While perusing Larry Moran's blog today, the intelligent design creationist (IDC) calling himself "Upright Biped" was mentioned. I remembered following a thread on a political discussion forum last year in which he was taking part. I searched the internet for that discussion, found it, and one interesting exchange struck me:
Upright Biped:Or, what about tRNA researcher, Michael Ibba:"aa-tRNAs (aminoacyl ttRNA synthetases) lie at the heart of gene expression; they interpret the genetic code"Derwood:
Did you not think that anyone else would be able to find that paper? Your quote in bold:
"Aminoacyl-tRNAs (aa-tRNAs) are simple molecules with a single purpose—to serve as substrates for translation. They consist of mature tRNAs to which an amino acid has been esterified at the 3′-end. The 20 different types of aa-tRNA are made by the 20 different aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases (aaRSs, of which there are two classes), one for each amino acid of the genetic code (Ibba and Söll 2000). This would be fine if it were not for the fact that such a straightforward textbook scenario is not true in a single known living organism. aa-tRNAs lie at the heart of gene expression; they interpret the genetic code by providing the interface between nucleic acid triplets in mRNA and the corresponding amino acids in proteins. The synthesis of aa-tRNAs impacts the accuracy of translation, the expansion of the genetic code, and even provides tangible links to primary metabolism. These central roles vest immense power in aa-tRNAs, and recent studies show just how complex and diverse their synthesis is."
Apologies for the odd coding - the original page apparently was updated at some point and some of the original html was lost or changed.
Interesting what you left off and what you added to the quote.
Why did you do that? Why did you try to make it appear as though Ibba indicated that aa-tRNAs are actually synthetases? Why did you not include the rest of the sentence? Afraid that it would not support your assertions?
Upright Biped's response?
You're bluffing derqwood,I did enjoy reading Upright Biped claiming victory and accusing Derwood of 'running away' after only a day and a half and after Derwood had indicated that he would be gone for a bit (he had written "bye bye for now").
There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in this text that changes my argument one iota:
Then, amazingly, 3 days after accusing Derwood of all manner of malfeasance, Upright Biped makes a stunning admission:
I owe derwood an apology. He said something in this thread that confused me at the time, and I just now got to the bottom of it. In fact, derwood tried a couple times to get me to see it, and I just simply didn't. So I cannot in good consciousness leave it unaddressed.
I know how scientific and biological terms can become overwhelming to those who don't normally follow them. So in this conversation I made an attempt to try and explain things with that difficulty in mind. In one of my posts (in response to derwood) I introduced a new term to the discussion ("aa-tRNA") in a quote from biologist Michael Ibba.
So, he attempted to "explain things" just knowing that the plebes of the world are not up to his amazing intellectual level, and so doctored a quote instead of 'explaining' anything. Typical for IDCs.
But, of course, he says that his error didn't change a thing...
The lack of clarity on my part didn't change the issue being discussed at the time in any way whatsoever, nor did it change my purpose in presenting the quote itself.
Such is the hubris and Dunning-Krugerism of the IDC.
