User talk:TongueSpeaker

Hey backspace! (Allele reply)

I responded on the talk page of allele for you but you should keep the discussion here. Talk pages are for discussing editing of articles not for pursuing your conspiratorial theories. I'll repost it here:

Hey backspace! Whats up? I see you're still playing your silly word games, how fun! Anyway, allele was first used by Bateson and Saunders (1902) in this work: Bateson W. (1902). Mendel's Principles of Hereditary: A Defence. London: Cambridge University Press. Available at: www.esp.org/books/bateson/mendel/facsimile

Edith Saunders was a woman living in a man's word so she didn't get much credit (if any). Remember: its just a wordf describing a thing, just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that there is a gian conspiracy against you! --Woland (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your response on Talk: Allele :

What about this allele is it that I don't understand because you defined it yet. Did Saunders for example know that a gene is an encoding/decoding mechanism, in what way will this influence the yet to be defined concept of "allele"? This author says the following about genes "....Physical evolution requires genes to work. Any rational scientists knows that there's not a smidgen of evidence there is a single gene, much less genes. Read Watson's and Crick's two original articles in Science magazine, and you'll discover they ask a number of "what if" questions, not of which have been answered. For example. When the two strands of DNA untwist to replicate, what prevents them from getting tangled up? The concepts of genes is one of the most irrational concept that ever existed...."http://time-blog.com/eye_on_science/2007/02/the_evolution_wars_visit_eye_o.html. How should we interpret the yet to be defined concept of an allele in the light of what he wrote.?TongueSpeaker (talk) 12:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Genes are analogous to an encoding/decoding mechanism but they are not in reality this. They are actually just molecules that interact in a particular way. 2.There is no need to interpret it further. The dictionary gives its definition and it is a fairly simple concept. As you've been told before: If you had a gene for ice cream the different flavors (read: variates)would be the alleles (i.e. choclate, strawberry, vanilla etc). This is called an analogy. This has nothing to do with your creationist beliefs. It has to do with your inability to read for comprehension. Are you disputing the existence of genes and their variant forms? You should take a few classes in biology.

".... molecules that interact in a particular way...." is a truism, would you mind to reformulate it differently ? TongueSpeaker (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It is true, and as a truism is something that is trivially true, I don't think this qualifies as one. I'm not sure how you could call the composition of the building blocks that make us what we are "trivial."--Woland (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is in no way even approaching a truism. I suggest you look the word up somewhere.86.31.48.120 (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

What concept did she have in 1902 and what is the concept we have with allele today?

The same as the dictionary's:

Allele- any of several forms of a gene, usually arising through mutation, that are responsible for hereditary variation.

You see, genes exist obviously. However, though we all have a gene for the production of hemoglobin (for example), there are variants of this gene that produce different kinds of hemoglobin. Would you prefer that we didn't have a word to describe this? It is kind of important. --Woland (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"...You see, genes exist ..." - Why are you engaging in Truisms ? TongueSpeaker (talk) 18:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its call a beginning proposition (what you would call "from first principles"). You seem to deny the existence of many things so I thought I'd start with the basics...notice I said "obviously," truisms are not always fallacies you know.--Woland (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So an allele is a variant of a gene? Take any gene and show me the exact spot that you call "allele". It is important because for example people say "... this feature is a result of it's allele..." Which variant of what gene resulted in the feature? This "allele" business seems to be a way of stating concealed Truisms, like for example "... organisms are the result of their genes ...".TongueSpeaker (talk) 18:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think the fact that genes are what govern our outward appearance and behavior important? Anyway, here is one picture that shows different versions (alleles) for the hemoglobin gene; one is for the sickle cell version the other is not. As you can see they are on the same number chromosome, at the same location, however one gene is a different form.

http://arnica.csustan.edu/Biol1010/genetics/alleles.gif

You seem to forget that truisms are by definition true. Are you denying that variants of genes exist/ Why don't you think that this is an important concept? Don't you think its easier to have one word for some thing instead of having to say "the gene for lactase production and all of its variants" ? How do you think we should talk about these things?

Anyway, this wasn't invented by "evolutionists," and in fact is simply about genetics and biology.

Here is a somewhat more realistic depiction: http://home.comcast.net/~smmarcus1/GenIV-2.GIF

Here the variants of the same gene are represented by "B" and "b." They perform the same genetic function, they are positioned at the same place, but one is different from the other and as such produces a slightly different protein.Do you deny that this exists? --Woland (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Selectus

A tag has been placed on Selectus requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Blowdart | ^talk 09:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gould and tautology

If you'll look at the definition: "a tautology is an unnecessary (and usually unintentional) repetition of meaning, using different words that effectively say the same thing twice (often originally from different languages)."

The issue isn't the word tautology but the concept. My concept is the deceitful formulation of a proposition such that its truth is guaranteed. You can use any word you want as long as the concept is clear. language redundancy, poetry, verbosity aren't tautologies.

TongueSpeaker (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see Gould does not repeat meaning in his statement. Just because you can't read it doesn't mean that something is a "tautology."

Here is the quote again: The geological record features episodes of high dying, during which extinction-prone groups are more likely to disappear, leaving extinction-resistant groups as life's legacy.

I realize that you don't understand why and you probably never will. Woland (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awww

Don't be such a sore loser....Seriously, are you this delusional that you think you can just erase the truth and go back to your crazy conspiracy theories?--Woland (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Socks

I have filed a report of sockpuppetry against you here. --Woland (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]