More Shoddy Journalism
Now if the media wants to run articles on conspiracy theorists, that is fine, controversy sells papers. But it is just bad journalism to promote their causes without even asking the most basic questions. In this case the Arizona Republic runs another puff piece promoting the Chandler conference. It included this gem:
Marrs, who has written about the Kennedy assassination and other topics, said there are problems with the official story of Sept. 11.
"No one has offered up any proof of who these hijackers actually were," he said. "According to the European media, half (of the alleged hijackers) are still alive in the Middle East, meaning their identities were stolen."
It is now up to half? Jim Fetzer insists it was 5,6 or 7. You would think the fact that they can't even agree on a number would indicate the credibility of their claims.
Update: The Feathered one takes on this story too. He calls up the reporter and gets an interesting response, err... non-response:
If Scott or any of her editors at the Repugnant had bothered to use the Google search engine on their ‘puters, they might have discovered information on the conference’s anti-Semitic ties, the controversy over Eric Williams being involved, and the origins of some of the fables being peddled by the 9/11 conspiracy crowd. But both Scott and her editors are LAZY JOURNALISTS! I called Scott, and all she could muster in response was “I don’t like to comment on my work.” Don’t like to comment? What sort of pathetic excuse for a reporter are you? How can you be a member of the fourth estate and not be prepared to defend your reporting, or lack thereof? What a joke.
Labels: 9-11 Accountability
posted by James B. @ 9:18 AM
39 comments
39 Comments:
By the year 2012, they'll be claiming that 52 of the "alleged hijackers" are still alive.
They are claiming 1000 people might attend their conference. If they all donated $2 each...
Now if the media wants to run articles on conspiracy theorists, that is fine, controversy sells papers. But it is just bad journalism to promote their causes without even asking the most basic questions.
Kind of like the official story and journalism, eh?
The point is, who were those guys if they used stolen identities?
There is no indication that they used stolen identities, so it is a pointless question.
JamesB are you ever going to get those concrete questions you have so I can start researching for some answers for you?
Considering the quality of your research, no. If I wanted to spend time reading pages of poorly conducted and misleading research I would pick up another David Ray Griffin book.
So why do you change your mind now, James, when you agreed with me in an earlier post?
JamesB, will you provide concrete questions to the indidviduals who you would trust to research your questions that post regularly? Or is it more likely that if you formulate those questions , make them public, that they might call into question the official story itself and therefore place you in the troother camp? Somehow I suspect it is the second scenario.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I am sorry, maybe I am misunderstanding something. I don't recall ever requesting you to research anything.
Swing,
Start with this question. If the alleged hijackers are still alive, and apparently unafraid of revealing themselves since they are merely victims of stolen identity, why not spend a couple thousand bucks flying over them, breaking the story, and getting on the cover of Time Magazine?
Josh
I think they are all afraid to interview the hijackers because they would kill them with a suicide bomb.
Because he'd have to collect and sell something like 500,000 pop-cans to be able to afford the airfare, and the competition is pretty stiff...
Also, what the hell is a "concrete question?"
Kind of like the official story and journalism, eh?
I wonder who failed in raising you that you would be this stupid.
18 of the 19 hijackers were named by the FBI before flight 93 even crashed on 9/11.
Do you people ever get sick of lying?
US security agencies failed to connect the dots in preventing the attacks beforehand yet they were able to quickly name the hijackers within few hours after the attacks took place
So now it's within a few hours instead of before 93 crashed?
So Alex Jones's June conference played an important role in the 2006 elections?
Why haven't those ungrateful Democrats (the ones who won the 2006 election) returned the favor and invited the twoofers to DC. Is there no loyalty in this world???????????
Josh, your speculating that the hijackers are still alive when the article mentions on the post that the names used by the hijackers were the names of folks who were alive and well, some of which have claimed identity theft.
I can't help it that some in the truth movement have accepted that the individuals allegedly hijacking those planes are still alive based upon the press reports.
The press accounts that you are referring to prove two things.
A. The alleged hijackers have the exact same names as those living abroad, or
B. The identity of those individuals were stolen by the alleged hijackers.
The statements of the identify theft victims lead me to believe letter B is the most likely occurance. Why? That pattern fits the MO of what a terrorist would do .
According to my research which you call into question, JamesB seems to be the most likely answer.
Expert: Hijackers likely skilled with fake IDs
September 21, 2001 Posted: 8:55 PM
By Daniel Sieberg
CNN
Several reports, from shortly after the attacks, said that some of the men named as hijackers on 9/11 were alive, and had been victims of identity theft. These thefts were said to have occurred as long ago as 1995.
* BBC News - Hijack 'suspects' alive and well
* LA Times - FBI Chief Raises New Doubts Over Hijackers' Identities
* Islam Online - Saudi Suspects in U.S. Attacks Were Not in the U.S.
* CNN - Details of hijacking suspects released
Source: Wiki..
I thought you were on top of this whole 9/11 thing, James. Here is your ass again.
James, you didn't ask me to research but based upon the quality of your knowledge, maybe you should.
I'm requesting that you post your 9/11 NORAD/FAA questions to see if they match any of the questions formulated from the truth movement. Because I too have issues with the NORAD and the FAA. Why the fear in publishing them? I anticipate you never will, James, for the most blatant reason.
----
Well I was sitting here watching ABC's 20/20 issue on fear and one segment dealt with probability and such. It reminded me of the probability of the Official Story being true. I quickly found this..
I wish I could take credit for the following because...
It can be demonstrated by two straightforward mathematical techniques that the official acccount on 9/11 is simply not true.
The first method uses boolean algebra. The other method is based on probability theory.
Boolean algebra used to invalidate the official 9/11 account
Boolean algebra deals not with numbers but with truth values. In Boolean mathematics we have only two values: True and false. One of the primary operations in boolean algebra is the operator AND. In the equation A AND B we have:
Given A = true and B = true, then A AND B = true
Given A = true and B = false, then A AND B = false
Given A = false and B = true, then A AND B = false
Given A = false and B = false, then A AND B = false
The AND relationship can be illustrated by three bulbs connected in series. The truth value for each bulb is ON or OFF. In order for bulb C to be ON, both A and B must be ON. If either A or B or both are OFF, C will not obtain electrical current and be OFF. The same would apply to a longer series of bulbs connected in series.
Applying the AND relationship to the official 9/11 account, we posit that in order for the official account to be true, a number N of fundamental allegations must be proved as true. If any one of these fundamental allegations are false, the entire official account is false.
Thus, it is only necessary to demonstrate that a single fundamental allegation in the official account is false for the entire account to be deemed false. Fundamental allegations include the following (a non-exhaustive list), all of which are part of the official version on 9/11:
1. No plans existed prior to 9/11 to protect the Pentagon and the White House against approaching aircraft (if such plans actually existed, questions would arise why they were not implementedwho prevented their implementation).
2. The idea that the World Trade Center could be attacked from air, did not occur to any US government agency before 9/11 (if it is shown that the idea actually was discussed by US military agencies, the question would arise why it was not taken into consideration to protect these assets).
3. All persons named by the FBI as hijackers actually boarded the four aircraft which crashed on 11 Sep. 2001 (if they did not board the aircraft, the hijackings could not have taken place).
4. The planes which crashed on 11 Sep. 2001 were flight number AA11 (tail number N334AA), flight number AA77 (tail number N644AA), flight number UA93 (tail number N591UA) and flight number UA175 (tail number N612UA) (if the flight and tail number are not those listed here, the question arises whether the planes that allegedly crashed at the known locations were the same ones which departed from the listed airports).
5. Flight AA11, a Boeing 767, left from Logan Airport, Boston, and crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York (some critical assumptions made in the official story rely on the identity of this flight number, the airport of departure and on the type of aircraft).
6. Flight AA77, a Boeing 757, left from Dulles Airport, Washington, D.C., and crashed into the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. (some critical assumptions made in the official story rely on the identity of this flight number, the airport of departure, the type of aircraft and the claim that this aircraft crashed on the Pengaton).
7. Flight UA175, a Boeing 767, left from Logan Airport, Boston, and crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center in New York (some critical assumptions made in the official story rely on the identity of this flight number, the airport of departure and on the type of aircraft.)
8. Flight UA93, a Boeing 757, left from Newark Airport and crashed into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania (some critical assumptions made in the official story rely on the identity of this flight number, the airport of departure and on the type of aircraft).
9. The US military were not notified in time to scramble military jets and prevent the crashes of the hijacked aircraft (had they been notified in time, questions would arise why they did not scramble military jets in time and who was negligent).
10. President George W. Bush did not know that "America was under attack" before entering the primary school in Florida on the morning of 9/11 (should it transpire that President Bush actually knew what was going on in New York as he entered the school, questions would arise as to his foreknowledge of the crime).
11. The South and North towers of the World Trade Center as well as WTC no. 7 collapsed due to fire (if evidence can be produced that steel buildings cannot be made to collapse by fire, it would suggest that they were made to collapse by explosives, as actually suggested by a number of witnesses).
12. Numerous calls from hijacked passengers were made to family members and airline personnel with cell phones (if it can be shown that at the particular moment of the phone calls the planes were flying above 8,000 feet and/or at the speed of 500 miles per hour or more, it would suggest that the cellphone stories are a fabrication, because of the technical high improbability of succeeding such calls from high altitude and/or high speed).
If any one of the above allegations is found to be false, the official account must be put in doubt or rejected and the suggestion of official deception or criminal complicity must be considered as justified.
Probability theory used to invalidate the official 9/11 account
It is also possible to "disprove" the official 9/11 account by using probability theory. If it is shown that the probability of the official account is so low as to approach zero, it can be safely maintained that the official account is untrue.
The probability of a compound event to have occurred is the product of all sub-events necessary to accomplish the compound event. The underlying assumption is that the probability of each sub-event is independent of the probability of another sub-event. The following sub-events appear independent of each other. All of them have a low to extremly low probability. In order to simplify the demonstration, we arbitrarily assigned a probability of 0.1 (or 10 percent) to each of the following selected propositions which underpin the official account. Skeptics may try other combinations of probabilities, higher or lower, in order to test the methodology.
1. Four young, healthy and educated Muslims who possess large chunks of cash and like to party, can be expected to prepare for many months to sacrifice their lives in a murderous hijacking operation.
2. Four groups of Muslims can be expected to board four different aircraft in the United States on the same day without raising suspicion.
3. Young muslim men, known to have been in Afghanistan, would be expected to receive a visa to the United States in order to learn to fly.
4. Foreign Muslims who plan to hijack planes in the United States, can be expected to choose to train in US, rather than Arab flight schools in order to prepare their hijackings. (SD-I never considered this issue but it makes a valid point.)
5. A person planning a hijack operation in the US could be expected to tell an official US employee about his criminal motives, as Mohamed Atta had reportedly done in his encounter with Johnelle Bryant of the Agricultural Department in Florida.
6. Muslims who meticulously plan a hijacking operation in the United States, could be expected to "forget" a Koran on a bar stool on the eve of their operation and a flight manual in Arabic on the morning of their operation, in a rented car left near the airport from which they intended to hijack a plane.
7. Hijackers can be expected to fly from another town to the airport from which they intend to commit the hijacking operation merely two hours before their intended hijacking should start.
(SD-again, why the extra risk to blowing the whole operation instead of being near the airport of departure to eliminate the added risk?)
8. US military authorities can be expected to schedule, for exactly the date of the murderous events, war games and exercises including simulated plane hijackings and planes crashing on government buildings.
9. Conversations from cell phones made from passenger aircraft can be expected to function at any altitude and speed.
10. Passports of hijackers could be expected to be found on the crash sites, regardless of the lack of bodies and wreckage.
11. The US air force could be expected to bungle its attempts to intercept the hijacked planes.
12. No plans could have existed at the Pentagon to protect US government buildings against the risk of an accidental or malicious plane crash.
13. Neither the CIA nor the FBI could have any prior knowledge of the identities and whereabouts of the alleged hijackers before 9/11.
14. A law enforcement authority, such as the FBI, could be expected to show little interest in investigating mass murder.
15. A government would be expected to oppose an investigation of a terrorist attack against its own country.(SD-thanks Mr. Bush)
16. Terrorists can be expected to commit mass murder without making any demands.(SD-I would add without making contradicting statements in bogus videos claiming reponsibility as well)
17. Five individuals with only packing knives can be expected to overwhelm fifty adults in a plane.
18. Hijackers in three different planes can be expected to successfully enter the pilot cabin without raising alarm.
19. A person who had never flown a Boeing passanger jet could be expected after a little simulator training to plunge the aircraft successfully between the first and second floor of the side of the Pentagon, even under conditions of extreme stress.
20. A crashed plane can be expected to leave any visible trace.
21. A high rise steel building can be expected to collapse on its own footprint after a raging fire.
22. Debris from a crashed plane can be expected to be found many miles from the crash site.
The compound probability of the above events is the product of the individual probabilities or 0.1**22 (0.1 in the 22 exponential). The actual figure is so small that it practically nears zero.
If one accepts the above propositions (even by increasing their probability of occurrence to 0,5), it follows that their compound probability is near zero. In fact, it suffices that a subset of the above propositions be shown to have a compound probability of near zero, to invalidate the official account on 9/11.
While both methods demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the U.S. authorities have fabricated the official account, the question arises why they have done so, what are they covering up, who perpetrated the mass murder of 9/11 and how was it accomplished. These questions are not pursued further here. As long as the above statements of fact are not fully investigated, the U.S. administration must be considered as covering up the crime and thus as the prime suspect in this crime against humanity.
http://wakeupfromyourslumber.
blogspot.com/2006/03/simple-math
-demonstrate-that-official.html
Swing, you do realize that you're just like evolution deniers?
They throw together a bunch of probabilities and since humans becoming what we are is such a remote chance it "disproves" that we evolved.
Thus, it is only necessary to demonstrate that a single fundamental allegation in the official account is false for the entire account to be deemed false.
The hell it is. This is just another stupid argument you pull out your ass to try to make your crackpot theories seem plausible.
While both methods demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the U.S. authorities have fabricated the official account
Really? Why hasn't one prosecutor in the country brought these evil officials up on charges?
The hell it is. This is just another stupid argument you pull out your ass to try to make your crackpot theories seem plausible.
Actually, he's technically right for a change: he did say "fundamental allegation". Ofcourse, the difference is how you define fundamental. To him it's enough to constantly repeat that "OMGZ TH FRIEIRFIGHTERS SAID DERE WAS BOOOOMS!". Which is incorrect.
"Fundamental" means a crucial element of the flow of events. This would, for example, include the idea that the aircraft were hijacked, the actual locations of the crashes, and how badly the structural integrity of the buildings would have been compromised. If any of those claims were to be disproven, then yes it would certainly prove that there really WAS some sort of government conspiracy. However, nobody on the twoofer side has even started the necessary research to TRY and disprove these claims, let alone actually brought forward a convincing case.
Creationists try and use the same argument all the time. They'll say that since the theory of evolution has been revised over time, it can't be trusted and is therefore wrong. Ofcourse, they fail to realize that there has not been any fundamental change to the theory of evolution since Darwin first proposed it. There have been hundred of minor corrections and changes, but that's to be expected - that's how science works, and it's what makes science a better tool for understanding the world around us than blind faith and religion. The twoofers don't seem to understand this either.
Alex, I take your point, although I suspect the twoofers have a different definition of "fundamental" than you or I. For example, some account of what they call "the official story" might be off base because someone tried to cover up incompetence. That would in no way prove 9/11 was an "inside job" although I've frequently seen twoofers take such cases and claim they do.
Swing, you have been challenged before to go to JREF and argue your nonsense there. What are you afraid of?
Yeah, I know, I just didn't want you erroneously accusing swing dumpster of making an invalid argument when he's technically (and only technically) right for a change. Not that he deserves any civility or anything, I just think it's important for us to catch our mistakes and learn from eachother as much as possible. It's one of the things that sets us apart from the twoofers - we don't just blindly parrot eachothers talking points. Otherwise, you're absolutely right, they certainly do confuse the most mundane inconsistencies with fundamental flaws.
All he did was put together the same stupid list of lies and BS that has been debunked for years and expects us to treat it as true LOL
I bet sd even believes in Chemtrails
Shawn, your analogies are pointless, you can compare me to evolution theorist, hollocaust deniers, moon hoaxers, etc. blah blah the list goes on ad hom..., but what it does demonstrate is your lack of an educated response to the material I comment on.
And yes, I can deny evolution, because there is no proof. That is why it is a theory. Creationism, is a theory as well. Intelligent design a theory as well.
Alex, thanks I think. ;) Does this mean there is a truce between us and we can discuss things without both of us resorting to Adhom attacks?
"OMGZ TH FRIEIRFIGHTERS SAID DERE WAS BOOOOMS!". Which is incorrect.
Can you prove it is incorrect?
The only way you can prove that statement is incorrect is by using anything could make explosive sounds, which of course includes explosive devices.
That doesn't help your argument, but believe it or not,I agree with that statement. The volume of those sounds and their descriptions is a valid reason to consider them explosive devices other than something else.
Then you might pull out the old since no one saw the bomb itself, that is proof there is no bomb. Wrong again. Just because something isn't seen, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. (Air, anyone?)
The foresenic examination doesn't help your case either, because that could have proved no explosive devices were used, which would have supported the OS.
What did the NIST state? We didn't 'see' any evidence. Well of course not. Terrorists aren't going to plant explosive devices in plain sight. Chemical tests for the stuff, find the residue if it is there. If I'm not mistaken some explosives leave a identifying chemical imprints so that it can be traced back to its origin? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that help to possibly locate those who helped the terrorists?
"Fundamental" means a crucial element of the flow of events. Here is the fundamental arguement for explosive devices...
To prove there were explosive devices used, I would argue that an explosive device does make the sound of a huge explosion which of course I'm sure we can all agree. Numerous reports of HUGE explosions according to many live reports. Not quiet ones, persay, but huge explosions, gentlemen.
Did multiple credible witnesses hear those sounds? Of course. It is the historical record.
But because explosive sounds, could be attributed to anything, I would next offer up the damage descriptions that an explosive device would do to a structure after denotating and following those huge sounds.
Is there any public record of the damage that followed those sounds? Yes, there is. Credible eyewitnesses describe the damage in the sub-structure areas,lobby areas, and to human beings.
And no, I'm not referring to the unnamed source we discussed a while ago.
If explosive devices are denotated what other evidence do they leave behind? Large smoke clouds if I'm not mistaken. Is there any tell tale sign of this? Of course, it is a part of the primary source material.
Next, I would offer up the historical record. Is there anything in the historical record of explosive devices being used by terrorists against the WTC? Of course, the 1993 bombings.
Next I would offer up the complete destruction and global collapse of buildings outside of terrorist attacks. Do they use explosive devices? Of course.
Is there a documented account of a high rise steel framed structure suffering a global collapse due to fire and damage not cause by explosive devices? No.
Is there anything in the historical record of the WTC towers that meet the above conditions but were not explosive devices?
Not that I'm aware of.
And that is why there were explosive devices used, it is a fact. The 'how they got there' and 'what type of explosives they were' all serve to distract from the clear fact there explosive devices used.
To assume anything else is illogical and unacceptable.
We differ as to who was responsible for putting them there.
TexasJack, Why is it a challenge to post information at JREF instead of here? Why can't JREF'ers post here? I don't understand the logic. Is that because more people support the OS post there and it places me in a position to reply to dozens of comments? Or do you feel the reponses here lack the intellectual responses found at JREF?
I've applied twice to JREF, a third time last night. I receieved the email an email from moderator each time to go to the log in page enter the JREF code etc, and each time it has come back in error. I will check my email again to see if I've been sent my third response.
Trust, me Jack, I've tried.
What will JREF offer that I can't get here?
I go to SCL to get the latest most biased news on the 'movement' before I even head over to 911blogger.
TexasWack, the only thing I have to fear, is fear itself.
If I go to JREF, does that mean I have to give up my love affair with Alex and Co.?
SteveWsee my comment to Shawn above.
BTW, what are 'chemtrails'? Are you trying to bait me SteveW, or what?
Religion, ghosts, Santa Claus, tooth fairies, honest government and politicians, those are the things people 'believe' in.
Swing, sounds like you're scared and incompetent. You can't sign up for a forum? It doesn't suprise me one bit.
And yes, I can deny evolution, because there is no proof. That is why it is a theory. Creationism, is a theory as well. Intelligent design a theory as well.
Ah, said like a true scientific illiterate.
Evolution is a theory in the scientific sense - gravity is a theory on the same level (don't go flying off into space!).
My analogies are all correct, irregardless your moronic hand-waving.
ID and creationism theories...hah. Don't make me laugh.
Geez TexasJack, I'm following the same process you did to sign up. Day 2 and no reponse from my third request. So instead of addressing my questions, you throw some more Ad Hom out. Texas must be proud or your reasoning abilities cause your momma isn't.
The last time I visited JREF as a reader, the question from tour guide, Mark Roberts is what evidence is there that there were war games and war exercises going on? I couldn't believe he posed that question to the readers. Apparently he had not watched the ABC special, FAA audio tapes, pilot interviews, correspondence with researchers, etc.
Hey Shawn, what makes evolution a theory and gravity a law of nature?
Could it be there is a missing link? Could it be the process and time frame of evolution does not explain the rapid rise of civilization in the near east?
Or could it be you are a college student and have not taken those classes yet so are uneducated on either subject enough to know what the hell your ralking about?
This is fun:
So instead of addressing my questions, you throw some more Ad Hom out.
Followed by:
The last time I visited JREF as a reader, the question from tour guide, Mark Roberts
Emphasis added.
Everything else was babbling nonsense and lame excuses for cowardice. I won't bother with it.
Alex, thanks I think. ;) Does this mean there is a truce between us and we can discuss things without both of us resorting to Adhom attacks?
No. You're still utterly incapable of applying logic to your arguments, or of admitting that you're wrong. It's impossible to have a rational discussion with you. Do NOT think that I was sticking up for YOU - I was merely speaking out because I believe that any incorrect statements are an impediment to the pursuit of truth and knowledge.
Can you prove it is incorrect?
You still don't understand how this works. I don't need to prove that there weren't any bombs any more than I need to prove that God didn't really create the earth and everything on it 10,000 years ago. If YOU are going to make silly assertions, then it's YOUR responsibility to prove them true. So far you've done nothing but repeat it over and over again. Sorry, but repeating something 20,000 times does not make it true.
The only way you can prove that statement is incorrect is by using anything could make explosive sounds, which of course includes explosive devices.
And the only way you can prove that you're not a child molester is by saying "I've never molested a child", which, ofcourse, is only the word of someone who's proven to be untrustworthy. Therefore, by your own "logic", you're probably a child molester.
Hey Shawn, what makes evolution a theory and gravity a law of nature?
Gravity is just as much a theory as evolution is. If you don't understand this, you must have slept through your highschool science classes.
Could it be there is a missing link? Could it be the process and time frame of evolution does not explain the rapid rise of civilization in the near east?
WTF? You really ARE an evolution denier?? Wow. This just gets better and better.
FYI evolution has nothing to say on the rise and development of societies.
Hey Shawn, what makes evolution a theory and gravity a law of nature?
Gravity is a theory. It's funny you call me uneducated later on when you don't even know physics. You might want to look up the general theory of relativity, which is how gravity is described nowadays.
Could it be there is a missing link? Could it be the process and time frame of evolution does not explain the rapid rise of civilization in the near east?
Uh I can't believe you're this stupid.
Transitional fossils are all over the place (a favored tactics of creationists is to say "there's no between A and B" and when you give them C as the transition they then say there's no fossil between A-C and C-B).
Also, civilization has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. Evolution has to do with the survival of species, humans didn't become a new species when civilization came into being (in Egypt, Sumer, and the Indus Valley about the same time so not just the "near East").
Or could it be you are a college student and have not taken those classes yet so are uneducated on either subject enough to know what the hell your ralking about?
Swing, if you're not still a high school student you're pathetic. You're completely ignorant of every single subject you attempt to discuss. That's not meant as an insult (though of course, it is), it's just the reality of the situation.
Or could it be you are a college student and have not taken those classes yet so are uneducated on either subject enough to know what the hell your ralking about?
Well gee, between Human Bio and Anthropology I feel confident enough about what I'm talking about. What grade are you in? I really hope your young because this level of stupidity from a possible adult makes me weep for the future.
What is to fear at JREF anyway? Or do they do the same thing you guys try to do here? Counter every point with an Ad Hom attack.
Better yet, why not send the JREF's over here? But I will keep trying I can promise you that.
Professors of Physics Is gravity a law or a theory? Is the function of gravity a law or theory? Give me some links to help further my understanding and change my thinking as I did with Larry S.!
Professors of Biology Is there a missing link?
Better yet, is there a DNA predecessor to modern humans to prove a vertical evolution of mankind?
The tracing of the vertical evolutionary record contained in the human and the other analyzed genomes, that the gene scientists ran into an enigma. The “head-scratching discovery by the public consortium,” as Science termed it, was that the human genome contains 223 genes that do not have the required predecessors on the genomic evolutionary tree.
How did humans acquire such a bunch of strange genes?
In the evolutionary progression from bacteria to invertebrates to vertebrates and finally modern humans, these 223 genes are completely missing in the invertebrate phase. Therefore, the scientists can explain their presence in the human genome by a “rather recent” (in evolutionary time scales) “probable horizontal transfer from bacteria.”
A theory of transfer to explain the evolution theory. But according to you guys it isn't a theory at all and all of these scientist must have failed biology.
In other words: At a relatively recent time as Evolution goes, modern humans acquired an extra 223 genes not through gradual evolution, not vertically on the Tree of Life, but horizontally, as a sideways insertion of genetic material from bacteria…
At first glance it would seem that 223 genes is no big deal. In fact, while every single gene makes a great difference to every individual, 223 genes make an immense difference to a species such as ours.
The human genome is made up of about three billion neucleotides (the “letters” A-C-G-T which stand for the initials of the four nucleic acids that spell out all life on Earth); of them, just a little more than one percent are grouped into functioning genes (each gene consists of thousands of "letters"). The difference between one individual person and another amounts to about one “letter” in a thousand in the DNA “alphabet.” The difference between Man and Chimpanzee is less than one percent as genes go; and one percent of 30,000 genes is 300.
So, 223 genes is more than two thirds of the difference between me, you and a chimpanzee!
An analysis of the functions of these genes through the proteins that they spell out, conducted by the Public Consortium team and published in the journal Nature, shows that they include not only proteins involved in important physiological but also psychiatric functions. Moreover, they are responsible for important neurological enzymes that stem only from the mitochondrial portion of the DNA – the so-called “Eve” DNA that humankind inherited only through the mother-line, all the way back to a single “Eve.” That finding alone raises doubt regarding that the "bacterial insertion" explanation.
A Shaky Theory
How sure are the scientists that such important and complex genes, such an immense human advantage, was obtained by us --“rather recently”-- through the courtesy of infecting bacteria?
“It is a jump that does not follow current evolutionary theories,” said Steven Scherer, director of mapping of the Human Genome Sequencing Center, Baylor College of Medicine.
Mr. Scherer calles them current evolutionary theories. Shawn from SLC calls them fact. Hmmm, who do you believe?
“We did not identify a strongly preferred bacterial source for the putative horizontally transferred genes,” states the report in Nature. The Public Consortium team, conducting a detailed search, found that some 113 genes (out of the 223) “are widespread among bacteria” – though they are entirely absent even in invertebrates. An analysis of the proteins which the enigmatic genes express showed that out of 35 identified, only ten had counterparts in vertebrates (ranging from cows to rodents to fish); 25 of the 35 were unique to humans.
“It is not clear whether the transfer was from bacteria to human or from human to bacteria,” Science quoted Robert Waterson, co-director of Washington University’s Genome Sequencing Center, as saying.
The report of the Public Consortium is in Nature, Feb 15, 2001 and of
Celera Genomics in Science of Feb 16th, 2001.
Human evolution has nothing to do with socities? LOL. Ok. I tell that to my former Anthropology professo and see what kind of response I get.
So again I pose to the biology profs out here, is evolution a fact or a scientific theory?
Human evolution has nothing to do with socities? LOL. Ok. I tell that to my former Anthropology professo and see what kind of response I get.
So again I pose to the biology profs out here, is evolution a fact or a scientific theory?
The fact that you even ask that question is proof that either you totally didn't pay attention in class or your lying. Questions like that are answered day one in class.
Let me break it down for you though:
Theory:
a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
Facts are the basis of theories. A collection of facts/empirical evidence tied together forms a theory. To say is something fact or theory is a laypersons way of describing something. Furthermore theories that have long standings in the scientific community are referred to as principles. From my texts:
"Because the theory of evolution has been supported by so many observations and experiments for over a hundred years, some biologists refer to the Principle of Evolution. This term is preferred terminology for theories that are generally accepted as valid by an overwhelming number of scientists.
The reason why people like you ask stupid questions such as "Is it a fact or theory" only help to show your ignorance. There are a multitude of theories out there that no one asks if they are facts or not. Would you like to argue these as well?
Gravity
Homeostasis
Mitosis
Cell
Relativity
etc, etc etc...
I highly HIGHLY doubt you have been to or are in college. If you are, drop out because your obviously wasting your money.
LOL. Why does it not surprise me that Wang Fiddler would cut-and-paste a direct diatribe on genetics from the "alien astronaut" idiots?
For those of you not familiar with this particular movement, the key thing to understand is that they believe that at some point in our past, aliens cam to our planet, and then modified a bunch of monkeys in order to produce the human species. The only thing they disagree on is how this was actually done. The more "normal" (if such a thing can be said about any of them) faction believes that they simply modified our genes. The TRULY messed up ones insist that in addition to fiddling with our genetic material, they also cross-bred with us. All I can say is that these "alien astronauts" must have had a really bad set of beer-goggles.
What is to fear at JREF anyway? Or do they do the same thing you guys try to do here? Counter every point with an Ad Hom attack.
Right now, all I know is that you are making a lot of excuses to try going over there.
"see my comment to Shawn above.
BTW, what are 'chemtrails'? Are you trying to bait me SteveW, or what?"
You just C&P the same dubunked BS so why should I care. You have been proven over and over to be nothing but a terrorists apologist. I detest people like you who do nothing but try and say nothing in 5000 words to try and give your self credibility. As far as chemtrails go they fall right in with all your looney theories.
This is a perfect example of how you conspiracy theorists have taken fact out of context and turned it to fiction, they have carefully selected random clippings which were the extreme end of the spectrum not the mean average of the time, meaning it is a very skewed view of what we saw.
Where is your list of experts that will back up what they claim?
How a detailed explaination to back up your claims and back it up with real experts and scientific evidence that is equal to what has been put fourth by the real experts?
Post a Comment
<< Home