> ;)
>>> lead to useful drugs or treatments. I believe that the original
>>> article had an example. <paraphrasing> It said that in the search for
>>> the gene "needles' in the enormous genome "haystack", researchers look
>>> for areas that are less modified as compared with other creatures DNA.
>>> The logic in this, which only makes sense in the light of evolutionary
>>> theory, is that the genes, although not identical across species, will
>>> be more "conserved"; constrained by natural selection to retain a
>>> function. The "junk" DNA is free to change with the general rate of
>>> mutation and thus ends up much more different.
>>> I have no personal knowledge as to whether the article is correct,
>>> that this is one of the methods used. But it seems sensible. I hope
>>> that this area of research, still in its toddlerhood, will indeed
>>> yield new and effective treatments. Perhaps some of the more learned
>>> T.O. denizens would like to comment.
>>> I don't know to what degree evolutionary ideas have contributed to the
>>> drugs we currently use (nor do you, I suspect)
>> You suspect wrong.
>
> You're claiming quite a bit of expertise here. Do you have a lot of
> experience in medical research?
I anm as familiar with drug and medications in general as any MD. Now,
as far as expertise is concerned, I neither claimed this nor implied it.
Can you explain how you got this impression?
>
>> , except to note that
>>
>>> practically all of them were developed by people educated in modern
>>> biology, including evolutionary ideas.
>> Irrelevant. At least you were polite.
>
> Always. It's better for my mental health and it doesn't let the other
> fellow off the hook on a technicality. What about the first part of my
> post?
>
> Greg Guarino
>
Nashton
Yawn. Coming from you, it's a compliment. Thanks.
>
> Perhaps you can point to where I defended _anyone_?
You weren't merely defending him, you were sucking up to him as if it
were going out of style.
>
> Didn't think so. You're a creationist cretin, and are therefore clueless.
>
Is this the best you can do? The more you post, the more your absence of
moral fiber shines through.
Andrew Cunningham
You don't seem to be respectful to the men. Double standards much?
Nashton
Do you consider YOO or OShea men?
ROTF
Andrew Cunningham
Regarding the former, he signs his posts with the name "Bob"; I
assume, then, that he is male. As for the latter, I cannot say for
certain what his gender might be based only on his name. What's your
point again?
Andrew Cunningham
> You were a lot kinder to Chris than you are to Suzanne.
Perhaps he simply dislikes her for the same reasons he dislikes all
people who advocate creationism. It can go either way, but I don't see
why you're instantly jumping the gun on this one.
>I would love to
> have you tell me to shut up in my face, but I'm sure you would run away
> with your vestigial tale between your legs hoping I won't catch you.
So, to sum up, you're saying you would attempt to physically harm him
if you were to meet him in real life whilst he acted this way? My, how
"intelligently designed" your nature is.
> But that's the kind of man you are. Intimidating women and getting
> others to do your dirty work. And accusing others of being anti-science
> when you can't admit your mistake.
Why does it make a difference whether he intimidates women or men? Are
they inferior to us intellectually? Please elaborate so that I may
understand the message you are trying to convey.
> You make me sick.
See a doctor.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <h3lpu8$4le$1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
You're welcome.
>>
>> Perhaps you can point to where I defended _anyone_?
>
> You weren't merely defending him, you were sucking up to him as if it
> were going out of style.
>
Gee. I notice that you have failed to point out where this occurred.
>>
>> Didn't think so. You're a creationist cretin, and are therefore clueless.
>>
>
> Is this the best you can do? The more you post, the more your absence of
> moral fiber shines through.
>
Oh, the irony.
Chris
Why do you think you can complain about gratuitous insults when you
chime in like this in a thread that concerns you not in the least?
Ah, sorry, it is because you are a hypocrite.
Have you looked up "vindication" yet? Just wondering, because you
looked really silly conflating "vindication" with "vindictiveness" in
that other thread. Really silly. But hey, the words have a lot of
letters in common and they might even have the same etymological root.
(Oops: "etymological" means, having to do with the origins of language
or words. Sorry, I used a big word.)
You have a nice day.
Chris
Chris
g...@risky-biz.com
> g...@risky-biz.com wrote:
> > On Jul 14, 3:31 pm, Nashton <n...@nana.ca> wrote:
> >> g...@risky-biz.com wrote:
> >>> On Jul 14, 7:08 am, Nashton <n...@nana.ca> wrote:
> >>> I don't know to what degree evolutionary ideas have contributed to the
> >>> drugs we currently use (nor do you, I suspect)
> >> You suspect wrong.
>
> > You're claiming quite a bit of expertise here. Do you have a lot of
> > experience in medical research?
>
> I anm as familiar with drug and medications in general as any MD. Now,
> as far as expertise is concerned, I neither claimed this nor implied it.
>
> Can you explain how you got this impression?
The "you suspect wrong" bit. I said that I don't know how much
evolutionary ideas have contributed to the drugs we use. I say that
because to know one way or the other would require expertise. You
claim to know, thus must be claiming expertise regarding medical
research.
>
> >> , except to note that
>
> >>> practically all of them were developed by people educated in modern
> >>> biology, including evolutionary ideas.
> >> Irrelevant. At least you were polite.
>
> > Always. It's better for my mental health and it doesn't let the other
> > fellow off the hook on a technicality. What about the first part of my
> > post?
>
Again, what about the first part, the meat of my original post? The
original article under discussion describes a method for locating
genes, the first step toward gene-based therapies. It is a system that
only makes sense in the light of evolutionary theory. Read it again.
Greg Guarino
Nashton
> On Jul 15, 7:43 pm, Nashton <n...@nana.ca> wrote:
>> g...@risky-biz.com wrote:
>>> On Jul 14, 3:31 pm, Nashton <n...@nana.ca> wrote:
>>>> g...@risky-biz.com wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 14, 7:08 am, Nashton <n...@nana.ca> wrote:
>
>>>>> I don't know to what degree evolutionary ideas have contributed to the
>>>>> drugs we currently use (nor do you, I suspect)
>>>> You suspect wrong.
>>> You're claiming quite a bit of expertise here. Do you have a lot of
>>> experience in medical research?
>> I anm as familiar with drug and medications in general as any MD. Now,
>> as far as expertise is concerned, I neither claimed this nor implied it.
>>
>> Can you explain how you got this impression?
>
> The "you suspect wrong" bit.
I see.
I said that I don't know how much
> evolutionary ideas have contributed to the drugs we use. I say that
> because to know one way or the other would require expertise.
Which is wrong....again.
You
> claim to know, thus must be claiming expertise regarding medical
> research.
I know a lot more than you, evidently.
Pharmacology might appear as very arcane to you but I assure you that
meds are not derived with the ToE in mind nor does the ToE have anything
to do with their inception, development and testing.
Is that clear enough for you? Now, if you are making the claim that
drugs are derivatives of the ToE, I'd be happy to see your evidence.
>>>> , except to note that
>>>>> practically all of them were developed by people educated in modern
>>>>> biology, including evolutionary ideas.
>>>> Irrelevant. At least you were polite.
>>> Always. It's better for my mental health and it doesn't let the other
>>> fellow off the hook on a technicality. What about the first part of my
>>> post?
> Again, what about the first part, the meat of my original post? The
> original article under discussion describes a method for locating
> genes, the first step toward gene-based therapies.
Gene based therapies are just that. You can locate a gene and develop a
therapy for it without knowing squat about the ToE. This has been
touched upon by other posters in here also. Nothing to see here.
It is a system that
> only makes sense in the light of evolutionary theory. Read it again.
It's a system that makes sense given that the human genome has been
elucidated to some degree.
Besides, gene therapy is a minuscule fraction of drug development today.
Now, go back and read what I am disputing here. POO claimed that *every*
single drug is derived from the ToE.
>
> Greg Guarino
>
g...@risky-biz.com
> g...@risky-biz.com wrote:
> > On Jul 15, 7:43 pm, Nashton <n...@nana.ca> wrote:
> >> g...@risky-biz.com wrote:
> >>> On Jul 14, 3:31 pm, Nashton <n...@nana.ca> wrote:
> >>>> g...@risky-biz.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 14, 7:08 am, Nashton <n...@nana.ca> wrote:
>
> >>>>> I don't know to what degree evolutionary ideas have contributed to the
> >>>>> drugs we currently use (nor do you, I suspect)
> >>>> You suspect wrong.
> >>> You're claiming quite a bit of expertise here. Do you have a lot of
> >>> experience in medical research?
> >> I anm as familiar with drug and medications in general as any MD. Now,
> >> as far as expertise is concerned, I neither claimed this nor implied it.
> >> Can you explain how you got this impression?
>
> > The "you suspect wrong" bit.
>
> I see.
>
> I said that I don't know how much
>
> > evolutionary ideas have contributed to the drugs we use. I say that
> > because to know one way or the other would require expertise.
>
> Which is wrong....again.
Really? I know that this may go against general practice on T.O., but
I wouldn't have to know something about medical research to know how
medical research is done, and how it is not?
> You
>
> > claim to know, thus must be claiming expertise regarding medical
> > research.
>
> I know a lot more than you, evidently.
> Pharmacology might appear as very arcane to you but I assure you that
> meds are not derived with the ToE in mind nor does the ToE have anything
> to do with their inception, development and testing.
You can "assure" me if you like, but I am not convinced that you would
know one way or the other.
> Is that clear enough for you? Now, if you are making the claim that
> drugs are derivatives of the ToE, I'd be happy to see your evidence.
My aim, once again, is to get you to address the thrust of the actual
article that started the thread. As yet, except for a blanket denial,
I have not succeeded.
> >>>> , except to note that
> >>>>> practically all of them were developed by people educated in modern
> >>>>> biology, including evolutionary ideas.
> >>>> Irrelevant. At least you were polite.
> >>> Always. It's better for my mental health and it doesn't let the other
> >>> fellow off the hook on a technicality. What about the first part of my
> >>> post?
> > Again, what about the first part, the meat of my original post? The
> > original article under discussion describes a method for locating
> > genes, the first step toward gene-based therapies.
>
> Gene based therapies are just that. You can locate a gene and develop a
> therapy for it without knowing squat about the ToE.
The article in question says otherwise. Perhaps you could detail why
you disagree.
This has been
> touched upon by other posters in here also. Nothing to see here.
>
> It is a system that
>
> > only makes sense in the light of evolutionary theory. Read it again.
>
> It's a system that makes sense given that the human genome has been
> elucidated to some degree.
How has it been elucidated? The article describes one method.
> Besides, gene therapy is a minuscule fraction of drug development today.
It promises to be a larger portion in the future. But the size of the
fraction is not the salient point here.
>
> Now, go back and read what I am disputing here. POO claimed that *every*
> single drug is derived from the ToE.
You'll find that I have little interest in the petty squabbles that
go on here. Count it as a compensating benefit of age. You seem to be
quite invested in the idea that the theory of evolution is of no use
in medical research. You would have to be, I guess, if you don't think
it is true.
spintronic
**SHUNNED for Woman abuse**
wf3h
> therapy for it without knowing squat about the ToE. This has been
> touched upon by other posters in here also. Nothing to see here.
well that depends. it may be true that the ToE, in and of itself, is
not necessary to develop drugs HOWEVER, there's an 800 pound gorilla
in the room. that's called the 'scientific method'. and that IS used
to develop drugs
nashtie, like other creationists, wants some type of handwaving 'man
behind the curtain' view of nature to be accepted in lieu of science,
as it was for thousands of years when people who thought as he did
tried to explain nature.
and, of course, they failed. miserably. utterly. totally. rarely in
human history has an idea been so spectacular a failure and STILL had
its supporters.
'gene'; 'therapy' etc, are concepts developed and identified by the
SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
creationism is an alternative view of the world that is stillborn.
creationism USED to be the reigning paradigm for explaining nature. it
did not identify 'genes', nor effective therapies, nor any OTHER
explanation of nature that is valid
so while he mews and pukes about how science develops drugs, let it be
known that HIS view...creationism...is incapable of developing ANY
comprehensible view of nature that has validity.
Nashton
Not really. Anything else?
>
>> You
>>
>>> claim to know, thus must be claiming expertise regarding medical
>>> research.
>> I know a lot more than you, evidently.
>> Pharmacology might appear as very arcane to you but I assure you that
>> meds are not derived with the ToE in mind nor does the ToE have anything
>> to do with their inception, development and testing.
>
> You can "assure" me if you like, but I am not convinced that you would
> know one way or the other.
No big deal.
>
>> Is that clear enough for you? Now, if you are making the claim that
>> drugs are derivatives of the ToE, I'd be happy to see your evidence.
>
> My aim, once again, is to get you to address the thrust of the actual
> article that started the thread. As yet, except for a blanket denial,
> I have not succeeded.
Right.
My stance is the following:
A poster made a claim that all drugs are directly derived from the ToE.
I have been asking for substantiation.
Any other questions?
>
>>>>>> , except to note that
>>>>>>> practically all of them were developed by people educated in modern
>>>>>>> biology, including evolutionary ideas.
>>>>>> Irrelevant. At least you were polite.
>>>>> Always. It's better for my mental health and it doesn't let the other
>>>>> fellow off the hook on a technicality. What about the first part of my
>>>>> post?
>>> Again, what about the first part, the meat of my original post? The
>>> original article under discussion describes a method for locating
>>> genes, the first step toward gene-based therapies.
>> Gene based therapies are just that. You can locate a gene and develop a
>> therapy for it without knowing squat about the ToE.
>
> The article in question says otherwise. Perhaps you could detail why
> you disagree.
There is no article in question that shows that all drugs are
derivatives of the ToE.
Next.
>
> This has been
>> touched upon by other posters in here also. Nothing to see here.
>>
>> It is a system that
>>
>>> only makes sense in the light of evolutionary theory. Read it again.
>> It's a system that makes sense given that the human genome has been
>> elucidated to some degree.
>
> How has it been elucidated? The article describes one method.
>
>> Besides, gene therapy is a minuscule fraction of drug development today.
>
> It promises to be a larger portion in the future. But the size of the
> fraction is not the salient point here.
>> Now, go back and read what I am disputing here. POO claimed that *every*
>> single drug is derived from the ToE.
>
> You'll find that I have little interest in the petty squabbles that
> go on here. Count it as a compensating benefit of age. You seem to be
> quite invested in the idea that the theory of evolution is of no use
> in medical research. You would have to be, I guess, if you don't think
> it is true.
The ToE is indeed of very little benefit to medical research. Have there
been any cures or treatments that are based upon the tenets of this
theory? Absolutely, not.
What waste of time.
>
g...@risky-biz.com
>
> >> You
>
> >>> claim to know, thus must be claiming expertise regarding medical
> >>> research.
> >> I know a lot more than you, evidently.
> >> Pharmacology might appear as very arcane to you but I assure you that
> >> meds are not derived with the ToE in mind nor does the ToE have anything
> >> to do with their inception, development and testing.
>
> > You can "assure" me if you like, but I am not convinced that you would
> > know one way or the other.
>
> No big deal.
>
>
>
> >> Is that clear enough for you? Now, if you are making the claim that
> >> drugs are derivatives of the ToE, I'd be happy to see your evidence.
>
> > My aim, once again, is to get you to address the thrust of the actual
> > article that started the thread. As yet, except for a blanket denial,
> > I have not succeeded.
>
> Right.
> My stance is the following:
>
> A poster made a claim that all drugs are directly derived from the ToE.
> I have been asking for substantiation.
>
> Any other questions?
>
You are obviously more comfortable trying to argue that point than
mine. You know what mine is by now. You can address it or not.
> >>>>>> , except to note that
> >>>>>>> practically all of them were developed by people educated in modern
> >>>>>>> biology, including evolutionary ideas.
> >>>>>> Irrelevant. At least you were polite.
> >>>>> Always. It's better for my mental health and it doesn't let the other
> >>>>> fellow off the hook on a technicality. What about the first part of my
> >>>>> post?
> >>> Again, what about the first part, the meat of my original post? The
> >>> original article under discussion describes a method for locating
> >>> genes, the first step toward gene-based therapies.
> >> Gene based therapies are just that. You can locate a gene and develop a
> >> therapy for it without knowing squat about the ToE.
>
> > The article in question says otherwise. Perhaps you could detail why
> > you disagree.
>
> There is no article in question that shows that all drugs are
> derivatives of the ToE.
Which I have never mentioned.
> Next.
> > This has been
> >> touched upon by other posters in here also. Nothing to see here.
>
> >> It is a system that
>
> >>> only makes sense in the light of evolutionary theory. Read it again.
> >> It's a system that makes sense given that the human genome has been
> >> elucidated to some degree.
>
> > How has it been elucidated? The article describes one method.
>
> >> Besides, gene therapy is a minuscule fraction of drug development today.
>
> > It promises to be a larger portion in the future. But the size of the
> > fraction is not the salient point here.
> >> Now, go back and read what I am disputing here. POO claimed that *every*
> >> single drug is derived from the ToE.
>
> > You'll find that I have little interest in the petty squabbles that
> > go on here. Count it as a compensating benefit of age. You seem to be
> > quite invested in the idea that the theory of evolution is of no use
> > in medical research. You would have to be, I guess, if you don't think
> > it is true.
>
> The ToE is indeed of very little benefit to medical research. Have there
> been any cures or treatments that are based upon the tenets of this
> theory? Absolutely, not.
You see evolutionary theory as a pimple on the ass of biology; a
blemish, unnecessary and easily removed. Thus you are certain, without
actually knowing so, that it can be of no use. Biologists, on the
other hand, see it is a central concept for understanding the
processes of life. You are quite likely even wrong at this moment, but
as gene-based research and therapies become more common, you will
certainly be.
> What waste of time.
Imagine a world in which every area of study that some people, or even
most people , thought a "waste of time" went unexamined. It's hard to
imagine a field that would be immune to that sort of sentiment. What
could seem of less real-world use than the time effects of relativity?
Yet the GPS system absolutely requires that it be taken into account.
I prefer a world in which the natural curiosity of our species, our
need to know what can be known, is not hampered by ignorance and
naysaying.
Andrew Cunningham
**SHUNNED for hypocrisy and sexism.**
Suzanne
Do you think that telling the truth is the same as being submissive?
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> On 14 July, 19:31, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>
> > Keep out of things you do not understand until you actually learn to
> > read - those are not my words above, they are the words of the article
> > I quoted.
>
>
> 654879468795 more irony meters just blew.
>
> This *FREEK* thinks we test cosmetics on rabits because their our
> closest relative.
I am not sure that he thinks. He may just react.
>
Suzanne
Ye Old One
What would YOU know about telling the truth?
--
Bob.
Suzanne
> On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 06:30:43 -0500, Gregory A Greenman <s...@sig.below>
> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >> >It turns out that you are right. I did not realize that you
> >> >were quoting someone else.
>
>
> >> It is very rare to find such unmitigated ignorance as yours and it
> >> becoming clear that most of it is down to your inability to read and
> >> comprehend. I've said before that you need remedial English lessons,
> >> there is no need to go on proving it post after post.
>
> >Given the fact that she was actually trying to defend you, couldn't
> >you be a tad more gracious?
>
>
> --
> Bob.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
>
>
that I am not deserving, so that people can see your true nature
sparkling though.
>
Suzanne
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Jul 15, 7:29 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 06:30:43 -0500, Gregory A Greenman <s...@sig.below>
>> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 23:07:41 GMT, Ye Old One wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:41:43 -0500, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net>
>> >> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>> >> >It turns out that you are right. I did not realize that you
>> >> >were quoting someone else.
>>
>> >> =46FS woman - learn to bloody read!
>>
>> >> It is very rare to find such unmitigated ignorance as yours and it
>> >> becoming clear that most of it is down to your inability to read and
>> >> comprehend. I've said before that you need remedial English lessons,
>> >> there is no need to go on proving it post after post.
>>
>> >Given the fact that she was actually trying to defend you, couldn't
>> >you be a tad more gracious?
>>
>> No, she doesn't deserve it.
>>
>> --
>> Bob.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>
>Well, now that is debatable.
No, it is not open to debate.
> Maybe I deserve that you make the claim
>that I am not deserving, so that people can see your true nature
>sparkling though.
You have shown yourself to be a constant liar, to have a very poor
education, exceptionally poor reading/writing ability and to be
totally unwilling to learn when people take time to correct your
errors/lies.
Result, you deserve no consideration.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ernest Major
<87eb2406-62d1-4831...@h11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Suzanne <leil...@hotmail.com> writes
doesn't think that.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
<use...@mcsuk.net> writes
attention to Suzanne's posts it appears that she tries to be truthful.
She may let her prejudices colour her opinions, but you've got a least a
mote in your own eye on that point.
--
alias Ernest Major
HighQ
>
> - Show quoted text -
**SHUNNED for Copy & Pasting, & defending a woman beater**
HighQ
> In message <4ur0655rng50a5fbpdh682ot1mt4es8...@4ax.com>, Ye Old One
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ah, so because its embarrasing to your cause to have P.O.O be
obnoxious to women.
You don't mind him being obnoxious to everyone else.
Face reality. He's an annoying little prick, who probably beat the
shit out of his partner.
Ye Old One
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>In message <4ur0655rng50a5fbp...@4ax.com>, Ye Old One
><use...@mcsuk.net> writes
>>On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 05:21:23 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>><leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>>On Jul 15, 2:35 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 14 July, 23:41, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > "Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in
>>>> >messagenews:mnip559nfag953287...@4ax.com...
>>>> > > Keep out of things you do not understand until you actually learn to
>>>> > > read - those are not my words above, they are the words of the
>>>> > > article
>>>> > > I quoted.
>>>>
>>>> > It turns out that you are right. I did not realize that you
>>>> > were quoting someone else.
>>>>
>>>> Gees, who smacked you into submission?
>>>>
>>>> My guess, someone as cavalier as "P.O.O stain / shit-the brain"?
>>>
>>>Do you think that telling the truth is the same as being submissive?
>>>>
>>>Suzanne
>>
>>What would YOU know about telling the truth?
>>
>Could you try to be less obnoxious, please. While I don't pay much
>attention to Suzanne's posts it appears that she tries to be truthful.
Rubbish, she is almost as dishonest as Dishonest Ray.
>She may let her prejudices colour her opinions, but you've got a least a
>mote in your own eye on that point.
One thing I don't do is lie - she does, repeatedly.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
** SHUNNED for nym shifting, forging, outright stupidity and
trolling. **
--
Bob.
Andrew Cunningham
I defended nobody, I merely pointed out that you appear to believe
women are intellectually inferior to men.
Nashton
No she hasn't. You're just very simple.
to have a very poor
> education, exceptionally poor reading/writing ability and to be
> totally unwilling to learn when people take time to correct your
> errors/lies.
Nope, she has shown herself to be very composed when speaking to someone
as obnoxious and simple-minded as you.
Intelligence is not proportional to the amount of copying and pasting
one does in an ng.
Intelligence, is among other things, being able to prove your assertions
when asked to:
All drugs are derived from the ToE. This was your claim and you have
failed to back it up for the past 4 days, now.
>
> Result, you deserve no consideration.
Coming from you, I'm sure she considers it a compliment.
>> Suzanne
Nashton
> "spintronic" <spint...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:db9c61a3-de53-4b42...@r2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> On 15 July, 00:07, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:41:43 -0500, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net>
>>
>> Aww.
>>
>> A ladies man to the last.
>>
> He's a real prince of a fellow.
> Suzanne
>
I've been on the Usenet for ages, now. You will find the thickest, most
arrogant numb skulls in t.o. Trust me.
On the other hand, poor YOO. It must be sad to get old and life pass one
by. Some people age gracefully, some become cranky old farts that think
that society owes them everything.
I wouldn't worry about him too much. His arrogance will drop
dramatically when they change his first diaper.
Nashton
We will now see the proof that YOO will provide to prove this factoid.
>
>> She may let her prejudices colour her opinions, but you've got a least a
>> mote in your own eye on that point.
>
> One thing I don't do is lie - she does, repeatedly.
>
While you're at it, please prove the assertion you made that all drugs
are derivatives of the ToE.
Don't run away, don't change the subject, just do it.
Nashton
You're bloody insane.
LOL
wf3h
>
> Intelligence, is among other things, being able to prove your assertions
>
creationists, then, must be the dumbest people on earth.
Ernest Major
<n...@nana.ca> writes
thought that you were trying to maintain an implausible denialibility
I also see that you're engaging in nymshifting as well. Re-plonk.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
AOL!
--
Bob.
"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product
of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still
primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No
interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
- letter from Albert Einstein to Eric Gutkind, Jan. 3, 1954.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/13/peopleinscience.religion
el cid
> On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 04:41:44 -0700 (PDT), wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net>
> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >On Jul 18, 7:19 am, Nashton <n...@nana.ca> wrote:
>
> >> Intelligence, is among other things, being able to prove your assertions
>
> >creationists, then, must be the dumbest people on earth.
>
> AOL!
>
Awaiting your demonstration of your assertion that nearly
all modern drugs are a product of the THEORY of evolution.
There are two ways to demonstration your superiority to
creationists.
1.) You could admit to an error.
2.) You could provide actual evidence for your claim.
As you have failed to do either of these, your
similarity to creationists on talk.origins is
becoming firmly established.
Ye Old One
<elcid...@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Jul 18, 9:15 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 04:41:44 -0700 (PDT), wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net>
>> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>> >On Jul 18, 7:19 am, Nashton <n...@nana.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >> Intelligence, is among other things, being able to prove your assertions
>>
>> >creationists, then, must be the dumbest people on earth.
>>
>> AOL!
>>
>
>Awaiting your demonstration of your assertion that nearly
>all modern drugs are a product of the THEORY of evolution.
>There are two ways to demonstration your superiority to
>creationists.
>1.) You could admit to an error.
I have explained what I claim - there is no error involved.
>2.) You could provide actual evidence for your claim.
>
>As you have failed to do either of these, your
>similarity to creationists on talk.origins is
>becoming firmly established.
All licensed drugs on the market today are tested with respect to the
theory of evolution. You cannot do modern biochemistry without it.
--
Bob.
el cid
> On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 09:02:04 -0700 (PDT), el cid
> <elcidbi...@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jul 18, 9:15 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 04:41:44 -0700 (PDT), wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net>
> >> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >> >On Jul 18, 7:19 am, Nashton <n...@nana.ca> wrote:
>
> >> >> Intelligence, is among other things, being able to prove your assertions
>
> >> >creationists, then, must be the dumbest people on earth.
>
> >> AOL!
>
> >Awaiting your demonstration of your assertion that nearly
> >all modern drugs are a product of the THEORY of evolution.
> >There are two ways to demonstration your superiority to
> >creationists.
> >1.) You could admit to an error.
>
> I have explained what I claim - there is no error involved.
No explanations have been offered, just assertions
that testing uses the theory of evolution. Assertion
ad infinitum is a creationist meme. No explanations
of how the theory of evolution is involved in this
testing has been offered by you. Your route to salvation
is clear. You seem to cut and paste often enough,
cut and paste in the FDA guidelines that refer
to evolution. Here's a hint, few of the guidelines
reference anything outside of clinical phenominology.
Further, preclinical testing, which you may
read as animal testing, does not consider
evolutionary relationships between test animals
and humans. Many have pointed out your error,
none have supported you, but your stuborness
persists. The inability to take correction is
a further creationist meme.
Contrary to your assertions, ToE does not
play a role in selection of preclinical
models or drug testing. Reading the FDA
guidelines shows there is no consideration
of ToE in critiquing the selection of
animal models.
> >2.) You could provide actual evidence for your claim.
>
> >As you have failed to do either of these, your
> >similarity to creationists on talk.origins is
> >becoming firmly established.
>
> All licensed drugs on the market today are tested with respect to the
> theory of evolution. You cannot do modern biochemistry without it.
Just as you can do chemistry without the theory of
evolution, you can do biochemistry without ToE.
Enzyme kinetics are biochemistry and there is no
relationship between kinetics and ToE. One could
go on. Toxicology, which is the essence of preclinical
testing, makes minimal reference to ToE. In fact,
the disconnect to evolution makes perfect sense.
Toxicology is most often due to the conversion of
drugs to reactive intermediates. These arise from
a variety of phase I drug metabolizing enzymes
which the student of evolution would known evolve
so rapidly that evolution provides little guide
to even closely related species. Diet is a far
better guide but not reliable.
Consider where the ToE might actually be useful
in toxicology, which would be predictive tox.
It is not part of that science, in part due to
the well known failure of animal models to do
a good job at predicting human tox. Instead,
predictive tox is a chemistry exercise. One
tries to understand which parts of a molecule
are likely to be activated to dangerous
compounds by cyps. Sometimes that's by chemistry,
and sometimes by artificial intelligence
that tries to outdo humans at QSAR. But
when people consider in vitro results from
cultured hepatocytes, they do not use a
broad selection of species and model in
ToE.
And yet, I'm sure I'm wasting my time
as you have convinced yourself of the
Dogma that ToE rules everything remotely
biological despire the Prima facie absurdity
of such a claim.
Even if you have religion to the extent
that you take Dobzhansky's "Nothing in
biology makes sense except in the light
of evolution", nothing about such gospel
implies that you have to use ToE to do
your biology. When you do science, success
is success where it was predicted or not
and often, especially in biology and
medicine where what we don't know far
exceeds what we do know, theory provides
a poor guide to results. In many areas
of biological sciences, people do try
to rationalize results based on ToE
but such efforts are negligible in
drug development. Even if they weren't,
it would be post hoc and not part of
developing drugs.