Who dares sent me SPAM?: 25 new messages in 10 topics

talk.origins
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins?hl=en

talk.origins@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Taliban before the Taliban
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/1f1385c6ba52bfb0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 7:11 pm
From: "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank"

On Apr 23, 7:14 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>

>
> flank claims that the claims contain truth.

(sigh) Hey, retard, let me repeat once again for you, since you seem
to be too dense to have grasped it the first time:

*ahem*

I am not a theist.

I do not assert or accept the existence of any god, gods, goddesses or
any other supernatural entity of any sort, in any way shape or form.

Which part of that are you too fucking stupid to understand?

Geez.

================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"

Author:
"Deception by Design: The Intelligent Design Movement in America"
http://www.redandblackpublishers.com/deceptionbydesign.html

Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 7:12 pm
From: "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank"

> the irony is that flank compares dawkins to abortion clinic bombers

Whaaaaaaa . . . . .???????

What the hell are you gibbering about?

Dude, you are seriously fucked in the head. (sigh)

================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"

Author:
"Deception by Design: The Intelligent Design Movement in America"
http://www.redandblackpublishers.com/deceptionbydesign.html

Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 7:19 pm
From: snex

On Apr 23, 9:11 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 7:14 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > flank claims that the claims contain truth.
>
> (sigh) Hey, retard, let me repeat once again for you, since you seem
> to be too dense to have grasped it the first time:
>
> *ahem*
>
> I am not a theist.
>
> I do not assert or accept the existence of any god, gods, goddesses or
> any other supernatural entity of any sort, in any way shape or form.
>
> Which part of that are you too fucking stupid to understand?
>
> Geez.

you asserted that your religious opinion is more valid than ray's. i
await your justification for this assertion.

>
> ================================================
> Lenny Flank
> "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
>
> Author:
> "Deception by Design: The Intelligent Design Movement in America"http://www.redandblackpublishers.com/deceptionbydesign.html
>
> Creation "Science" Debunked:http://www.geocities.com/lflank

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 7:19 pm
From: eroot@swva.net

On Apr 23, 1:23 am, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 6:11 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 22, 3:20 pm, snex <hiya_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 22, 3:09 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 22, 2:51 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > the reasons why people should not form religious opinions until
> > > > > evidence is in are the same exact reasons why people should not form
> > > > > scientific opinions until evidence is in. do you think religious
> > > > > opinions are so fundamentally different from every other type of
> > > > > opinion that the idea that error should be eliminated first does not
> > > > > apply? if so, why?
>
> > > > Who the hell cares, Snex? Why are you on such a Mission from God to
> > > > stamp out religion? Why such a hardon for theists? What did Mother
> > > > Theresa or Martin Luther King Jr ever do to you?
>
> > > did you just ask me why i care that people believe lies, and base
> > > their decisions in the real world on those lies, and expect other
> > > people to respect those lies?
>
> > So opinions that disagree with yours, are "lies" . . . .. ?
>
> no, reverend. lies are lies. example of a lie: "jesus christ was
> crucified and 3 days later rose from the dead." all evidence available
> indicates that this statement is false, therefore to assert it is a
> lie.
>
>
>
> > > why dont you answer the question, reverend?
>
> > (sigh) Dude, let me remind you that we're both on the same side here.
>
> > Don't be going all fundie on me and attacking me simply because I
> > don't agree with your opinions. Let's leave that to the FUNDIES.
>
> > See, this is precisely why I say that the evangelical atheists are no
> > different than the evangelical fundies. They're both intolerant
> > bellicose pricks who simply can't tolerate anyone having an opinion
> > different from theirs. (shrug)
>
> LOL! yes im so intolerant for asking you questions. how dare i.
>
> ill repeat it, just in case you didnt bother to read it the first time
> (i know you have a habit of doing that)
>
> the reasons why people should not form religious opinions until
> evidence is in are the same exact reasons why people should not form
> scientific opinions until evidence is in. do you think religious
> opinions are so fundamentally different from every other type of
> opinion that the idea that error should be eliminated first does not
> apply? if so, why?
>
>
>
> > ================================================
> > Lenny Flank
> > "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
>
> > Author:
> > "Deception by Design: The Intelligent Design Movement in America"http://www.redandblackpublishers.com/deceptionbydesign.html
>
> > Creation "Science" Debunked:http://www.geocities.com/lflank

Do you think I should not form aesthetic opinions until all the
evidence is in? Am I wrong for liking bluegrass music before I've
listened to Edith Piaf? Am I wrong for liking Steve Ditko's work
before I've seen the work of Johnny Romita, Jr.? Am I wrong for
liking station wagons? Why aren't my religious opinions parallel to
my aesthetic opinions as opposed to my scientific ones?

Eric Root

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 7:24 pm
From: snex

On Apr 23, 9:19 pm, e...@swva.net wrote:
> On Apr 23, 1:23 am, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 22, 6:11 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 22, 3:20 pm, snex <hiya_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 22, 3:09 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 22, 2:51 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > the reasons why people should not form religious opinions until
> > > > > > evidence is in are the same exact reasons why people should not form
> > > > > > scientific opinions until evidence is in. do you think religious
> > > > > > opinions are so fundamentally different from every other type of
> > > > > > opinion that the idea that error should be eliminated first does not
> > > > > > apply? if so, why?
>
> > > > > Who the hell cares, Snex? Why are you on such a Mission from God to
> > > > > stamp out religion? Why such a hardon for theists? What did Mother
> > > > > Theresa or Martin Luther King Jr ever do to you?
>
> > > > did you just ask me why i care that people believe lies, and base
> > > > their decisions in the real world on those lies, and expect other
> > > > people to respect those lies?
>
> > > So opinions that disagree with yours, are "lies" . . . .. ?
>
> > no, reverend. lies are lies. example of a lie: "jesus christ was
> > crucified and 3 days later rose from the dead." all evidence available
> > indicates that this statement is false, therefore to assert it is a
> > lie.
>
> > > > why dont you answer the question, reverend?
>
> > > (sigh) Dude, let me remind you that we're both on the same side here.
>
> > > Don't be going all fundie on me and attacking me simply because I
> > > don't agree with your opinions. Let's leave that to the FUNDIES.
>
> > > See, this is precisely why I say that the evangelical atheists are no
> > > different than the evangelical fundies. They're both intolerant
> > > bellicose pricks who simply can't tolerate anyone having an opinion
> > > different from theirs. (shrug)
>
> > LOL! yes im so intolerant for asking you questions. how dare i.
>
> > ill repeat it, just in case you didnt bother to read it the first time
> > (i know you have a habit of doing that)
>
> > the reasons why people should not form religious opinions until
> > evidence is in are the same exact reasons why people should not form
> > scientific opinions until evidence is in. do you think religious
> > opinions are so fundamentally different from every other type of
> > opinion that the idea that error should be eliminated first does not
> > apply? if so, why?
>
> > > ================================================
> > > Lenny Flank
> > > "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
>
> > > Author:
> > > "Deception by Design: The Intelligent Design Movement in America"http://www.redandblackpublishers.com/deceptionbydesign.html
>
> > > Creation "Science" Debunked:http://www.geocities.com/lflank
>
> Do you think I should not form aesthetic opinions until all the
> evidence is in? Am I wrong for liking bluegrass music before I've
> listened to Edith Piaf? Am I wrong for liking Steve Ditko's work
> before I've seen the work of Johnny Romita, Jr.? Am I wrong for
> liking station wagons? Why aren't my religious opinions parallel to
> my aesthetic opinions as opposed to my scientific ones?

do your religious opinions make assertions about your own state of
mind, or about external reality? i understand that a few religions
stick to the former, but there is no denying that the vast vast
majority of religious people are talking about the latter.

and, if your religious opinions stick to the former, in what way are
they different from your aesthetic opinions at all?

>
> Eric Root

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 7:25 pm
From: snex

On Apr 23, 9:12 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > the irony is that flank compares dawkins to abortion clinic bombers
>
> Whaaaaaaa . . . . .???????
>
> What the hell are you gibbering about?
>
> Dude, you are seriously fucked in the head. (sigh)

from the mouth of the good reverend himself:

"But once again I am struck by how remarkably similar the evangelical
atheists are to the foaming fundies. Both want science to support
their particular religious opinions. Both declare that the Bible must
be taken literally, in its entirety, or it is entirely meaningless.
Both assert that if evolution happens, that means there is no God.
Both declare that Biblical-literalist fundamentalism is the only "True
Christianity(tm)(c)" and that all other forms of "liberal"
Christianity are either dishonest or stupid. Both conclude, either
implicitly or explicitly, that anyone who is not with them, must be
against them. Both are utterly totally implacably intolerant of
anyone who doesn't agree with their religious opinions (indeed, both
of them get awfully testy whenever anyone even calls their religious
opinions "religious opinions"). Both will not rest, ever, until they
have stamped the other out completely."

nevermind the fact that i refuted every single point of this with no
reply from the reverend.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The real cause of global warming is revealed
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/51b7352189b87c5e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 7:11 pm
From: Vend

On 24 Apr, 03:40, Dick C <foo.dic...@comcast.net> wrote:
> http://www.nctexasbirds.com/images/hot_news.jpg
>
> --
> Dick #1349
> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
> deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> ~Benjamin Franklin
>
> Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
> email: dic...@comcast.net

I can imagine Bruce Willis and pals going with their crappy spaceship
on a suicide mission to alter the planet rotation so that America can
have an extra hour of daylight.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 2:17 am
From: Mike Ruskai

On or about Mon, 23 Apr 2007 20:40:35 -0500 did Dick C
<foo.dickcr@comcast.net> dribble thusly:

>http://www.nctexasbirds.com/images/hot_news.jpg

I can't quite figure out if that's satire, or the real thing.

If real, I find it genuinely puzzling that such a badly broken brain
can still construct full and intelligible sentences.
--
- Mike

Ignore the Python in me to send e-mail.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 7:30 pm
From: Ron O

On Apr 23, 8:40 pm, Dick C <foo.dic...@comcast.net> wrote:
> http://www.nctexasbirds.com/images/hot_news.jpg
>
> --
> Dick #1349
> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
> deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> ~Benjamin Franklin
>
> Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
> email: dic...@comcast.net

Since it is Arkansas we can rule out satire.

Hey, I live here and it doesn't surprise me. Closer to home in Rogers
Arkansas we have a school board considering using scam material from
the Discovery Institute in their public school classrooms. Not
intelligent design, they probably know what a scam that was, but the
new scam coming from the same guys that they know lied to them about
intelligent design for over a decade.

Ron Okimoto

==============================================================================
TOPIC: No environment is static, but the phenotypic embodiment of genotypic
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/7ac79c347228e17?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 2:11 am
From: John Harshman

Baron Bodissey wrote:

> On Apr 22, 8:00 pm, derdag <der...@chilledwatertech.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> Show us some novel "random" "incremental" "selected" changes that
> revert a species back into a configuration 'phenotypically' like a
> previously expressed morphology which seemed fit for a previous cycle
> through some kind of similar environment in the past where the
> organism existed with past features, but different genetic code.
> <snip>
>
> If I've interpreted your convoluted verbiage correctly, how's this for
> an example: Lady beetles (Coccinellidae) probably shared a common
> ancestor with handsome fungus beetles (Endomychidae). Lady beetles are
> primitively predacious; endomychids are fungivorous. However, one
> derived tribe of lady beetles (Psylloborini) has returned to fungus
> feeding with concommitant morphological changes. This would seem to
> meet your requirements for an example.

Is that what he's talking about? In that case, every reversal qualifies.
How about fish -> tetrapod -> ichthyosaur or whale? How about
terrestrial theropod -> flying bird -> ostrich? Quadrupedal archosaur ->
bipedal dinosaur -> quadrupedal dinosaur? And I believe the winner would
be fish -> tetrapod -> marine lizard (one theory of snake origins)->
terrestrial snake -> sea snake -> terrestrial snake again. (I understand
that some Australian snakes are nested within sea snakes.)

But I doubt that's what he's talking about.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: implications of cause and effect
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/b302395e5c051640?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 7:12 pm
From: bullpup@bellsouth.net

On Apr 23, 8:52 pm, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:38:58 -0700, bullpup wrote:
> > Nuclear decay. HTH, HAND--
>
> quantum mechanics is a FARCE

Oh. Sorry, I didn't know you were a total idiot.

>
> the uncertainty principle says that you cannot even know if the
> population you are dealing with is random, YOU CAN KNOW NOTHING,
> empirically that is

Try stepping out of a thrid story window. Let me know if your impact
with the ground was "empirical" or just some sort of illusion.

>
> quantum physicists have ASSUMED that uncertainty means a random normal
> population with which they can apply certain statistical procedures to,
> the uncertainty principle says you are uncertain even of randomness and a
> normal population

You might want to look up what the uncertanty principle really
means.

>
> secondly, quantum mechanics ALWAYS defaults to Newtonian physics in the
> REAL world, and ALL interpretations of quantum mechanics agree with this

In the macro-world. STFW?

>
> there are absolutely ZERO observations of quantum behavior, it is all
> pseudoscience (and so is Einstein)

And yet we have field effect transistors, tunneling diodes,...
Amazing how that works if QM is a "farce"

>
> you are WRONG, evolution punk

Tell me, monkey boy, how does it feel to be a total loser?

Boikat

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 9:18 pm
From: Dale Kelly

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 22:00:46 -0400, Rich Townsend wrote:

> Sadly, you're lacking in the latter, and I imagine you've never been
> within a mile of the former.--

all handled by relativity according to Galileo, Einstein had no real
contribution in this area, his special relativity with bent space and
time is what I think is bunk

--
Dale
http://www.vedantasite.org

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 10:22 pm
From: Rich Townsend

Dale Kelly wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 22:00:46 -0400, Rich Townsend wrote:
>
>> Sadly, you're lacking in the latter, and I imagine you've never been
>> within a mile of the former.--
>
> all handled by relativity according to Galileo, Einstein had no real
> contribution in this area, his special relativity with bent space and
> time is what I think is bunk
>
>

But without that bent space and time, the spin-orbit effect is off by a factor
2. Please explain how you otherwise account for the discrepancy.

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 9:27 pm
From: Dale Kelly

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 22:22:21 -0400, Rich Townsend wrote:

> But without that bent space and time, the spin-orbit effect is off by a
> factor 2. Please explain how you otherwise account for the
discrepancy.--

WRONG

--
Dale
http://www.vedantasite.org

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 7:29 pm
From: snex

On Apr 23, 9:18 pm, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 22:00:46 -0400, Rich Townsend wrote:
> > Sadly, you're lacking in the latter, and I imagine you've never been
> > within a mile of the former.--
>
> all handled by relativity according to Galileo, Einstein had no real
> contribution in this area, his special relativity with bent space and
> time is what I think is bunk

why do air traffic controllers take einstein's equations into effect
when plotting flight paths? dont believe me? call up the airline!

>
> --
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org

==============================================================================
TOPIC: In the News: Darwin Only Had A Theology Degree
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/38dc4b7e007af971?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 7:14 pm
From: wf3h

Ray Martinez wrote:
> T.O. is the Fundamentalists of Darwinism because none of you have any
> sources for your claims - it's all made up as you go.

i love it. ray's a believer in a book that it took hundreds of years
to decide what was even IN the damn thing...and there were hundreds of
'bibles' before the current one was decide on...

if people are making up evolution, then the bible is a fairy tale told
by idiots.
>
> Atheists spend every waking moment of their lives rationalizing away a
> universe full of evidence proving the existence of God. "Wherein you
> judge another you are guilty yourself."
>
> Ray

ray knows as little about atheists as he does about the bible...if
that's possible...

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 7:18 pm
From: wf3h

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Apr 22, 6:06 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > Ray, it *is* science, and is not racism.
>
> It is gutter racism. The hypocritical exemption Darwinists receive can
> only be explained by the existence of Satan.

says ray, a believer in a religion that took 19 centuries to discover
slavery was wrong...

>
> > Nothing but hysterical
> > hypersensitivity (or the tactical feigning of such sensitivity) could
> > regard it as such. Would some racial huckster demand that it be
> > treated as racism? Perhaps; is it not enough that you have debased
> > yourself to the level of a Gene Scott? Must you adopt Al Sharpton as
> > a role model as well? Are you aiming for some Guiness World Record in
> > hypocrisy and paranoia?
> >
>
> We already know what atheist-Darwinists think of theist scholars and
> African-American leaders, what is your point?

african americans? you mean the folks creationists used to lynch?
those the folks you're thinking of?

> > >
> >
> It is gutter racism. This is what happens when God is rejected:

ray's never read ephesians 6:5 where slaves are told to obey their
masters; 1 thessalonians, where slaves are told that their submission
to their masters is a representation of their belief in christ; or
philemon where paul actually sent a slave back to his former owner.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 2:28 am
From: Greg Guarino

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:13:04 -0400, "Dana Tweedy"
<reddfrogg@comcast.net> wrote:

>Why is it 'gutter racism'? Where does my statement in any way indicate that
>one population is inequal to any other human population?

I've been skimming this pretty ridiculous thread. At first I thought
that this Ray fellow was just playing word games, and that may be the
case. But now I wonder if something else is going on. I seem to
remember (and I have no intention of wasting my time checking it) that
Martinez made a reference to the "essential African component" of
human evolutionary origins.

I now suspect that he may believe that evolution says something like
"if we descended from Africans, and there are still Africans, must not
those Africans be "less evolved" than non-Africans?"

Greg Guarino

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Duesberg in SciAm
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/d5597f6919259ef9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 7:23 pm
From: "Greg G."

On Apr 23, 9:24 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On 23 Apr 2007 16:30:44 -0700, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Recently, there was an exchange that questioned the peer review
> >process with respect to Peter Duesberg. In the May 2007 edition of
> >Scientific American is an article by Peter Duesberg. An editor's note
> >is included nest to the author information disclaiming that SciAm
> >endorses Duesberg's claims about HIV and AIDS. The article discusses a
> >controversial theory about cancer being caused by chromsomal damage
> >rather than a series of gene mutations.
>
> >I have reconstructed the discussion as Bloopenblopper trimmed a post
> >including the first paragraph included here.
>
> >Pagano:
> >>>>> This is laughable. Everyone who depends on the secular scientific
> >>>>> community for their livelihood and who disputes the sacrosanct
> >>>>> theories is crushed. The easiest way to destroy someone who bucks the
> >>>>> orthodoxy is through peer review. I suspect the fear of being
> >>>>> squeezed out of the ability to publish has stifled many new ideas that
> >>>>> contradict the current sacrosanct theories consistent with atheism.
>
> >Bloopenblopper:
> >>> >Give an example.
>
> >Pagano:
> >>> Dr Peter Duesberg, a National Academy of Sciences member was
> >>> ostracized and isolated for disputing the truthlikeness of the
> >>> sacrosanct HIV-causes-AIDS theory.
>
> >Bloopenblopper:
> >>Yeah, but he was still able to get peer-reviewed articles published.
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Duesberg
>
> >Pagano:
> >I never said that he was summarily drummed out. I simply noted that
> >his daring to buck the sacrosanct and secular dogma of HIV-causes-
> >AIDS
> >caused him considerable difficulty. The fact that he was a National
> >Academy of Sciences member is probably the only thing that saved him.
> >Had some post doc dared to do the same thing his career in his field
> >would have been destroyed.
>
> >Tony backtracked after being asked for an example of somebody who was
> >"crushed", he claimed that Duesberg had been caused "considerable
> >difficulty". The article in the magazine is evidence that Peter
> >Duesberg is busy publishing controversial cancer research and
> >apparently obtaining funds.
>
> Duesburg bucked the status quo in the late 1980s. He has been shunned
> and marginalized since them. One wonders how much research money has
> gone his way in the last 20 years.

Ten seconds on Google later shows that he is a professor at UC-
Berkeley and the following papers from the past 10 years:

Duesberg, P., Li, R., Fabarius, A. and Hehlmann, R. Aneuploidy and
Cancer: From Correlation to Causation. Contrib Microbiol. (Basel,
Krager) vol. 13, 16-44 (2006). PDF

Fabarius, A., Giehl, M., Frank, O., Duesberg, P., Houchhaus, A.,
Hehlmann, R., and Seifarth, W. Induction of centrosome and chromosome
aberrations by imatinib in vitro. Leukemia 9, 1573-1578(2005). PDF

Duesberg, P., Li, R., Fabarius, A. and Hehlmann, R. The chromosomal
basis of cancer. Cellular Oncology 27, 293-318(2005). PDF

Li, R., Hehlmann, R., Sachs, R. and Duesberg, P. Chromosomal
alterations cause the high rates and wild ranges of drug resistance in
cancer cells. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 163, 44-56(2005). PDF

Duesberg, P. Does aneuploidy or mutation start cancer? Science
307(5706), 41 (2005). PDF

Duesberg, P., Fabarius, A. & Hehlmann, R. Aneuploidy, the primary
cause of the multilateral genomic instability of neoplastic and
preneoplastic cells.
IUBMB Life 56, 65-81. (2004) PDF

Duesberg, P., Li, R. and Rasnick, D. Aneuploidy approaching a perfect
score in predicting and preventing cancer. Cell Cycle 3, 823-828
(2004). PDF

Duesberg, P., and Li, R. Multistep carcinogenesis: a chain reaction of
aneuploidizations. Cell Cycle 2, 202-210 (2003). PDF

Duesberg, P. H. Are cancers dependent on oncogenes or on aneuploidy?
Cancer Genet Cytogenet 143, 89-91 (2003). Link

Fabarius, A., Hehlmann, R., and Duesberg, P. H. Instability of
chromosome structure in cancer cells increases exponentially with
degrees of aneuploidy. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 143, 59-72 (2003). Link

Li, R., D. Rasnick, and P. Duesberg. Correspondence re: D. Zimonjic et
al., Derivation of human tumor cells in vitro without widespread
genomic instability. Cancer Res., 61: 8838-8844, 2001. Cancer Res.
62:6345-8; author reply 6348-9 (2002). PDF

Fabarius, A., Willer, A., Yerganian, G., Hehlmann, R., and Duesberg,
P.: Specific aneusomies in Chinese hamster cells at different stages
of neoplastic transformation, initiated by nitrosomethylurea.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States
of America 99, 6778-6783 (2002). Link

Duesberg, P., Stindl, R., Li, R. H., Hehlmann, R. & Rasnick, D.:
Aneuploidy versus gene mutation as cause of cancer. Current Science
81, 490-500 (2001). [PDF] (1.2Mb!!)

Duesberg, P., Stindl, R. & Hehlmann, R.: Origin of multidrug
resistance in cells with and without multidrug resistance genes:
Chromosome reassortments catalyzed by aneuploidy. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 98,
11283-11288 (2001). Link

Duesberg, P., Stindl, R. & Hehlmann, R.: Explaining the high mutation
rates of cancer cells to drug and multidrug resistance by chromosome
reassortments that are catalyzed by aneuploidy. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 97,
14295-14300 (2000). Link

Duesberg, P. & Rasnick, D.: Aneuploidy, the somatic mutation that
makes cancer a species of its own. Cell Motility and the Cytoskeleton
47, 81-107 (2000). PDF

Duesberg, P. et al.: Aneuploidy precedes and segregates with chemical
carcinogenesis. Cancer Genetics and Cytogenetics 119, 83-93 (2000).
PDF

Li, R. H., Sonik, A., Stindl, R., Rasnick, D. & Duesberg, P.:
Aneuploidy vs. gene mutation hypothesis of cancer: Recent study claims
mutation but is found to support aneuploidy. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 97,
3236-3241 (2000). Link

Rasnick, D. & Duesberg, P. How aneuploidy affects metabolic control
and causes cancer. Biochem J, 340, 621-630 (1999) PDF

Duesberg, P., Rasnick, D., Li, R., Winters, L., Rausch, C., and
Hehlmann, R. . How aneuploidy may cause cancer and genetic
instability. Anticancer Res 19, 4887-4906 (1999). Link

Duesberg, P.: Are centrosomes or aneuploidy the key to cancer? Science
284, 2091-2092 (1999). PDF

Duesberg, P., Rausch, C., Rasnick, D. & Hehlmann, R.: Genetic
instability of cancer cells is proportional to their degree of
aneuploidy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America 95, 13692-13697 (1998). PDF

Li, R. H. et al.: Aneuploidy correlated 100% with chemical
transformation of Chinese hamster cells. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 94, 14506-14511
(1997). PDF

> The fact that the editor published
> a disclaimerdistancing themselves from Duesberg says it all. Wonder
> how many disclaimers the Sci Am editor prints.

The disclaimer follows:

Editor's Note: The author, Peter Duesberg, a pioneering virologist,
may be well known to readers for his assertion that HIV is not the
cause of AIDS. The biomedical community has roundly rebutted that
claim many times. Duesberg's ideas about chromosomal abnormality as a
root cause for cancer, in contrast, are controversial but are being
actively investigated by mainstream science. We have therefore asked
Duesberg to explain that work here. This article is in no sense an
endorsement by SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN of his AIDS theories.

This is hardly "crushing".
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano

--
Greg G.

You have two choices in life: You can stay single and be miserable, or
get married and wish you were dead.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 7:29 pm
From: Boswell

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 01:24:08 GMT, T Pagano <not.valid@address.net>
wrote:

>On 23 Apr 2007 16:30:44 -0700, "Greg G." <ggwizz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Recently, there was an exchange that questioned the peer review
>>process with respect to Peter Duesberg. In the May 2007 edition of
>>Scientific American is an article by Peter Duesberg. An editor's note
>>is included nest to the author information disclaiming that SciAm
>>endorses Duesberg's claims about HIV and AIDS. The article discusses a
>>controversial theory about cancer being caused by chromsomal damage
>>rather than a series of gene mutations.
>>
>>I have reconstructed the discussion as Bloopenblopper trimmed a post
>>including the first paragraph included here.
>>
>>Pagano:
>>>>>> This is laughable. Everyone who depends on the secular scientific
>>>>>> community for their livelihood and who disputes the sacrosanct
>>>>>> theories is crushed. The easiest way to destroy someone who bucks the
>>>>>> orthodoxy is through peer review. I suspect the fear of being
>>>>>> squeezed out of the ability to publish has stifled many new ideas that
>>>>>> contradict the current sacrosanct theories consistent with atheism.
>>
>>Bloopenblopper:
>>>> >Give an example.
>>
>>Pagano:
>>>> Dr Peter Duesberg, a National Academy of Sciences member was
>>>> ostracized and isolated for disputing the truthlikeness of the
>>>> sacrosanct HIV-causes-AIDS theory.
>>
>>Bloopenblopper:
>>>Yeah, but he was still able to get peer-reviewed articles published.
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Duesberg
>>
>>Pagano:
>>I never said that he was summarily drummed out. I simply noted that
>>his daring to buck the sacrosanct and secular dogma of HIV-causes-
>>AIDS
>>caused him considerable difficulty. The fact that he was a National
>>Academy of Sciences member is probably the only thing that saved him.
>>Had some post doc dared to do the same thing his career in his field
>>would have been destroyed.
>>
>>
>>
>>Tony backtracked after being asked for an example of somebody who was
>>"crushed", he claimed that Duesberg had been caused "considerable
>>difficulty". The article in the magazine is evidence that Peter
>>Duesberg is busy publishing controversial cancer research and
>>apparently obtaining funds.
>
>Duesburg bucked the status quo in the late 1980s. He has been shunned
>and marginalized since them. One wonders how much research money has
>gone his way in the last 20 years. The fact that the editor published
>a disclaimerdistancing themselves from Duesberg says it all. Wonder
>how many disclaimers the Sci Am editor prints.

Those cold fusion guys aren't getting much in the way of research
grants either. Have you considered that Duesburg's problems (such as
they are) might relate somewhat to the fact that he's not well
supported by relevant evidence?

>
>Regards,
>T Pagano

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Search for life
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/ca29e4eb039fda1b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 7:19 pm
From: "Von R. Smith"

On Apr 23, 6:47 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 3:43 pm, "Von R. Smith" <trakl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 9:45 am, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 23, 6:24 am, "Von R. Smith" <trakl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 23, 6:22 am, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 22, 11:07 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:> On Apr 23, 12:01 am, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > -- [snip]
>
> > > > > > > Did it occur to you to actually respond to the OPs question?
>
> > > > > > I thought that, by implication and analogy, I was replying to the OP's
> > > > > > question. Or, at least (since others had offered more direct answers)
> > > > > > attempting to demonstrate why it was implicitly based on an
> > > > > > implausible assumption. I fear I had not properly taken into account
> > > > > > the danger of my reply being read and construed by obnoxious dullards.
>
> > > > > Or written by one who manages to write with flair yet can't read for
> > > > > comprehension.
>
> > > > What would you know about reading for comprehension, Glenn? I thought
> > > > it was a skill you held in contempt.
>
> > > I thought you were a floating turd. Prove me wrong.
>
> > Juvenile and non-responsive.
>
> Just as your little comment was, Von. Do you intend to continue this
> little flame war?

Sure, until I get bored. It's mildly amusing, like shaking a jar with
ants in it to see if they'll fight.

> I thought by implication and analogy that I had
> responded in kind to you.

You were the one who jumped into this thread with snide comments.
What sort of responses were you looking for?

> > > > But you can prove me wrong by explaining in your own words what you
> > > > thought Steven's point was, and how it fails to answer the OP's
> > > > question.
>
> > > So all I have to do is explain what I thought to prove you wrong, eh.
>
> > > >Or you can confirm my impression of you by making a non-
> > > > responsive smart-ass comment. Up to you.
>
> > > I don't give a hoot about what "thoughts" of yours you "confirm",
> > > Von.
> > > Apparently you liked Steven's comments but not mine, and frankly
> > > it doesn't matter to me, but in my book telling someone (by
> > > implication) they didn't respond to a question isn't quite as smart-
> > > assed a comment as saying "uh-huh" and calling the person a dullard.
>
> > Did somebody say "uh-huh" or call you a dullard, Glenn? I didn't.
>
> Are you dense or just playing troll?

No, Glenn, I'm asking you if somebody said "uh-huh" or called you a
dullard. For somebody who started this exchange by demanding whether
Steven was going to answer a question, you don't seem too keen to
answer questions yourself.

>
> > > Why don't you tell me why explaining in your own words what you
> > > thought Steven's point was and how it answered or failed to answer the
> > > OP's question,
>
> > I asked you first, and moreover I'm not the one suggesting that Steven
> > didn't answer the OP's question. So tell me what you thought the OP's
> > original question was, and how Steven's response failed to answer it.
>
> Actually you made some comment about reading comprehension first,

In this thread? No, Glenn, I did not. Perhaps you are thinking about
an earlier exchange?

> and
> that seemed more important to you than to have me tell you my thoughts
> so that I could redeem myself in your eyes. This does make about as
> much of an interesting exchange as talking about the odds of unknown
> life existing elsewhere. If *you* feel you have something to
> contribute, by all means be my guest. Or just continue to float.-

That's nice. Now explain to me in your own words what you thought
Steven J meant, and why it fails to answer the OP's question. It was
important enough for you to jump into the thread in the first place,
so why are you so reluctant about clarifying your position?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Application of the Theory That Man Evolved From a Unicellular Organism
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/67dcc970703b6f39?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 7:24 pm
From: wf3h

Ian Chua wrote:
> Can anyone suggest a useful application of the theory that man evolved
> from a unicellular organism?

it answers the question 'where did we come from?'

and that is useful enough

==============================================================================
TOPIC: a challenge to evolution punks
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/cf1ee2f7a2c72bef?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 9:26 pm
From: Dale Kelly

the modern definition of life is emergent behavior

even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
because they have emergent behavior

emergent behavior in consciousness depends on the mysterious intermediary
called the subconscious

we do not communicate directly with the central nervous system, we
supposedly use an intermediary, the mysterious subconscious

I suggest there is more proof of God as an intermediary than there is of
a mysterious subconscious

more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with an
intermediary of God, not the subconscious

provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks

--
Dale
http://www.vedantasite.org

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 7:31 pm
From: snex

On Apr 23, 9:26 pm, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
>
> even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
> because they have emergent behavior
>
> emergent behavior in consciousness depends on the mysterious intermediary
> called the subconscious
>
> we do not communicate directly with the central nervous system, we
> supposedly use an intermediary, the mysterious subconscious
>
> I suggest there is more proof of God as an intermediary than there is of
> a mysterious subconscious
>
> more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with an
> intermediary of God, not the subconscious
>
> provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks
>
> --
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org

strawman.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Philosophy specifies: organisms process information
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/ec81cd7cd51f6293?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 2:28 am
From: Bill Morse

John Wilkins wrote:

> Friar Broccoli <EliasRK@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 23, 7:34 am, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
>> > Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > On Apr 23, 12:06 am, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
>> > > > dkomo <dkomo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> > > > > John Wilkins wrote:
>> >
>> > > > > [snip]
>> >
>> > > > > > Sure - so long as you are talking about the *narratives*. I was
>> > > > > > joking with my initial comment; but it seems to me that we
>> > > > > > should not accept that the world just is what we tell ourselves
>> > > > > > it is. That really is insane. Or religious. At the least it is
>> > > > > > anthropomorphism.
>> >
>> > > > > > We may never have a narrative that is adequate to all phenomena
>> > > > > > (unless you want to say that the phenomena are also narrative
>> > > > > > inventions), but I think that it really *is* an IBE that there
>> > > > > > is an external reality.
>> >
>> > > > > The narrative of an external reality violates Occam's razor. It
>> > > > > is superfluous. If there actually were no independent, objective
>> > > > > external reality, it wouldn't make the slightest difference.
>> > > > > We'd still have all our scientific models and theories, and, if
>> > > > > it makes us feel better, we could go on believing in an
>> > > > > independent
>> > > > > reality. The important thing is, though, that our models *work*.
>> > > > > They allow us to predict, and in the realm of engineering (even
>> > > > > for biology) they allow us to produce useful products to make our
>> > > > > lives better.
>> >
>> > > > > I suggest that sanity is simply a collection of narratives that
>> > > > > work for us, and that the large majority of our peers believe in.
>> >
>> > > > I think scientific realism does conform to Occam's Razor - because
>> > > > it licenses inferences from one art of a theory to another without
>> > > > needing further justifications (i.e., if the theory says electrons
>> > > > exist, then in any other part of the theory, or in any other
>> > > > theory, we can say electrons exist and are causally influential).
>> >
>> > > > That said, full-blown realism is of course a matter of belief, not
>> > > > of epistemic warrant. All we need *in science* is some kind of
>> > > > internal realism - true in T, that sort of thing. But I find full
>> > > > blown realism solves a further *metaphysical* issue - the stability
>> > > > of things. So it is parsimonious for me to adopt it.
>> >
>> > > > There is a further justification I find useful - it removes human
>> > > > agency in acts of knowledge from being the reason for thinking
>> > > > things are true. If all that "reality" is is the sum of human acts
>> > > > of knowing, then we need to account for how human acts determine
>> > > > anything, both individually and intersubjectively. If the claim,
>> > > > however, is that these acts are interactions with the
>> > > > mind-independent world, then they become unmysterious. Otherwise we
>> > > > have no way to privilege the narratives of a "normal scientist"
>> > > > over the "schizophrenic mystic's".
>> >
>> > > > There's no proof of realism, because all proofs presuppose some
>> > > > grounding and are therefore either question begging in favour or
>> > > > against. But there's enough reason to think there *is* a world
>> > > > apart from ideational narratives.
>> >
>> > > I wish I had constructed these arguments. They're beautiful.
>> >
>> > Me too.
>>
>> Come on Wilkins. I've SEEN photos of you. You're definitely
>> not that hot.
>
> Someone must exist who thinks so.

I hope to God you are assuming infinity. Well OK, I can't hope to God
because I am an agnostic. Or, I can hope to God but I can't believe it will
do any good.

But assuming infinity, doesn't God have to exist in some
universe or other? Wait - forget I ever asked that question. That takes care
of that question, right?

> But I was wishing I had constructed
> those arguments.

Well you did. You may not have originated those arguments, but you did
construct them. Or reconstruct them, which would still require a building
permit :-)
--
Yours, Bill Morse

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "talk.origins"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to talk.origins-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com?hl=en

Who dares sent me SPAM?

Monday, April 23, 2007

25 new messages in 10 topics - digest

No comments:

Links

About Me

Blog Archive