I didn't think you would understand what I'm talking about. To paraphrase a line from an old song -- "It ain't what you say, it's the way that you say it."
And, the way you said it makes you come across like snobbish clod. Try a liottle tact and you might not be the target so often.
How do you soft peddle the “your source got everything wrong and is obviously vague about her credentials for good reason”?
You bristled at the word layman, which isn’t even a pejorative.
How nice do I have to be when dismissing incorrect and nonsensical tripe?
It seems to me that for being accused in the vanity thread of being a Postmodernist I have stuck to the subject of her credentials, her vagueness about her credentials, and the veracity of her statements (all of which is underestimating).
Nothing I have said was a personal attack or “snobbish” or being a “clod”. Please compare that to the litany of abuse dished out to me in post #62.
Post #7: Your “medical professional” (i.e. a nurse) who is a “degreed geneticist” (what pray tell is her degree? And what is her degree in?) is nothing better than an ILL educated layman. Her essay was full of basic and fundamental errors right from the beginning.
Post #34: I pointed out the nurses obfuscation about their supposed qualifications, and their obvious lack of knowledge of the subject due to numerous errors; this was not an attack on the person just their reasons for dissembling about their qualifications and their obvious lack of knowledge of the subject.
Post #42: The author states that most mutations are detrimental and the rest are mostly neutral. This is an error. By far the majority of mutations are selective neutral. Your author doesn't even understand the basics of Kamura’s neutral mutation theory and the basics of Molecular Evolution.
She also thinks that sharks maintaining the same basic body plan over millions of years is somehow a blow against the theory of evolution (Nevermind (sic) the millions of years, and the evidence of so many other species changing around them). Nothing in the theory of evolution through natural selection MANDATES major body changes. A shark had a great body plan and a great food procurement strategy back in the late Cretaceous, and over two thousand shark species have been described in the fossil record.
Should I point out all her other errors? She started out with fundamental errors in her first paragraph that showed her poor understanding of the subject and the history of Science.
So what is her degree? What work has she done in genetics? Her obfuscation about her credentials goes well with her obvious lack of knowledge on the subject.
Post #50: The author stated her credentials (same article different web site) exactly as you did; a “medical professional” (i.e. a nurse) who had “done work in genetic research” (did she collect samples?).
I read the entire article, otherwise how would I have known about the shark idiocy; you might recall that it was at the end of the article.
If she cannot take the heat maybe she should avoid the kitchen. You put up ideas in Science to have them critiqued and criticized; although it was obvious from her “so called Theory of Evolution” opening shot that she was singing to the “cdesign proponentist” AMEN chorus and expected only laurels for her juvenile critique that got the very basics of evolution incorrect.
I have seen better educated Biology undergraduates, which is all I suspect her “credentials” in genetics extend to. Wow, so impressive. She also looks from her pic that she got any degree a long time ago; maybe she should dust off those old text books, much of what she thinks she knows of the subject is incorrect.
Post #90: I was wondering why she was so vague about her actual qualifications. There is nothing to be ashamed about being a nurse. I like nurses. It is just that being a nurse is not a qualification, in and of itself, to make pronouncements on Evolution.
She revealed herself to be a rather ill educated laymen when she said that most mutations are deleterious and most of the rest are neutral. Over 90% of mutations in humans are neutral to selective pressure. Less than 5% of our DNA is genes or the regulatory sequences of genes, and less than 5% of non genetic DNA shows evolutionary conservation. Her essay is full of errors right from the beginning showing a complete ignorance of Molecular Evolution; and we are supposed to take her “Hewitt Conjecture” seriously when she so obviously hasn’t done her homework?
Is it not appropriate to point out that your “medical professional” who is a “degreed geneticist” is a nurse with a Masters Degree? Why is she ashamed of it? I am quite proud of my M.S.; a lot of work went into it.
Is it also not appropriate to point out that she betrays just how little she actually knows about the subject in each and every paragraph?
Post #107: As you pointed out, I am a layman in everything except Science, soldiering, teaching, and farming. Layman is not a pejorative, although it certainly is applicable to any nurse who wishes to be considered an expert in Science or Evolution by claiming to be a “medical professional”. But ill-educated seems incontrovertible. I notice nobody has tried to defend any of her numerous errors, they just say I am rude and snobbish for pointing them out.
How very un-postmodern of me! ;)
Post #109: I see no articles referenced for any Pamela Hewitt on pubmed for any work on the ARO9 gene. Does she have any publications?