What drives our genes? Researchers map the first complete human epigenome

just an allusion wrote:

<quoted text>
Now each and every one of these individuals who forwarded their particular ideology of the World around them were the so-called "greatest minds in [their] field" whose concepts were "based on scientific method (the best method of discerning [sic] fact known to man), peer review, and at least a decade of dedicated study and research (and, in most cases, far more than that)", and yet each and every one of them were eventually, inevitably, proven wrong by successors in their respective field(s) as what once was once widely considered conventional wisdom was supplanted by new, original understanding of the mechanisms of life and the Cosmos.
So, assuming that I am the ignorant one here, I'm keeping some pretty illustrious company, wouldn't you say?

Delusions of grandeur? That's a mental illness, not science.

These "greatest minds" became so because they were able to muster evidence in their favor. Where is your evidence? For every "greatest mind" there are 1,000's of kooks who made up crazy things and never produced evidence to support a scrap of it. Before you trot around about the company you keep perhaps you should take a look around.

Noodly James wrote:

<quoted text>
My JOB? You mean the thing I volunteered for so that I could post news? BTW, you aren't in charge. If I had the power to edit things other than news the first person to go would be Marksman then impotent farce as they are about useless. You post correctly spelled silliness and therefore amuse me. You may continue.

Damn, you mean you actually VOLUNTEERED for this?!? You do know that ANYONE can start a new thread, yes? LOL!!

BTW, you mentioned something earlier in this thread about your having "learned alot" from the boards here, so tell me, Noodly, what all have you learned since you've been here? I'm curious.

15th Dalai Lama wrote:

<quoted text>
I guess that's a sentence. Hard to tell. Clearly a lot of words with nothing to say.
Truthfully, there was a time when I did not consider you to be pathetic.

When there is something that you do not quite understand, the proper etiquette is to ask for clarification, NOT berate the one offering the information/knowledge...And you consider ME "pathetic", lol.

Pathetic are those too insecure or concerned about LOOKING stupid for a minute or two to ask a question about something that they do not quite understand, resulting in their BEING stupid about the matter for the rest of their lives...Now THAT'S "pathetic".

Erasmus05 wrote:

<quoted text>
Here is the rub. Are there environmental cues by which a human would give birth to a child that exactly resembles a chimp? The answer is no. Therefore, phenotype plasticity can not explain the differences between species. Those differences can only be explained by differences in DNA.

Secondly, DNA mutations in regulatory genes and transcriptions factors can and do change RNA expression patterns. The only way to get a DIFFERENT response to the environment is through mutation.

Yes, yes...Which is EXACTLY what the article is concerned with, i.e., the mechanism, the INTERNAL mechanism, which DRIVES said "mutations"...Or didn't you even bother to R-E-A-D it?

Erasmus05 wrote:

<quoted text>
Delusions of grandeur? That's a mental illness, not science.
These "greatest minds" became so because they were able to muster evidence in their favor. Where is your evidence? For every "greatest mind" there are 1,000's of kooks who made up crazy things and never produced evidence to support a scrap of it. Before you trot around about the company you keep perhaps you should take a look around.

The article contains the "evidence" that you're requesting, I'm merely (attempting to anyway) correcting your mis-interpretation of their findings by your correlating them to the relatively superficial mechanism of "phenotype" mutation, when their research is clearly confined to the determination of the mechanism that DRIVES, motivates &/or regulates said phenotypic mutation, to accurately reflect the insight they've uncovered...AGAIN, didn't you R-E-A-D the article?!?

What other "evidence" do you require?

Erasmus05 wrote:

<quoted text>
Delusions of grandeur? That's a mental illness, not science.

Further, no, no "delusions of grandeur", I was merely explaining the rationale for my position on the provisional nature of science by offering numerous examples wherein allegedly renown scientific fact was, inevitably, supplanted by actual fact in response to "LowellGuy's" questioning the propriety of what they erroneously mistook, much the same as you are now, as my arrogance in contradicting/challenging the so-called conventional wisdom of famous (infamous"?") scholars, authorities and otherwise renown scientists &/or widely accepted principles of common understanding, but that's all.

So whatever perception you may have drawn from my comments that implied that I was 'blowing my own horn', or whatever relative colloquialism you'd prefer, you've simply mistook my intent as it is only to state that which is.

Erasmus05 wrote:

...

p.s. Perhaps NOW you'd like to discuss the actual topic of this thread, as you have said you'd prefer ( http://www.topix.com/forum/tech/T15M1H7MG9A99... ), INSTEAD of the mental proclivities of a contributing member or whatever intellectual acumen I may or may not possess as I, apparently unlike you, do NOT wish to talk about myself..."?!?"

just an allusion wrote:

<quoted text>
When there is something that you do not quite understand, the proper etiquette is to ask for clarification, NOT berate the one offering the information/knowledge...And you consider ME "pathetic", lol.
Pathetic are those too insecure or concerned about LOOKING stupid for a minute or two to ask a question about something that they do not quite understand, resulting in their BEING stupid about the matter for the rest of their lives...Now THAT'S "pathetic".

If you can only express yourself with a shitstorm of commas, it's not the reader's fault for having trouble with what you've written. Learn to write in clear, concise, easy-to-follow sentences and you'll have mastered the first step in conversation. Otherwise, you're just ranting to yourself. I mean, you're welcome to do that if that's your thing. It's just that you'd be joining the ranks of that guy who ends all his posts with "WAKE UP!" and "PEACE!" If that's what you're into, good on ya.

just an allusion wrote:

<quoted text>
Damn, you mean you actually VOLUNTEERED for this?!? You do know that ANYONE can start a new thread, yes? LOL!!
BTW, you mentioned something earlier in this thread about your having "learned alot" from the boards here, so tell me, Noodly, what all have you learned since you've been here? I'm curious.

They can start threads. They cannot post news. SO LOL yourself ;(~.
-
Mostly new ways of thinking. Questioning my preconceived notions. Realizing that whatever I thought I was good at, that there were people who knew more and/or had a different knowledge base. That there were areas I had no clue about. Having to research several areas just to keep up in argument. Realizing that many creationist arguments were so manufactured that just pasting from talk origins was overkill. How to debate (as opposed to fighting).
-
BTW, we have been debating for so long I forgot what your initial point was.

just an allusion wrote:

<quoted text>
Damn, you mean you actually VOLUNTEERED for this?!? You do know that ANYONE can start a new thread, yes? LOL!!
BTW, you mentioned something earlier in this thread about your having "learned alot" from the boards here, so tell me, Noodly, what all have you learned since you've been here? I'm curious.

As an aside, it takes no more time to be an administrator than a regular poster. The spam I find just get to be posted more prominently on the refrigerator.

So, hey, "jest and illusion", have you found the big wooden boat yet?

just an allusion wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, yes...Which is EXACTLY what the article is concerned with, i.e., the mechanism, the INTERNAL mechanism, which DRIVES said "mutations"...Or didn't you even bother to R-E-A-D it?

Did you read it?

"Being able to create high resolutions maps of the human epigenome, Ecker's group will now begin to examine how it changes during normal development as well as examining a variety of disease states. "For the first time, we will be able to see the fine details of how DNA methylation changes in stem cells and other cells as they grow and develop into new cell types," he says."

They mapped DNA methylation at different points in tissue development. They did not map mutations, nor the mechanisms which cause mutations.

If you can't understand the difference between mutation and methylation this conversation will go nowhere.

just an allusion wrote:

<quoted text>
The article contains the "evidence" that you're requesting, I'm merely (attempting to anyway) correcting your mis-interpretation of their findings by your correlating them to the relatively superficial mechanism of "phenotype" mutation,

There is no such thing as phenotype mutation. There is only DNA mutation.

AGAIN, didn't you R-E-A-D the article?!?
What other "evidence" do you require?

Again, did you read the article? It talks of DNA methylation, not DNA mutation.

just an allusion wrote:

<quoted text>
p.s. Perhaps NOW you'd like to discuss the actual topic of this thread, as you have said you'd prefer

Sure, let's talk about how patterns of DNA mutation result in tissue differentiation. Isn't that what you want to talk about?

Noodly James wrote:

<quoted text>
As an aside, it takes no more time to be an administrator than a regular poster. The spam I find just get to be posted more prominently on the refrigerator.

X-rated, too?

Sheila wrote:

<quoted text>X-rated, too?

Should I try?

Noodly James wrote:

<quoted text>
Should I try?

Try what? Anybody as big as you shouldn't have any trouble trying anything you like.

Noodly James wrote:

<quoted text>
Should I try?

With your own fridge, that is.

Sheila wrote:

<quoted text> Try what? Anybody as big as you shouldn't have any trouble trying anything you like.

Sigh......Um.......;)~

LowellGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
If you can only express yourself with a shitstorm of commas, it's not the reader's fault for having trouble with what you've written. Learn to write in clear, concise, easy-to-follow sentences and you'll have mastered the first step in conversation. Otherwise, you're just ranting to yourself. I mean, you're welcome to do that if that's your thing. It's just that you'd be joining the ranks of that guy who ends all his posts with "WAKE UP!" and "PEACE!" If that's what you're into, good on ya.

Go to "View" on your browser's tool bar and click on "Zoom" from the drop-down menu...After you've increased the size of your view screen's font by a couple percentages or so you'll be able to determine that those are not "A shitstorm of commas" but a trailing of periods intended to imply a rhetorical pause in the conversation...It is a locutionary device of contextual composition.