tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post8400493096147567308..comments2023-12-21T06:35:36.624-05:00Comments on Recursivity: Philip Skell - The Cowardly CreationistUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-15223190152978375842014-03-07T01:28:38.257-05:002014-03-07T01:28:38.257-05:00Ten minutes on Google might do wonders for the ext...<i>Ten minutes on Google might do wonders for the extent of your awareness.</i><br /><br />I'm sorry that you think a Google search constitutes an education. You don't even understand how to interpret the results. Organic chemistry is not the same as biochemistry.<br /><br />Skell is dead, for one thing, so his "elderliness" isn't a factor any more.<br /><br />Second, Skell had no training in biology or medicine, exactly as I claimed. I never said there were not some chemists who were also biologists. Skell was not one of them, as you can easily convince yourself by looking at his papers.<br /><br />In his dotage, Skell became a crank. Even his own son-in-law disowned his cranky views. That creationists love him says more about them than about evolutionary biology. Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-51630522932820040352014-03-06T23:10:06.558-05:002014-03-06T23:10:06.558-05:00"...elderly chemist who use [sic] to teach at..."...elderly chemist who use [sic] to teach at Penn State....Skell is not a physician or biologist, and as far as I am aware, has no training in these subjects."<br />_________<br /><br />Ten minutes on Google might do wonders for the extent of your awareness.<br /><br />Your trashee, Philip Skell, is a Penn State professor emeritus of organic [i.e. bio-]chemistry. From the PSU website:<br /><br />'Philip S. Skell, sometimes called "the father of carbene chemistry", is widely known for the "Skell Rule", which was first applied to carbenes, the "fleeting species" of carbon. The rule, which predicts the most probable pathway through which certain chemical compounds will be formed, found use throughout the pharmaceutical and chemical industries.'<br /> <br />'Bi·o·chem·is·try (b?'?-k?m'?-str?) n.<br />The study of the chemical substances and vital processes occurring in living organisms.'<br />-Answers.com<br /> <br />See also http://chemistry.about.com/od/organicchemistry/Organic_Chemistry.htm <br /><br />See also the current UCLA catalog, which lists them in the same department:<br /><br />'Overview/Faculty/Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry/UCLA:<br />Organic Chemistry at UCLA is molecular machines, exotic organic materials, new synthetic method, total synthesis, chemical biology and organic theory.'<br /><br />You might recall from 5th grade science class that the human body is 23% carbon (and more if you're fat since fat is ~76% carbon). "All of this [research on carbenes] can dramatically reduce the cost of manufacturing drugs, given that pharmaceutical companies are increasingly using carbene-supported catalysts. <br />http://www.in-pharmatechnologist.com/news/ng.asp?id=61991-carbenes-indoles-catalysts]<br /><br />Philip Skell, ret., took his degree long before "Biochemistry" was a separate branch of chemistry at many if not most universities. (e.g., it became such in 1966 at the U. of Minn., 1971 at U.of W.Ontario, 1965 at U.of Edinburgh, etc. )<br /><br />Skell's assessment of your intellectual honesty suggests to me that his elderliness hasn't affected his judgment.PhoebeHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16003973024667970558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-8999182825741553842010-01-02T19:40:20.769-05:002010-01-02T19:40:20.769-05:00"P.S.: Why a false name, Veronica? It is so s..."P.S.: Why a false name, Veronica? It is so shallow! If it was to remain anonymous, you could choose a clear pseudonym, like many other people."<br /><br />Like it makes a difference?Veronica Bayesian Bouffant FGMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-20597180483657293532010-01-01T23:07:58.916-05:002010-01-01T23:07:58.916-05:00Just the basic understanding of selection is more ...Just the basic understanding of <b>selection</b> is more than enough to show that TofE is incredibly important to medicine, as many have pointed out. The increasing awareness of bacterial survival of antibiotics has changed the face of medicine irrevocably in the last 10 years, and anyone that tries to deny that fact is nothing more than an ignoramus. <br /><br />To those that have been long steeped in the traditions of evolution, including Skell (although he won't admit it), evolution is passed off as a simple idea. To a great percentage of basic high school graduates, however, the basic idea isn't ingrained, it requires actual thought and sometimes direction. <br /><br />There is no detailed need to outline cases where evolutionary theory was applied to create cures, to identify specific genomic changes that resulted in X or that created a new variant of organism B in order to refute attention whores like Skell. Just knowing that the practice of medicine has adapted in less than 2 decades to antibacterial resistant organisms should be more than enough proof.Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18349980798171765303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-18576046076516504152010-01-01T18:44:51.357-05:002010-01-01T18:44:51.357-05:00Jeffrey - thanks! My mistake. My comment was indee...Jeffrey - thanks! My mistake. My comment was indeed directed to emmie.Philnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-48288824744771250162010-01-01T16:51:32.331-05:002010-01-01T16:51:32.331-05:00I think "Veronica"'s position is as ...I think "Veronica"'s position is as follows:<br />- Theory of Evolution is a valid theory.<br />- It is very important in Biology, to provide an explanation of how everything came to be like it is.<br />- In other areas but Biology, it is not very really useful. One can use it to give some explanation after things happened but they're useless to help to develop any new thing practice: it would be the same way; with or without TofE.<br /><br />I think it is a normal thing to think for a start. Any sanely skeptical person could have thought such a thing. However, the links have shown many evidences in contrary. For me, it is clear that that those ideas are wrong.<br />If it is not what you think, Veronica, please make yourself clear.<br /><br />P.S.: Why a false name, Veronica? It is so shallow! If it was to remain anonymous, you could choose a clear pseudonym, like many other people.<br />P.S.2: My name IS Filipe. I have even said my full name here.Filipenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-55160031002354880432010-01-01T16:35:58.277-05:002010-01-01T16:35:58.277-05:00Phil:
"Veronica" didn't post anythi...Phil:<br /><br />"Veronica" didn't post anything at 12:38. That was Emmie.<br /><br />"Veronica": this game is becoming extremely tiresome. If you have something to say, why not simply say it instead of claiming I'm misrepresenting you?Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-4326477079628029392010-01-01T16:19:11.715-05:002010-01-01T16:19:11.715-05:00Veronica: Your 12:38 AM post. (just ctrl+f 12:38)Veronica: Your 12:38 AM post. (just ctrl+f 12:38)Philnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-92138058705607040502010-01-01T15:26:54.176-05:002010-01-01T15:26:54.176-05:00Jeffery, your last suggestion to me just proves my...Jeffery, your last suggestion to me just proves my point. But you're safe, you won't have to eat your hat.<br /><br />Phil, where did I write what you said I wrote?Veronicanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-64660639560860626382010-01-01T14:42:46.847-05:002010-01-01T14:42:46.847-05:00Veronica said "'new' species can resu...Veronica said "'new' species can result from from pre-existing species through the accumulation of genetic mutations, as described by the somewhat-distinct but wholly entwined process of natural selection. Notice I treat the two as inseparable concepts"<br /><br />That is incorrect. They are VERY seperable concepts. Although it is difficult for me to explain and illustrate (big lack of knowledge in bacterial science), I can say that a certain bacteria containing antibacterial resistance would not be a seperate species than one without the resistance. Bacteria are largely classified in the same manner as eukaryotes.<br /><br />I can, however, tell you how natural selection is excluded from the speciation. Here it goes; If you have an allopatric speciation process, one smaller group of individuals get isolated. In this small isolated group, as with all small groups of individuals,you will have a low genetic variability. So if a mutation occurs in one of the individuals, in many generations there are chances that it spreads in the population. This mutation does not necessarily need to be advantageous (latter would lead to natural selection). For example, a species of cave dwelling fish does not have eyes. This was a mutation that did not give an advantage or disadvantage due to their habitat. The trait happened to spread in the population, what is known as genetic drift. Another good example (though I forget which bird genus it is..) is with a group of immensely similar bird species. They look nearly identical, function very similarly, etc. Many if not all of them live in the same habitat. The only thing that is radically different is their song! This difference of tune doesn't give adv or disadv, yet they became seperate species. How? Sexual selection on the females' part; they would choose males with the same song as them. This isolates the populations sexually so that there is no allele exchange between the groups. This allows for each species to evolve seperately, thus gradually having less things in common (i.e. plumage changed ever so slightly). Speciation occuring within a population that is not geographically seperated is called sympatric speciation.<br /><br />So, natural selection is NOT NOT NOT wholly entwined, nor is it even necessary, to the phenomenon of speciation.<br /><br />If anyone knows the name of these birds, please post it :-)<br /><br />Phil.Philnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-61836126043911274702010-01-01T12:30:10.958-05:002010-01-01T12:30:10.958-05:00"Veronica":
I have an idea. Why don..."Veronica":<br /><br />I have an idea. Why don't you take Art Hunt's post (thanks, Art!) listed above, and tell us why you think this fails to show that evolution is relevant to medicine?Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-66173022228001965152010-01-01T12:26:27.182-05:002010-01-01T12:26:27.182-05:00"Veronica":
Your position is clear from..."Veronica":<br /><br />Your position is clear from what you have posted, and it's been amply refuted by what I and others have posted.<br /><br />And if your real name is "Veronica", I'll eat my hat.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-64210950998441796012010-01-01T11:47:45.386-05:002010-01-01T11:47:45.386-05:00John K: Yes.
"But don't expect "Ver...John K: Yes.<br /><br />"But don't expect "Veronica" to admit she was wrong."<br /><br />Don't expect Jeffrey to represent my position correctly.Veronicanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-10989038488329714872010-01-01T11:42:32.536-05:002010-01-01T11:42:32.536-05:00I very nice document which can be accessed online...I very nice document <b> which can be accessed online </b>:<br /><br />http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~ecolevol/fulldoc.pdfFilipe, from you know wherenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-38032159285673845692010-01-01T10:26:59.901-05:002010-01-01T10:26:59.901-05:00Veronica: I agree with Adam Wilkins when he wrote,...Veronica: <i>I agree with Adam Wilkins when he wrote, in BioEssays in 2000, "Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one."</i><br /><br />Do you agree with Wilkins, the former editor of Bioessays and ace researcher in genetic networks, when he <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1876434/?tool=pmcentrez" rel="nofollow">wrote in PNAS 2007</a>: <br /><i>"a “network perspective” may help transform evolutionary biology into a scientific enterprise with greater predictive capability than it has hitherto possessed.<br />The analysis of growth is, of course, a major subject area in biology, involving such disciplines as cell biology, traditional developmental biology, developmental genetics, and <b>cancer biology</b>. ... progress is also being made in this area, and some of the relevant networks are beginning to be elucidated. ... My principal suggestion here is that analyses of the networks or network modules that link developmental patterning mechanisms to growth patterns could have special importance in understanding the genetic basis of many microevolutionary-scale events. ...an appreciation of the generic properties of networks and the ways that they transmit effects along functional linear pathways can, when the knowledge of the composition of a network and its inputs and outputs is reliable, lead to predictions about the effects of mutations within network modules on eventual phenotypes. With this sort of analytical framework in place, evolutionary biology will possess a greater degree of predictive capability and potential for the falsification of hypotheses than has hitherto been possible."</i><br /><br />(No need to mention <a href="http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112506333/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0" rel="nofollow">what Wilkins thinks of ID</a>.)JohnKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-48923141820257519182010-01-01T10:19:13.536-05:002010-01-01T10:19:13.536-05:00Thanks, John K. By no means am I an expert in thi...Thanks, John K. By no means am I an expert in this area, so you've provided a lot more references to read.<br /><br />But don't expect "Veronica" to admit she was wrong.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-68047510047821627202010-01-01T09:32:53.851-05:002010-01-01T09:32:53.851-05:00Nesse & Williams' 1994 book, referenced by...Nesse & Williams' 1994 book, referenced by Dr. Shallit, is a bit long in the tooth. Some newer choices:<br /><br />Journal:<br />• <a href="http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121664008/issue?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0" rel="nofollow">Evolutionary Applications, V. 2 Issue 1 , pps 141 (February 2009) Evolutionary Medicine special issue</a><br /><br />Textbook:<br />• <a href="http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/LifeSciences/EvolutionaryBiology/?view=usa&ci=9780199236398" rel="nofollow">Principles of Evolutionary Medicine</a>, August 2009, Oxford University Press, P. Gluckman, A. Beedle and M. Hanson<br />Collections:<br />• <a href="http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/LifeSciences/EvolutionaryBiology/?view=usa&ci=9780199207459" rel="nofollow">Evolution in Health and Disease, 2nd Ed.</a>, 2007, Oxford University Press, <a href="http://www.yale.edu/eeb/stearns/" rel="nofollow">Stephen C. Stearns</a>, <a href="http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/people/j.koella" rel="nofollow"> Jacob C. Koella</a> editors, <a href="http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nesse/EMN/EHD2.pdf" rel="nofollow">Bibliography pdf</a>, <a href="http://evmed.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/bergstromandfeldgarden08-ch-10.pdf" rel="nofollow">Chapter 10 pdf</a>, <a href="http://tinyurl.com/56n8q9" rel="nofollow">Review in The New England Journal of Medicine</a><br />• <a href="http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Anthropology/?view=usa&ci=9780195307061" rel="nofollow">Evolutionary Medicine and Health: New Perspectives, 2nd ed.</a>, 2007, Oxford University Press, <a href="http://www.nmsu.edu/~anthro/Wenda_Trevathan.html" rel="nofollow">Wenda R. Trevathan</a>, <a href="http://www.eosmith.com/cv.html" rel="nofollow">E. O. Smith</a> and <a href="http://al.nd.edu/resources-for/faculty-and-staff/faculty-list/bio/jmckenn1/" rel="nofollow">James McKenna</a> editors, <a href="http://www.oup.com/us/companion.websites/9780195307061/?view=usa" rel="nofollow">Companion website</a>, <a href="http://evmed.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/evomed-chap1-2007.pdf" rel="nofollow">Chapter 1 pdf</a><br />But a few other older works are interesting:<br />• <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Infectious-Disease-Paul-Ewald/dp/0195111397/" rel="nofollow">The Evolution of Infectious Disease</a>, 1994, Oxford University Press, <a href="http://louisville.edu/~p0ewal01/" rel="nofollow">Paul W. Ewald</a><br />• <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Diseases-Human-Evolution-Ethne-Barnes/dp/0826330665" rel="nofollow">Diseases and Human Evolution</a>, 2005, University of New Mexico Press, Ethne Barnes<br />• <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Cancer-Evolutionary-Legacy-Mel-Greaves/dp/0192628348" rel="nofollow">Cancer - the Evolutionary Legacy</a>, 2002, Oxford University Press, <a href="http://www.icr.ac.uk/research/research_profiles/2875.shtml" rel="nofollow">Mel Greaves</a>JohnKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-69124620097115812872010-01-01T00:05:18.365-05:002010-01-01T00:05:18.365-05:00Veronica:
Now you're a bore, and wrong.Veronica:<br /><br />Now you're a bore, <i>and</i> wrong.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-47310890880281459722009-12-31T22:19:32.711-05:002009-12-31T22:19:32.711-05:00After reading "NAS"'s link (Of what ...After reading "NAS"'s link (Of what value is evolutionary biology in medicine?), I can say: "Now we're talking!" It really shows some clearly good examples.<br />In that link, in the comments section, one can find those other links:<br />http://www.venomdoc.com/downloads/2005_BGF_Nature_squamate_venom.pdf<br />and<br />http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/04/cephalopod_venoms.php<br /><br />It's some appropriate stuff.<br /><br />-------------------------------<br />I have recognised my mistake about KP. However, don't you think I agree with the mockery thing. I think it can be very good to discourage immoral behavior.<br /><i> "Castigat ridendo mores" </i>, the wise men have said; We apply it to corrupted politicians, swindlers, charlatans, etc. <br />However, when it comes to ideas, I think logic and systematic criticism are the only paths. Ridiculing others opinions generally do more evil than good. Anyway, that's what I think. Do as you please.<br />And I insist: may anyone tell me if my English is full of mistakes? Because it used to be.Filipe, from Brazilnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-51000395853444296782009-12-31T22:18:27.033-05:002009-12-31T22:18:27.033-05:00Ha ha ha neigh on your comment.
Was that worth a ...Ha ha ha neigh on your comment.<br /><br />Was that worth a thousand syllogisms to you?<br /><br />Well, it was to me.Veronicanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-21936866684245374032009-12-31T21:39:24.167-05:002009-12-31T21:39:24.167-05:00Veronica:
Still can't admit you're wrong,...Veronica:<br /><br />Still can't admit you're wrong, I see. Happy new year.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-23754243275005377432009-12-31T20:08:56.248-05:002009-12-31T20:08:56.248-05:00"One horselaugh is worth a thousand syllogism..."One horselaugh is worth a thousand syllogisms."<br /><br />Only in the mind of the person who says it, and the choir that surrounds him.Veronicanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-47016021008521130302009-12-31T18:40:32.868-05:002009-12-31T18:40:32.868-05:00"Unlike you, I am happy to have my mistakes p..."Unlike you, I am happy to have my mistakes pointed out, and I own up to them"<br />Ah, no, not really. I am, surely, glad to have my mistakes pointed out. Please do not speak for me. I just found strange the expression "completely wrong" in the case.<br />"Yes, your claim about Popper being on his deathbed was completely wrong"<br />Did I say he was in his deathbed??? I just said he was next to die. Perhaps it is the same thing in English, and I don't know it. He was 76, darn! However, I was wrong in a strict sense. The man lived a lot.<br />"Too bad you can't admit it."<br />I, Filipe F. Calvario, acknowledge that I should not have said "next to his death" in that case, because KP would die more than a decade after his recantation happened. That was a mistake of mine.Filipe, from Brazilnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-58173713550997514342009-12-31T18:07:11.482-05:002009-12-31T18:07:11.482-05:00Thanks for the correction about the quote.
Unlik...Thanks for the correction about the quote. <br /><br />Unlike you, I am happy to have my mistakes pointed out, and I own up to them.<br /><br />Yes, your claim about Popper being on his deathbed was completely wrong. Too bad you can't admit it.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-22498956340125488022009-12-31T18:00:44.436-05:002009-12-31T18:00:44.436-05:00Of what value is evolutionary biology in medicine?...<a href="http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/of-what-value-is-evolutionary-biology-in-medicine/" rel="nofollow">Of what value is evolutionary biology in medicine?</a>NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12244370945682162312noreply@blogger.com