User talk:LowKey/Archive

Hi there Mr/Ms Tricksy, welcome to RationalWiki the    of teh internetz. - User   18:38, 15 February 2009 (EST)
 * You have been pwned. Sorry. --"CURtalk 19:39, 15 February 2009 (EST)
 * You're calling me a liar? For bleep's sake, it was an honest mistake. --"C, U Rthe, ing. 18:37, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Can't block you
Sorry Tricksy, it looks like you'll have to rely on your own self-control not to edit here. Pi won't let me block you. If you tell me your password, I could change it to something you'll never guess...-- 13:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I had a sysoping message...
But I left it at aSK. 01:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

An abstract for you
From the journal Genetics, an abstract from an article: Evolution at high mutation rates is expected to reduce population fitness deterministically by the accumulation of deleterious mutations. A high enough rate should even cause extinction (lethal mutagenesis), a principle motivating the clinical use of mutagenic drugs to treat viral infections. The impact of a high mutation rate on long-term viral fitness was tested here. A large population of the DNA bacteriophage T7 was grown with a mutagen, producing a genomic rate of 4 non-lethal mutations per generation, 2-3 orders of magnitude above the baseline rate. Fitness - viral growth rate in the mutagenic environment - was predicted to decline substantially; after 200 generations, fitness had increased, rejecting the model. A high mutation load was nonetheless evident from (i) many low- to moderate-frequency mutations in the population (averaging 245 per genome), and (ii) an 80% drop in average burst size. Twenty eight mutations reached high frequency and were thus presumably adaptive, clustered mostly in DNA metabolism genes, chiefly DNA polymerase. Yet blocking DNA polymerase evolution failed to yield a fitness decrease after 100 generations. Although mutagenic drugs have caused viral extinction in vitro under some conditions, this study is the first to match theory and fitness evolution at a high mutation rate. Failure of the theory challenges the quantitative basis of lethal mutagenesis and highlights the potential for adaptive evolution at high mutation rates. Sterile 02:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC) PS I will probably order the Miracles book next month. (I have no real time now.) I think I will order Carl Zimmer's At the Water's Edge : Fish with Fingers, Whales with Legs, and How Life Came Ashore but Then Went Back to Sea at the same time: should be a good read and definitely related to things we've talked about. I'm waiting on Dawkins until it comes out in paperback. Sterile 02:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC) PPS PZ Meyers wrote today:

I do not say that there can be no such thing as a supernatural agent; I say that the creationists have not provided any credible evidence for such a thing, which is a very different argument altogether. As I said in the debate, if you want an idea to be scientific, show us the evidence. It's possible that the elves have been guiding evolution all these years, but it's not a possiblity I have to seriously consider in the absence of evidence for the existence of elves.

It's not just my "dogma." Sterile 01:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sillyness
Tricksy is not permitted to edit WIGO Everyone can post a WIGO but no one is allowed to re-edit a WIGO. Tricksy should not vote on WIGO Everyone is allowed to vote on a WIGO. Even you. If RWians are talking nonsense, Tricksy should not say so. Tricksy is more than welcome to critque RWians however expect someone to debate you on it.

Never let the truth get in the way of WIGO Never let the truth stand in the way of promoting the YEC myth. AceMcWicked 04:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information. -Answers in Genesis, Statement of Faith
 * Concur with Ace. Corry 04:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We have debates here, Tricksy. You are not blocked and are free to join in. You are not being censored if you do not win the debates and you are not being censored if the debates do not take the form most agreeable to you. 04:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Bradley, a debate
Bradley, I challenge you to a moderated debate on any creationist topic you wish. Let's agree on a format and rules. We'll set up a debate page for it on which on you and I can respond. Let's do this shit, brother. I'm fucking geeked. 05:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Should the rest of us agree not to gang up on him during this debate so he cannot claim an unfair disadvantage? 05:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be more than happy to sit back and let Bradley debate Nutty. AceMcWicked 05:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Pulled the plug?
Has phil pulled the plug? AceMcWicked 00:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)