I can't help but notice the myriad ways that posters
seem capable of pulling the strings of others and making
them dance. The stark thing is how oblivious so many
are to the extent to which they are being manipulated.
Seriously, it isn't about whether or not you are sitting
on the North shore or South shore of an important
river flowing along a significant waterway. It isn't even
about whether or not you have a compelling argument
in favor of the prospects afforded to those on your
side of the River. It's seemingly reduced to your pugnacious
perspective in support of your antagonistic point of view.
I damn well think that many here are diametrically opposed
to people some of you are fighting against. And yet,
your own inept retorts land squarely in the "you're not
helping" pumpkin patch.
Seriously, pause and ask yourself if your contribution is
helping. Far too often, the appropriate meme is "you're not
helping." It really isn't necessary to retort to idiots. Their
idiocy is obvious sans your annotation. To any for whom
it isn't, they are likely refractive to enlightenment. And watching
your feeble retorts is demoralizing.
I can't help but notice the myriad ways that posters
seem capable of pulling the strings of others and making
them dance. The stark thing is how oblivious so many
are to the extent to which they are being manipulated.
Seriously, it isn't about whether or not you are sitting
on the North shore or South shore of an important
river flowing along a significant waterway. It isn't even
about whether or not you have a compelling argument
in favor of the prospects afforded to those on your
side of the River. It's seemingly reduced to your pugnacious
perspective in support of your antagonistic point of view.
I damn well think that many here are diametrically opposed
to people some of you are fighting against. And yet,
your own inept retorts land squarely in the "you're not
helping" pumpkin patch.
Seriously, pause and ask yourself if your contribution is
helping. Far too often, the appropriate meme is "you're not
helping." It really isn't necessary to retort to idiots. Their
idiocy is obvious sans your annotation. To any for whom
it isn't, they are likely refractive to enlightenment. And watching
your feeble retorts is demoralizing.
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 12:38:30 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:
I can't help but notice the myriad ways that posters
seem capable of pulling the strings of others and making
them dance. The stark thing is how oblivious so many
are to the extent to which they are being manipulated.
Seriously, it isn't about whether or not you are sitting
on the North shore or South shore of an important
river flowing along a significant waterway. It isn't even
about whether or not you have a compelling argument
in favor of the prospects afforded to those on your
side of the River. It's seemingly reduced to your pugnacious
perspective in support of your antagonistic point of view.
I damn well think that many here are diametrically opposed
to people some of you are fighting against. And yet,
your own inept retorts land squarely in the "you're not
helping" pumpkin patch.
Seriously, pause and ask yourself if your contribution is
helping. Far too often, the appropriate meme is "you're not
helping." It really isn't necessary to retort to idiots. Their
idiocy is obvious sans your annotation. To any for whom
it isn't, they are likely refractive to enlightenment. And watching
your feeble retorts is demoralizing.
Even IF your negative description of my "retorts" was objectively
accurate, the valid measure is against the posts to which they retort,
and not to those presumptively brilliant and insightful pearls of
wisdom you would have posted if only you had managed to scrape a
fraction of energy for them as you and others do to post mindless
made-up crap against me, which serves to give aid and comfort to those
whom I retort. Seriously, pause and consider how YOUR contributions,
and their lack, affect this froup.
On 4/27/23 8:38 PM, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 12:38:30 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett
<j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:
I can't help but notice the myriad ways that posters
seem capable of pulling the strings of others and making
them dance. The stark thing is how oblivious so many
are to the extent to which they are being manipulated.
Seriously, it isn't about whether or not you are sitting
on the North shore or South shore of an important
river flowing along a significant waterway. It isn't even
about whether or not you have a compelling argument
in favor of the prospects afforded to those on your
side of the River. It's seemingly reduced to your pugnacious
perspective in support of your antagonistic point of view.
I damn well think that many here are diametrically opposed
to people some of you are fighting against. And yet,
your own inept retorts land squarely in the "you're not
helping" pumpkin patch.
Seriously, pause and ask yourself if your contribution is
helping. Far too often, the appropriate meme is "you're not
helping." It really isn't necessary to retort to idiots. Their
idiocy is obvious sans your annotation. To any for whom
it isn't, they are likely refractive to enlightenment. And watching
your feeble retorts is demoralizing.
Even IF your negative description of my "retorts" was objectively
accurate, the valid measure is against the posts to which they retort,
and not to those presumptively brilliant and insightful pearls of
wisdom you would have posted if only you had managed to scrape a
fraction of energy for them as you and others do to post mindless
made-up crap against me, which serves to give aid and comfort to those
whom I retort. Seriously, pause and consider how YOUR contributions,
and their lack, affect this froup.
Since you brought it up, I have found that Lawyer Daggett always has >something thoughtful to say when he posts, so I look forward to reading
his posts. In contrast, I skip over the vast majority of your posts,
for reasons which should be obvious.
I can't help but notice the myriad ways that posters
seem capable of pulling the strings of others and making
them dance. The stark thing is how oblivious so many
are to the extent to which they are being manipulated.
Seriously, it isn't about whether or not you are sitting
on the North shore or South shore of an important
river flowing along a significant waterway. It isn't even
about whether or not you have a compelling argument
in favor of the prospects afforded to those on your
side of the River. It's seemingly reduced to your pugnacious
perspective in support of your antagonistic point of view.
I damn well think that many here are diametrically opposed
to people some of you are fighting against. And yet,
your own inept retorts land squarely in the "you're not
helping" pumpkin patch.
Seriously, pause and ask yourself if your contribution is
helping. Far too often, the appropriate meme is "you're not
helping." It really isn't necessary to retort to idiots. Their
idiocy is obvious sans your annotation. To any for whom
it isn't, they are likely refractive to enlightenment. And watching
your feeble retorts is demoralizing.
Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:Just wait, it gets better. Your brain will take care of the flare and ghosting all by
I can't help but notice the myriad ways that posters
seem capable of pulling the strings of others and making
them dance. The stark thing is how oblivious so many
are to the extent to which they are being manipulated.
Seriously, it isn't about whether or not you are sitting
on the North shore or South shore of an important
river flowing along a significant waterway. It isn't even
about whether or not you have a compelling argument
in favor of the prospects afforded to those on your
side of the River. It's seemingly reduced to your pugnacious
perspective in support of your antagonistic point of view.
I damn well think that many here are diametrically opposed
to people some of you are fighting against. And yet,
your own inept retorts land squarely in the "you're not
helping" pumpkin patch.
Seriously, pause and ask yourself if your contribution is
helping. Far too often, the appropriate meme is "you're not
helping." It really isn't necessary to retort to idiots. Their
idiocy is obvious sans your annotation. To any for whom
it isn't, they are likely refractive to enlightenment. And watching
your feeble retorts is demoralizing.
I think I’m stuck on pause. My cataract surgery at 55 changed my perspective. Not as much single eye halos and multivision. Best non-aided vision I’ve had ever but with some minor flare and ghosting. Looking forward to the anesthetic bliss of my other eye.
Wait. What was the topic? You pulling my strings? I’m waiting for Larry’s
book. Too much junk in the trunk.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 5:50:05 PM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
I can't help but notice the myriad ways that posters
seem capable of pulling the strings of others and making
them dance. The stark thing is how oblivious so many
are to the extent to which they are being manipulated.
Seriously, it isn't about whether or not you are sitting
on the North shore or South shore of an important
river flowing along a significant waterway. It isn't even
about whether or not you have a compelling argument
in favor of the prospects afforded to those on your
side of the River. It's seemingly reduced to your pugnacious
perspective in support of your antagonistic point of view.
I damn well think that many here are diametrically opposed
to people some of you are fighting against. And yet,
your own inept retorts land squarely in the "you're not
helping" pumpkin patch.
Seriously, pause and ask yourself if your contribution is
helping. Far too often, the appropriate meme is "you're not
helping." It really isn't necessary to retort to idiots. Their
idiocy is obvious sans your annotation. To any for whom
it isn't, they are likely refractive to enlightenment. And watching
your feeble retorts is demoralizing.
I think I’m stuck on pause. My cataract surgery at 55 changed my perspective. Not as much single eye halos and multivision. Best non-aided vision I’ve had ever but with some minor flare and ghosting. Looking forward to the anesthetic bliss of my other eye.
Wait. What was the topic? You pulling my strings? I’m waiting for Larry’sJust wait, it gets better. Your brain will take care of the flare and ghosting all by
book. Too much junk in the trunk.
itself. Not AI, this is Natural Intelligence. It's still there, of course, you just won't be
aware of it.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 5:50:05 PM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:Just wait, it gets better. Your brain will take care of the flare and ghosting all by
I can't help but notice the myriad ways that postersI think I’m stuck on pause. My cataract surgery at 55 changed my
seem capable of pulling the strings of others and making
them dance. The stark thing is how oblivious so many
are to the extent to which they are being manipulated.
Seriously, it isn't about whether or not you are sitting
on the North shore or South shore of an important
river flowing along a significant waterway. It isn't even
about whether or not you have a compelling argument
in favor of the prospects afforded to those on your
side of the River. It's seemingly reduced to your pugnacious
perspective in support of your antagonistic point of view.
I damn well think that many here are diametrically opposed
to people some of you are fighting against. And yet,
your own inept retorts land squarely in the "you're not
helping" pumpkin patch.
Seriously, pause and ask yourself if your contribution is
helping. Far too often, the appropriate meme is "you're not
helping." It really isn't necessary to retort to idiots. Their
idiocy is obvious sans your annotation. To any for whom
it isn't, they are likely refractive to enlightenment. And watching
your feeble retorts is demoralizing.
perspective. Not as much single eye halos and multivision. Best non-aided
vision I’ve had ever but with some minor flare and ghosting. Looking
forward to the anesthetic bliss of my other eye.
Wait. What was the topic? You pulling my strings? I’m waiting for Larry’s
book. Too much junk in the trunk.
itself. Not AI, this is Natural Intelligence. It's still there, of
course, you just won't be
aware of it.
Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
I can't help but notice the myriad ways that posters
seem capable of pulling the strings of others and making
them dance. The stark thing is how oblivious so many
are to the extent to which they are being manipulated.
Seriously, it isn't about whether or not you are sitting
on the North shore or South shore of an important
river flowing along a significant waterway. It isn't even
about whether or not you have a compelling argument
in favor of the prospects afforded to those on your
side of the River. It's seemingly reduced to your pugnacious
perspective in support of your antagonistic point of view.
I damn well think that many here are diametrically opposed
to people some of you are fighting against. And yet,
your own inept retorts land squarely in the "you're not
helping" pumpkin patch.
Seriously, pause and ask yourself if your contribution is
helping. Far too often, the appropriate meme is "you're not
helping." It really isn't necessary to retort to idiots. Their
idiocy is obvious sans your annotation. To any for whom
it isn't, they are likely refractive to enlightenment. And watching
your feeble retorts is demoralizing.
I think I’m stuck on pause. My cataract surgery at 55 changed my perspective. Not as much single eye halos and multivision. Best non-aided vision I’ve had ever but with some minor flare and ghosting. Looking forward to the anesthetic bliss of my other eye.
Wait. What was the topic? You pulling my strings? I’m waiting for Larry’s
book. Too much junk in the trunk.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:50:05 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
I can't help but notice the myriad ways that postersI think I’m stuck on pause. My cataract surgery at 55 changed my
seem capable of pulling the strings of others and making
them dance. The stark thing is how oblivious so many
are to the extent to which they are being manipulated.
Seriously, it isn't about whether or not you are sitting
on the North shore or South shore of an important
river flowing along a significant waterway. It isn't even
about whether or not you have a compelling argument
in favor of the prospects afforded to those on your
side of the River. It's seemingly reduced to your pugnacious
perspective in support of your antagonistic point of view.
I damn well think that many here are diametrically opposed
to people some of you are fighting against. And yet,
your own inept retorts land squarely in the "you're not
helping" pumpkin patch.
Seriously, pause and ask yourself if your contribution is
helping. Far too often, the appropriate meme is "you're not
helping." It really isn't necessary to retort to idiots. Their
idiocy is obvious sans your annotation. To any for whom
it isn't, they are likely refractive to enlightenment. And watching
your feeble retorts is demoralizing.
perspective. Not as much single eye halos and multivision. Best non-aided
vision I’ve had ever but with some minor flare and ghosting. Looking
forward to the anesthetic bliss of my other eye.
Wait. What was the topic? You pulling my strings? I’m waiting for Larry’s
book. Too much junk in the trunk.
"What's in Your Genome? is a thought-provoking and pugnacious book
that will make you wonder afresh at the molecular intricacies of life.
When it comes to our genomes, we humans are nothing special – Moran
makes a convincing argument that the vast majority of our sloppy human
genome is not mysterious genetic treasures but boring old junk."
Kat Arney, science writer, broadcaster, and author of Rebel Cell: Cancer, Evolution, and the New Science of Life’s Oldest Betrayal
"What’s in Your Genome? is an enormously useful book and a powerful
and necessary defense of the concept of junk DNA. Moran presents
a clear summary of how the public can be misled by even the most
experienced of science writers. We need more outspoken scientists like him."
W. Ford Doolittle, Professor Emeritus, Department of Biochemistry
and Molecular Biology, Dalhousie University
"
Recently most molecular biologists and genomicists have been convinced
that most of the sequence in our genomes is intricately functional, that
the idea of junk DNA was a mistake that can now be mostly discarded.
But almost all researchers in molecular evolution have disagreed with
this. Laurence A. Moran's clear and incisive book explains why many biologists are so thoroughly mistaken – why our genomes are ‘messy,’ and full of junk DNA."
Joe Felsenstein, Professor Emeritus, Departments of Genome Sciences
and of Biology, University of Washington, Seattle
"The writing is so crisp and exquisite that it's almost as if a magical code
is being revealed whereby the reader is being invited to step inside a furious scientific debate."
Lee McIntyre, Research Fellow, Center for Philosophy and History of Science, Boston University
"A serious warning to scientists and science writers who, to seduce their public, privilege the too-fast announcement of novelties and revolutions instead of doing a cautious examination of the results. Laurence A.
Moran has written a deeply honest and extremely well-documented book
on one of the hottest recent controversies in science. A master class on
what science is and what it must continue to be."
Michel Morange, Professor Emeritus of Biology, Institute of the History
and Philosophy of Sciences and Techniques , Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne
"Laurence A. Moran lucidly explains the science behind an ugly yet thrilling truth – the DNA sequences that specify our body’s proteins and RNAs are indeed finely honed by natural selection (like a Swiss watch), but they are only tiny islands of information embedded in a swamp of evolved gibberish."
Rosemary J. Redfield, Professor Emerita of Zoology, University of British Columbia
"Rarely does a science writer respect their audience enough to bring them into the weeds of confusion the way that Dr. Moran does, but the rewards
are there to be reaped. A thorough reader will never look at the genome of any living organism or the concept of junk DNA the same way after reading this and will be left wondering how so many baseless claims have made headlines in recent years. In the capable hands of Dr. Moran, we can all learn to untangle facts from unsupported assertions and come away understanding why our genome is structured in precisely the way that it is."
Ethan Siegel, Theoretical Astrophysicist and founder of Starts With A Bang
"Junk DNA is a concept that’s not well understood, even by most biologists, yet arguments about its existence are commonplace. In What’s in Your Genome?, Moran brings together evolution, genomics, and decades of
scientific history to make the case for it. Even if you don’t agree with all
of his conclusions, you’d benefit from the clarity he brings to the topic."
John R. Timmer, Science Editor, Ars Technica
"This book is a clear and fascinating guide to the exotic menagerie of elements that exists in our DNA and a no-holds-barred defense of an
important but often ignored fact about the human genome: most of it
has no function. But Moran shows that, even without function, junk DNA
is incredibly interesting."
Michael White, Associate Professor of Genetics, Washington University
in St. Louis School of Medicine
On 4/28/23 7:38 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:50:05 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
I can't help but notice the myriad ways that postersI think I’m stuck on pause. My cataract surgery at 55 changed my
seem capable of pulling the strings of others and making
them dance. The stark thing is how oblivious so many
are to the extent to which they are being manipulated.
Seriously, it isn't about whether or not you are sitting
on the North shore or South shore of an important
river flowing along a significant waterway. It isn't even
about whether or not you have a compelling argument
in favor of the prospects afforded to those on your
side of the River. It's seemingly reduced to your pugnacious
perspective in support of your antagonistic point of view.
I damn well think that many here are diametrically opposed
to people some of you are fighting against. And yet,
your own inept retorts land squarely in the "you're not
helping" pumpkin patch.
Seriously, pause and ask yourself if your contribution is
helping. Far too often, the appropriate meme is "you're not
helping." It really isn't necessary to retort to idiots. Their
idiocy is obvious sans your annotation. To any for whom
it isn't, they are likely refractive to enlightenment. And watching
your feeble retorts is demoralizing.
perspective. Not as much single eye halos and multivision. Best non-aided >> vision I’ve had ever but with some minor flare and ghosting. Looking
forward to the anesthetic bliss of my other eye.
Wait. What was the topic? You pulling my strings? I’m waiting for Larry’s
book. Too much junk in the trunk.
"What's in Your Genome? is a thought-provoking and pugnacious book
that will make you wonder afresh at the molecular intricacies of life. When it comes to our genomes, we humans are nothing special – Moran makes a convincing argument that the vast majority of our sloppy human genome is not mysterious genetic treasures but boring old junk."
Kat Arney, science writer, broadcaster, and author of Rebel Cell: Cancer, Evolution, and the New Science of Life’s Oldest Betrayal
"What’s in Your Genome? is an enormously useful book and a powerful
and necessary defense of the concept of junk DNA. Moran presents
a clear summary of how the public can be misled by even the most experienced of science writers. We need more outspoken scientists like him."
W. Ford Doolittle, Professor Emeritus, Department of Biochemistry
and Molecular Biology, Dalhousie University
"
Recently most molecular biologists and genomicists have been convinced that most of the sequence in our genomes is intricately functional, that the idea of junk DNA was a mistake that can now be mostly discarded.
But almost all researchers in molecular evolution have disagreed with this. Laurence A. Moran's clear and incisive book explains why many biologists are so thoroughly mistaken – why our genomes are ‘messy,’ and full of junk DNA."
Joe Felsenstein, Professor Emeritus, Departments of Genome Sciences
and of Biology, University of Washington, Seattle
"The writing is so crisp and exquisite that it's almost as if a magical code
is being revealed whereby the reader is being invited to step inside a furious scientific debate."
Lee McIntyre, Research Fellow, Center for Philosophy and History of Science,
Boston University
"A serious warning to scientists and science writers who, to seduce their public, privilege the too-fast announcement of novelties and revolutions instead of doing a cautious examination of the results. Laurence A.
Moran has written a deeply honest and extremely well-documented book
on one of the hottest recent controversies in science. A master class on what science is and what it must continue to be."
Michel Morange, Professor Emeritus of Biology, Institute of the History and Philosophy of Sciences and Techniques , Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne
"Laurence A. Moran lucidly explains the science behind an ugly yet thrilling
truth – the DNA sequences that specify our body’s proteins and RNAs are
indeed finely honed by natural selection (like a Swiss watch), but they are
only tiny islands of information embedded in a swamp of evolved gibberish."
Rosemary J. Redfield, Professor Emerita of Zoology, University of British Columbia
"Rarely does a science writer respect their audience enough to bring them into the weeds of confusion the way that Dr. Moran does, but the rewards are there to be reaped. A thorough reader will never look at the genome of any living organism or the concept of junk DNA the same way after reading this and will be left wondering how so many baseless claims have made headlines in recent years. In the capable hands of Dr. Moran, we can all learn to untangle facts from unsupported assertions and come away understanding why our genome is structured in precisely the way that it is."
Ethan Siegel, Theoretical Astrophysicist and founder of Starts With A Bang
"Junk DNA is a concept that’s not well understood, even by most biologists,
yet arguments about its existence are commonplace. In What’s in Your Genome?, Moran brings together evolution, genomics, and decades of scientific history to make the case for it. Even if you don’t agree with all
of his conclusions, you’d benefit from the clarity he brings to the topic."
John R. Timmer, Science Editor, Ars Technica
"This book is a clear and fascinating guide to the exotic menagerie of elements that exists in our DNA and a no-holds-barred defense of an important but often ignored fact about the human genome: most of it
has no function. But Moran shows that, even without function, junk DNA
is incredibly interesting."
Michael White, Associate Professor of Genetics, Washington University
in St. Louis School of Medicine
It would be great if some billionaire would send a copy to every member
of the ENCODE project, everyone who's ever claimed that all non-codimg
DNA was originally thought to be junk DNA, and in general any biologist who's ever said that junk was dead as a concept.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 9:35:05 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 4/28/23 7:38 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:50:05 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:It would be great if some billionaire would send a copy to every member
Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
I can't help but notice the myriad ways that postersI think I’m stuck on pause. My cataract surgery at 55 changed my
seem capable of pulling the strings of others and making
them dance. The stark thing is how oblivious so many
are to the extent to which they are being manipulated.
Seriously, it isn't about whether or not you are sitting
on the North shore or South shore of an important
river flowing along a significant waterway. It isn't even
about whether or not you have a compelling argument
in favor of the prospects afforded to those on your
side of the River. It's seemingly reduced to your pugnacious
perspective in support of your antagonistic point of view.
I damn well think that many here are diametrically opposed
to people some of you are fighting against. And yet,
your own inept retorts land squarely in the "you're not
helping" pumpkin patch.
Seriously, pause and ask yourself if your contribution is
helping. Far too often, the appropriate meme is "you're not
helping." It really isn't necessary to retort to idiots. Their
idiocy is obvious sans your annotation. To any for whom
it isn't, they are likely refractive to enlightenment. And watching
your feeble retorts is demoralizing.
perspective. Not as much single eye halos and multivision. Best non-aided >>>> vision I’ve had ever but with some minor flare and ghosting. Looking >>>> forward to the anesthetic bliss of my other eye.
Wait. What was the topic? You pulling my strings? I’m waiting for Larry’s
book. Too much junk in the trunk.
"What's in Your Genome? is a thought-provoking and pugnacious book
that will make you wonder afresh at the molecular intricacies of life.
When it comes to our genomes, we humans are nothing special – Moran
makes a convincing argument that the vast majority of our sloppy human
genome is not mysterious genetic treasures but boring old junk."
Kat Arney, science writer, broadcaster, and author of Rebel Cell: Cancer, >>> Evolution, and the New Science of Life’s Oldest Betrayal
"What’s in Your Genome? is an enormously useful book and a powerful
and necessary defense of the concept of junk DNA. Moran presents
a clear summary of how the public can be misled by even the most
experienced of science writers. We need more outspoken scientists like him."
W. Ford Doolittle, Professor Emeritus, Department of Biochemistry
and Molecular Biology, Dalhousie University
"
Recently most molecular biologists and genomicists have been convinced
that most of the sequence in our genomes is intricately functional, that >>> the idea of junk DNA was a mistake that can now be mostly discarded.
But almost all researchers in molecular evolution have disagreed with
this. Laurence A. Moran's clear and incisive book explains why many
biologists are so thoroughly mistaken – why our genomes are ‘messy,’ >>> and full of junk DNA."
Joe Felsenstein, Professor Emeritus, Departments of Genome Sciences
and of Biology, University of Washington, Seattle
"The writing is so crisp and exquisite that it's almost as if a magical code
is being revealed whereby the reader is being invited to step inside a
furious scientific debate."
Lee McIntyre, Research Fellow, Center for Philosophy and History of Science,
Boston University
"A serious warning to scientists and science writers who, to seduce their >>> public, privilege the too-fast announcement of novelties and revolutions >>> instead of doing a cautious examination of the results. Laurence A.
Moran has written a deeply honest and extremely well-documented book
on one of the hottest recent controversies in science. A master class on >>> what science is and what it must continue to be."
Michel Morange, Professor Emeritus of Biology, Institute of the History
and Philosophy of Sciences and Techniques , Université Paris 1
Panthéon-Sorbonne
"Laurence A. Moran lucidly explains the science behind an ugly yet thrilling
truth – the DNA sequences that specify our body’s proteins and RNAs are >>> indeed finely honed by natural selection (like a Swiss watch), but they are >>> only tiny islands of information embedded in a swamp of evolved gibberish." >>>
Rosemary J. Redfield, Professor Emerita of Zoology, University of British Columbia
"Rarely does a science writer respect their audience enough to bring them >>> into the weeds of confusion the way that Dr. Moran does, but the rewards >>> are there to be reaped. A thorough reader will never look at the genome of >>> any living organism or the concept of junk DNA the same way after reading >>> this and will be left wondering how so many baseless claims have made
headlines in recent years. In the capable hands of Dr. Moran, we can all >>> learn to untangle facts from unsupported assertions and come away
understanding why our genome is structured in precisely the way that it is."
Ethan Siegel, Theoretical Astrophysicist and founder of Starts With A Bang >>>
"Junk DNA is a concept that’s not well understood, even by most biologists,
yet arguments about its existence are commonplace. In What’s in Your
Genome?, Moran brings together evolution, genomics, and decades of
scientific history to make the case for it. Even if you don’t agree with all
of his conclusions, you’d benefit from the clarity he brings to the topic."
John R. Timmer, Science Editor, Ars Technica
"This book is a clear and fascinating guide to the exotic menagerie of
elements that exists in our DNA and a no-holds-barred defense of an
important but often ignored fact about the human genome: most of it
has no function. But Moran shows that, even without function, junk DNA
is incredibly interesting."
Michael White, Associate Professor of Genetics, Washington University
in St. Louis School of Medicine
of the ENCODE project, everyone who's ever claimed that all non-codimg
DNA was originally thought to be junk DNA, and in general any biologist
who's ever said that junk was dead as a concept.
I'd perhaps prefer to everyone who teaches biology/genetics/molecular
biology at the AP high school or college level. And just for fun, everyone who works for or ever worked for John Mattick.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:50:05 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
I can't help but notice the myriad ways that posters
seem capable of pulling the strings of others and making
them dance. The stark thing is how oblivious so many
are to the extent to which they are being manipulated.
Seriously, it isn't about whether or not you are sitting
on the North shore or South shore of an important
river flowing along a significant waterway. It isn't even
about whether or not you have a compelling argument
in favor of the prospects afforded to those on your
side of the River. It's seemingly reduced to your pugnacious
perspective in support of your antagonistic point of view.
I damn well think that many here are diametrically opposed
to people some of you are fighting against. And yet,
your own inept retorts land squarely in the "you're not
helping" pumpkin patch.
Seriously, pause and ask yourself if your contribution is
helping. Far too often, the appropriate meme is "you're not
helping." It really isn't necessary to retort to idiots. Their
idiocy is obvious sans your annotation. To any for whom
it isn't, they are likely refractive to enlightenment. And watching
your feeble retorts is demoralizing.
I think I’m stuck on pause. My cataract surgery at 55 changed my perspective. Not as much single eye halos and multivision. Best non-aided vision I’ve had ever but with some minor flare and ghosting. Looking forward to the anesthetic bliss of my other eye.
Wait. What was the topic? You pulling my strings? I’m waiting for Larry’s"What's in Your Genome? is a thought-provoking and pugnacious book
book. Too much junk in the trunk.
that will make you wonder afresh at the molecular intricacies of life.
When it comes to our genomes, we humans are nothing special – Moran
makes a convincing argument that the vast majority of our sloppy human genome is not mysterious genetic treasures but boring old junk."
Kat Arney, science writer, broadcaster, and author of Rebel Cell: Cancer, Evolution, and the New Science of Life’s Oldest Betrayal
"What’s in Your Genome? is an enormously useful book and a powerful
and necessary defense of the concept of junk DNA. Moran presents
a clear summary of how the public can be misled by even the most
experienced of science writers. We need more outspoken scientists like him."
W. Ford Doolittle, Professor Emeritus, Department of Biochemistry
and Molecular Biology, Dalhousie University
"
Recently most molecular biologists and genomicists have been convinced
that most of the sequence in our genomes is intricately functional, that
the idea of junk DNA was a mistake that can now be mostly discarded.
But almost all researchers in molecular evolution have disagreed with
this. Laurence A. Moran's clear and incisive book explains why many biologists are so thoroughly mistaken – why our genomes are ‘messy,’ and full of junk DNA."
Joe Felsenstein, Professor Emeritus, Departments of Genome Sciences
and of Biology, University of Washington, Seattle
"The writing is so crisp and exquisite that it's almost as if a magical code is being revealed whereby the reader is being invited to step inside a furious scientific debate."
Lee McIntyre, Research Fellow, Center for Philosophy and History of Science, Boston University
"A serious warning to scientists and science writers who, to seduce their public, privilege the too-fast announcement of novelties and revolutions instead of doing a cautious examination of the results. Laurence A.
Moran has written a deeply honest and extremely well-documented book
on one of the hottest recent controversies in science. A master class on what science is and what it must continue to be."
Michel Morange, Professor Emeritus of Biology, Institute of the History
and Philosophy of Sciences and Techniques , Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne
"Laurence A. Moran lucidly explains the science behind an ugly yet thrilling truth – the DNA sequences that specify our body’s proteins and RNAs are indeed finely honed by natural selection (like a Swiss watch), but they are only tiny islands of information embedded in a swamp of evolved gibberish."
Rosemary J. Redfield, Professor Emerita of Zoology, University of British Columbia
"Rarely does a science writer respect their audience enough to bring them into the weeds of confusion the way that Dr. Moran does, but the rewards
are there to be reaped. A thorough reader will never look at the genome of any living organism or the concept of junk DNA the same way after reading this and will be left wondering how so many baseless claims have made headlines in recent years. In the capable hands of Dr. Moran, we can all learn to untangle facts from unsupported assertions and come away understanding why our genome is structured in precisely the way that it is."
Ethan Siegel, Theoretical Astrophysicist and founder of Starts With A Bang
"Junk DNA is a concept that’s not well understood, even by most biologists,
yet arguments about its existence are commonplace. In What’s in Your Genome?, Moran brings together evolution, genomics, and decades of scientific history to make the case for it. Even if you don’t agree with all
of his conclusions, you’d benefit from the clarity he brings to the topic."
John R. Timmer, Science Editor, Ars Technica
"This book is a clear and fascinating guide to the exotic menagerie of elements that exists in our DNA and a no-holds-barred defense of an important but often ignored fact about the human genome: most of it
has no function. But Moran shows that, even without function, junk DNA
is incredibly interesting."
Michael White, Associate Professor of Genetics, Washington University
in St. Louis School of Medicine
On 4/29/23 6:59 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 9:35:05 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:Somebody should call Elon.
On 4/28/23 7:38 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:50:05 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote: >>>>> Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:It would be great if some billionaire would send a copy to every member
I can't help but notice the myriad ways that postersI think I’m stuck on pause. My cataract surgery at 55 changed my
seem capable of pulling the strings of others and making
them dance. The stark thing is how oblivious so many
are to the extent to which they are being manipulated.
Seriously, it isn't about whether or not you are sitting
on the North shore or South shore of an important
river flowing along a significant waterway. It isn't even
about whether or not you have a compelling argument
in favor of the prospects afforded to those on your
side of the River. It's seemingly reduced to your pugnacious
perspective in support of your antagonistic point of view.
I damn well think that many here are diametrically opposed
to people some of you are fighting against. And yet,
your own inept retorts land squarely in the "you're not
helping" pumpkin patch.
Seriously, pause and ask yourself if your contribution is
helping. Far too often, the appropriate meme is "you're not
helping." It really isn't necessary to retort to idiots. Their
idiocy is obvious sans your annotation. To any for whom
it isn't, they are likely refractive to enlightenment. And watching >>>>>> your feeble retorts is demoralizing.
perspective. Not as much single eye halos and multivision. Best non-aided >>>>> vision I’ve had ever but with some minor flare and ghosting. Looking >>>>> forward to the anesthetic bliss of my other eye.
Wait. What was the topic? You pulling my strings? I’m waiting for Larry’s
book. Too much junk in the trunk.
"What's in Your Genome? is a thought-provoking and pugnacious book
that will make you wonder afresh at the molecular intricacies of life. >>>> When it comes to our genomes, we humans are nothing special – Moran
makes a convincing argument that the vast majority of our sloppy human >>>> genome is not mysterious genetic treasures but boring old junk."
Kat Arney, science writer, broadcaster, and author of Rebel Cell: Cancer, >>>> Evolution, and the New Science of Life’s Oldest Betrayal
"What’s in Your Genome? is an enormously useful book and a powerful
and necessary defense of the concept of junk DNA. Moran presents
a clear summary of how the public can be misled by even the most
experienced of science writers. We need more outspoken scientists like him."
W. Ford Doolittle, Professor Emeritus, Department of Biochemistry
and Molecular Biology, Dalhousie University
"
Recently most molecular biologists and genomicists have been convinced >>>> that most of the sequence in our genomes is intricately functional, that >>>> the idea of junk DNA was a mistake that can now be mostly discarded.
But almost all researchers in molecular evolution have disagreed with
this. Laurence A. Moran's clear and incisive book explains why many
biologists are so thoroughly mistaken – why our genomes are ‘messy,’ >>>> and full of junk DNA."
Joe Felsenstein, Professor Emeritus, Departments of Genome Sciences
and of Biology, University of Washington, Seattle
"The writing is so crisp and exquisite that it's almost as if a magical code
is being revealed whereby the reader is being invited to step inside a >>>> furious scientific debate."
Lee McIntyre, Research Fellow, Center for Philosophy and History of Science,
Boston University
"A serious warning to scientists and science writers who, to seduce their >>>> public, privilege the too-fast announcement of novelties and revolutions >>>> instead of doing a cautious examination of the results. Laurence A.
Moran has written a deeply honest and extremely well-documented book
on one of the hottest recent controversies in science. A master class on >>>> what science is and what it must continue to be."
Michel Morange, Professor Emeritus of Biology, Institute of the History >>>> and Philosophy of Sciences and Techniques , Université Paris 1
Panthéon-Sorbonne
"Laurence A. Moran lucidly explains the science behind an ugly yet thrilling
truth – the DNA sequences that specify our body’s proteins and RNAs are
indeed finely honed by natural selection (like a Swiss watch), but they are
only tiny islands of information embedded in a swamp of evolved gibberish."
Rosemary J. Redfield, Professor Emerita of Zoology, University of British Columbia
"Rarely does a science writer respect their audience enough to bring them >>>> into the weeds of confusion the way that Dr. Moran does, but the rewards >>>> are there to be reaped. A thorough reader will never look at the genome of >>>> any living organism or the concept of junk DNA the same way after reading >>>> this and will be left wondering how so many baseless claims have made
headlines in recent years. In the capable hands of Dr. Moran, we can all >>>> learn to untangle facts from unsupported assertions and come away
understanding why our genome is structured in precisely the way that it is."
Ethan Siegel, Theoretical Astrophysicist and founder of Starts With A Bang >>>>
"Junk DNA is a concept that’s not well understood, even by most biologists,
yet arguments about its existence are commonplace. In What’s in Your >>>> Genome?, Moran brings together evolution, genomics, and decades of
scientific history to make the case for it. Even if you don’t agree with all
of his conclusions, you’d benefit from the clarity he brings to the topic."
John R. Timmer, Science Editor, Ars Technica
"This book is a clear and fascinating guide to the exotic menagerie of >>>> elements that exists in our DNA and a no-holds-barred defense of an
important but often ignored fact about the human genome: most of it
has no function. But Moran shows that, even without function, junk DNA >>>> is incredibly interesting."
Michael White, Associate Professor of Genetics, Washington University
in St. Louis School of Medicine
of the ENCODE project, everyone who's ever claimed that all non-codimg
DNA was originally thought to be junk DNA, and in general any biologist
who's ever said that junk was dead as a concept.
I'd perhaps prefer to everyone who teaches biology/genetics/molecular
biology at the AP high school or college level. And just for fun, everyone >> who works for or ever worked for John Mattick.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 7:40:05 PM UTC-7, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:50:05 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:"What's in Your Genome? is a thought-provoking and pugnacious book
I can't help but notice the myriad ways that postersI think I’m stuck on pause. My cataract surgery at 55 changed my
seem capable of pulling the strings of others and making
them dance. The stark thing is how oblivious so many
are to the extent to which they are being manipulated.
Seriously, it isn't about whether or not you are sitting
on the North shore or South shore of an important
river flowing along a significant waterway. It isn't even
about whether or not you have a compelling argument
in favor of the prospects afforded to those on your
side of the River. It's seemingly reduced to your pugnacious
perspective in support of your antagonistic point of view.
I damn well think that many here are diametrically opposed
to people some of you are fighting against. And yet,
your own inept retorts land squarely in the "you're not
helping" pumpkin patch.
Seriously, pause and ask yourself if your contribution is
helping. Far too often, the appropriate meme is "you're not
helping." It really isn't necessary to retort to idiots. Their
idiocy is obvious sans your annotation. To any for whom
it isn't, they are likely refractive to enlightenment. And watching
your feeble retorts is demoralizing.
perspective. Not as much single eye halos and multivision. Best non-aided >>> vision I’ve had ever but with some minor flare and ghosting. Looking
forward to the anesthetic bliss of my other eye.
Wait. What was the topic? You pulling my strings? I’m waiting for Larry’s
book. Too much junk in the trunk.
that will make you wonder afresh at the molecular intricacies of life.
When it comes to our genomes, we humans are nothing special – Moran
makes a convincing argument that the vast majority of our sloppy human
genome is not mysterious genetic treasures but boring old junk."
Kat Arney, science writer, broadcaster, and author of Rebel Cell: Cancer,
Evolution, and the New Science of Life’s Oldest Betrayal
"What’s in Your Genome? is an enormously useful book and a powerful
and necessary defense of the concept of junk DNA. Moran presents
a clear summary of how the public can be misled by even the most
experienced of science writers. We need more outspoken scientists like him." >>
W. Ford Doolittle, Professor Emeritus, Department of Biochemistry
and Molecular Biology, Dalhousie University
"
Recently most molecular biologists and genomicists have been convinced
that most of the sequence in our genomes is intricately functional, that
the idea of junk DNA was a mistake that can now be mostly discarded.
But almost all researchers in molecular evolution have disagreed with
this. Laurence A. Moran's clear and incisive book explains why many
biologists are so thoroughly mistaken – why our genomes are ‘messy,’ >> and full of junk DNA."
Joe Felsenstein, Professor Emeritus, Departments of Genome Sciences
and of Biology, University of Washington, Seattle
"The writing is so crisp and exquisite that it's almost as if a magical code >> is being revealed whereby the reader is being invited to step inside a
furious scientific debate."
Lee McIntyre, Research Fellow, Center for Philosophy and History of Science, >> Boston University
"A serious warning to scientists and science writers who, to seduce their
public, privilege the too-fast announcement of novelties and revolutions
instead of doing a cautious examination of the results. Laurence A.
Moran has written a deeply honest and extremely well-documented book
on one of the hottest recent controversies in science. A master class on
what science is and what it must continue to be."
Michel Morange, Professor Emeritus of Biology, Institute of the History
and Philosophy of Sciences and Techniques , Université Paris 1
Panthéon-Sorbonne
"Laurence A. Moran lucidly explains the science behind an ugly yet thrilling >> truth – the DNA sequences that specify our body’s proteins and RNAs are >> indeed finely honed by natural selection (like a Swiss watch), but they are >> only tiny islands of information embedded in a swamp of evolved gibberish." >>
Rosemary J. Redfield, Professor Emerita of Zoology, University of British Columbia
"Rarely does a science writer respect their audience enough to bring them
into the weeds of confusion the way that Dr. Moran does, but the rewards
are there to be reaped. A thorough reader will never look at the genome of >> any living organism or the concept of junk DNA the same way after reading
this and will be left wondering how so many baseless claims have made
headlines in recent years. In the capable hands of Dr. Moran, we can all
learn to untangle facts from unsupported assertions and come away
understanding why our genome is structured in precisely the way that it is." >>
Ethan Siegel, Theoretical Astrophysicist and founder of Starts With A Bang >>
"Junk DNA is a concept that’s not well understood, even by most biologists,
yet arguments about its existence are commonplace. In What’s in Your
Genome?, Moran brings together evolution, genomics, and decades of
scientific history to make the case for it. Even if you don’t agree with all
of his conclusions, you’d benefit from the clarity he brings to the topic."
John R. Timmer, Science Editor, Ars Technica
"This book is a clear and fascinating guide to the exotic menagerie of
elements that exists in our DNA and a no-holds-barred defense of an
important but often ignored fact about the human genome: most of it
has no function. But Moran shows that, even without function, junk DNA
is incredibly interesting."
Michael White, Associate Professor of Genetics, Washington University
in St. Louis School of Medicine
That book sounds like a good read. On the subject of genome contents ("junk" or not),
I've just sent off a tube of spit to 23andme to get an analysis. I want to see among other
things just how close I am to Homo neaderthalensis. I'll report on the results unless
they've taken me away.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 9:35:05?AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 4/28/23 7:38 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:50:05?PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:It would be great if some billionaire would send a copy to every member
Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
I can't help but notice the myriad ways that postersI think I’m stuck on pause. My cataract surgery at 55 changed my
seem capable of pulling the strings of others and making
them dance. The stark thing is how oblivious so many
are to the extent to which they are being manipulated.
Seriously, it isn't about whether or not you are sitting
on the North shore or South shore of an important
river flowing along a significant waterway. It isn't even
about whether or not you have a compelling argument
in favor of the prospects afforded to those on your
side of the River. It's seemingly reduced to your pugnacious
perspective in support of your antagonistic point of view.
I damn well think that many here are diametrically opposed
to people some of you are fighting against. And yet,
your own inept retorts land squarely in the "you're not
helping" pumpkin patch.
Seriously, pause and ask yourself if your contribution is
helping. Far too often, the appropriate meme is "you're not
helping." It really isn't necessary to retort to idiots. Their
idiocy is obvious sans your annotation. To any for whom
it isn't, they are likely refractive to enlightenment. And watching
your feeble retorts is demoralizing.
perspective. Not as much single eye halos and multivision. Best non-aided
vision I’ve had ever but with some minor flare and ghosting. Looking >> >> forward to the anesthetic bliss of my other eye.
Wait. What was the topic? You pulling my strings? I’m waiting for Larry’s
book. Too much junk in the trunk.
"What's in Your Genome? is a thought-provoking and pugnacious book
that will make you wonder afresh at the molecular intricacies of life.
When it comes to our genomes, we humans are nothing special – Moran
makes a convincing argument that the vast majority of our sloppy human
genome is not mysterious genetic treasures but boring old junk."
Kat Arney, science writer, broadcaster, and author of Rebel Cell: Cancer, >> > Evolution, and the New Science of Life’s Oldest Betrayal
"What’s in Your Genome? is an enormously useful book and a powerful
and necessary defense of the concept of junk DNA. Moran presents
a clear summary of how the public can be misled by even the most
experienced of science writers. We need more outspoken scientists like him."
W. Ford Doolittle, Professor Emeritus, Department of Biochemistry
and Molecular Biology, Dalhousie University
"
Recently most molecular biologists and genomicists have been convinced
that most of the sequence in our genomes is intricately functional, that >> > the idea of junk DNA was a mistake that can now be mostly discarded.
But almost all researchers in molecular evolution have disagreed with
this. Laurence A. Moran's clear and incisive book explains why many
biologists are so thoroughly mistaken – why our genomes are ‘messy,’
and full of junk DNA."
Joe Felsenstein, Professor Emeritus, Departments of Genome Sciences
and of Biology, University of Washington, Seattle
"The writing is so crisp and exquisite that it's almost as if a magical code
is being revealed whereby the reader is being invited to step inside a
furious scientific debate."
Lee McIntyre, Research Fellow, Center for Philosophy and History of Science,
Boston University
"A serious warning to scientists and science writers who, to seduce their >> > public, privilege the too-fast announcement of novelties and revolutions >> > instead of doing a cautious examination of the results. Laurence A.
Moran has written a deeply honest and extremely well-documented book
on one of the hottest recent controversies in science. A master class on >> > what science is and what it must continue to be."
Michel Morange, Professor Emeritus of Biology, Institute of the History >> > and Philosophy of Sciences and Techniques , Université Paris 1
Panthéon-Sorbonne
"Laurence A. Moran lucidly explains the science behind an ugly yet thrilling
truth – the DNA sequences that specify our body’s proteins and RNAs are
indeed finely honed by natural selection (like a Swiss watch), but they are
only tiny islands of information embedded in a swamp of evolved gibberish."
Rosemary J. Redfield, Professor Emerita of Zoology, University of British Columbia
"Rarely does a science writer respect their audience enough to bring them >> > into the weeds of confusion the way that Dr. Moran does, but the rewards >> > are there to be reaped. A thorough reader will never look at the genome of
any living organism or the concept of junk DNA the same way after reading >> > this and will be left wondering how so many baseless claims have made
headlines in recent years. In the capable hands of Dr. Moran, we can all >> > learn to untangle facts from unsupported assertions and come away
understanding why our genome is structured in precisely the way that it is."
Ethan Siegel, Theoretical Astrophysicist and founder of Starts With A Bang
"Junk DNA is a concept that’s not well understood, even by most biologists,
yet arguments about its existence are commonplace. In What’s in Your
Genome?, Moran brings together evolution, genomics, and decades of
scientific history to make the case for it. Even if you don’t agree with all
of his conclusions, you’d benefit from the clarity he brings to the topic."
John R. Timmer, Science Editor, Ars Technica
"This book is a clear and fascinating guide to the exotic menagerie of
elements that exists in our DNA and a no-holds-barred defense of an
important but often ignored fact about the human genome: most of it
has no function. But Moran shows that, even without function, junk DNA
is incredibly interesting."
Michael White, Associate Professor of Genetics, Washington University
in St. Louis School of Medicine
of the ENCODE project, everyone who's ever claimed that all non-codimg
DNA was originally thought to be junk DNA, and in general any biologist
who's ever said that junk was dead as a concept.
I'd perhaps prefer to everyone who teaches biology/genetics/molecular >biology at the AP high school or college level. And just for fun, everyone >who works for or ever worked for John Mattick.
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 06:59:17 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 9:35:05?AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
On 4/28/23 7:38 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:50:05?PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:It would be great if some billionaire would send a copy to every member >> of the ENCODE project, everyone who's ever claimed that all non-codimg
Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
I can't help but notice the myriad ways that postersI think I’m stuck on pause. My cataract surgery at 55 changed my
seem capable of pulling the strings of others and making
them dance. The stark thing is how oblivious so many
are to the extent to which they are being manipulated.
Seriously, it isn't about whether or not you are sitting
on the North shore or South shore of an important
river flowing along a significant waterway. It isn't even
about whether or not you have a compelling argument
in favor of the prospects afforded to those on your
side of the River. It's seemingly reduced to your pugnacious
perspective in support of your antagonistic point of view.
I damn well think that many here are diametrically opposed
to people some of you are fighting against. And yet,
your own inept retorts land squarely in the "you're not
helping" pumpkin patch.
Seriously, pause and ask yourself if your contribution is
helping. Far too often, the appropriate meme is "you're not
helping." It really isn't necessary to retort to idiots. Their
idiocy is obvious sans your annotation. To any for whom
it isn't, they are likely refractive to enlightenment. And watching >> >>> your feeble retorts is demoralizing.
perspective. Not as much single eye halos and multivision. Best non-aided
vision I’ve had ever but with some minor flare and ghosting. Looking >> >> forward to the anesthetic bliss of my other eye.
Wait. What was the topic? You pulling my strings? I’m waiting for Larry’s
book. Too much junk in the trunk.
"What's in Your Genome? is a thought-provoking and pugnacious book
that will make you wonder afresh at the molecular intricacies of life. >> > When it comes to our genomes, we humans are nothing special – Moran >> > makes a convincing argument that the vast majority of our sloppy human >> > genome is not mysterious genetic treasures but boring old junk."
Kat Arney, science writer, broadcaster, and author of Rebel Cell: Cancer,
Evolution, and the New Science of Life’s Oldest Betrayal
"What’s in Your Genome? is an enormously useful book and a powerful >> > and necessary defense of the concept of junk DNA. Moran presents
a clear summary of how the public can be misled by even the most
experienced of science writers. We need more outspoken scientists like him."
W. Ford Doolittle, Professor Emeritus, Department of Biochemistry
and Molecular Biology, Dalhousie University
"
Recently most molecular biologists and genomicists have been convinced >> > that most of the sequence in our genomes is intricately functional, that
the idea of junk DNA was a mistake that can now be mostly discarded.
But almost all researchers in molecular evolution have disagreed with >> > this. Laurence A. Moran's clear and incisive book explains why many
biologists are so thoroughly mistaken – why our genomes are ‘messy,’
and full of junk DNA."
Joe Felsenstein, Professor Emeritus, Departments of Genome Sciences
and of Biology, University of Washington, Seattle
"The writing is so crisp and exquisite that it's almost as if a magical code
is being revealed whereby the reader is being invited to step inside a >> > furious scientific debate."
Lee McIntyre, Research Fellow, Center for Philosophy and History of Science,
Boston University
"A serious warning to scientists and science writers who, to seduce their
public, privilege the too-fast announcement of novelties and revolutions
instead of doing a cautious examination of the results. Laurence A.
Moran has written a deeply honest and extremely well-documented book
on one of the hottest recent controversies in science. A master class on
what science is and what it must continue to be."
Michel Morange, Professor Emeritus of Biology, Institute of the History >> > and Philosophy of Sciences and Techniques , Université Paris 1
Panthéon-Sorbonne
"Laurence A. Moran lucidly explains the science behind an ugly yet thrilling
truth – the DNA sequences that specify our body’s proteins and RNAs are
indeed finely honed by natural selection (like a Swiss watch), but they are
only tiny islands of information embedded in a swamp of evolved gibberish."
Rosemary J. Redfield, Professor Emerita of Zoology, University of British Columbia
"Rarely does a science writer respect their audience enough to bring them
into the weeds of confusion the way that Dr. Moran does, but the rewards
are there to be reaped. A thorough reader will never look at the genome of
any living organism or the concept of junk DNA the same way after reading
this and will be left wondering how so many baseless claims have made >> > headlines in recent years. In the capable hands of Dr. Moran, we can all
learn to untangle facts from unsupported assertions and come away
understanding why our genome is structured in precisely the way that it is."
Ethan Siegel, Theoretical Astrophysicist and founder of Starts With A Bang
"Junk DNA is a concept that’s not well understood, even by most biologists,
yet arguments about its existence are commonplace. In What’s in Your >> > Genome?, Moran brings together evolution, genomics, and decades of
scientific history to make the case for it. Even if you don’t agree with all
of his conclusions, you’d benefit from the clarity he brings to the topic."
John R. Timmer, Science Editor, Ars Technica
"This book is a clear and fascinating guide to the exotic menagerie of >> > elements that exists in our DNA and a no-holds-barred defense of an
important but often ignored fact about the human genome: most of it
has no function. But Moran shows that, even without function, junk DNA >> > is incredibly interesting."
Michael White, Associate Professor of Genetics, Washington University >> > in St. Louis School of Medicine
DNA was originally thought to be junk DNA, and in general any biologist >> who's ever said that junk was dead as a concept.
I'd perhaps prefer to everyone who teaches biology/genetics/molecular >biology at the AP high school or college level. And just for fun, everyone >who works for or ever worked for John Mattick.John Mattick and Ken Ham are Australia's vengeance for cane toads.
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 3:35:06 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 06:59:17 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 9:35:05?AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:John Mattick and Ken Ham are Australia's vengeance for cane toads.
On 4/28/23 7:38 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:50:05?PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote: >>>>>> Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:It would be great if some billionaire would send a copy to every member >>>> of the ENCODE project, everyone who's ever claimed that all non-codimg >>>> DNA was originally thought to be junk DNA, and in general any biologist >>>> who's ever said that junk was dead as a concept.
I can't help but notice the myriad ways that postersI think I’m stuck on pause. My cataract surgery at 55 changed my >>>>>> perspective. Not as much single eye halos and multivision. Best non-aided
seem capable of pulling the strings of others and making
them dance. The stark thing is how oblivious so many
are to the extent to which they are being manipulated.
Seriously, it isn't about whether or not you are sitting
on the North shore or South shore of an important
river flowing along a significant waterway. It isn't even
about whether or not you have a compelling argument
in favor of the prospects afforded to those on your
side of the River. It's seemingly reduced to your pugnacious
perspective in support of your antagonistic point of view.
I damn well think that many here are diametrically opposed
to people some of you are fighting against. And yet,
your own inept retorts land squarely in the "you're not
helping" pumpkin patch.
Seriously, pause and ask yourself if your contribution is
helping. Far too often, the appropriate meme is "you're not
helping." It really isn't necessary to retort to idiots. Their
idiocy is obvious sans your annotation. To any for whom
it isn't, they are likely refractive to enlightenment. And watching >>>>>>> your feeble retorts is demoralizing.
vision I’ve had ever but with some minor flare and ghosting. Looking >>>>>> forward to the anesthetic bliss of my other eye.
Wait. What was the topic? You pulling my strings? I’m waiting for Larry’s
book. Too much junk in the trunk.
"What's in Your Genome? is a thought-provoking and pugnacious book
that will make you wonder afresh at the molecular intricacies of life. >>>>> When it comes to our genomes, we humans are nothing special – Moran >>>>> makes a convincing argument that the vast majority of our sloppy human >>>>> genome is not mysterious genetic treasures but boring old junk."
Kat Arney, science writer, broadcaster, and author of Rebel Cell: Cancer, >>>>> Evolution, and the New Science of Life’s Oldest Betrayal
"What’s in Your Genome? is an enormously useful book and a powerful >>>>> and necessary defense of the concept of junk DNA. Moran presents
a clear summary of how the public can be misled by even the most
experienced of science writers. We need more outspoken scientists like him."
W. Ford Doolittle, Professor Emeritus, Department of Biochemistry
and Molecular Biology, Dalhousie University
"
Recently most molecular biologists and genomicists have been convinced >>>>> that most of the sequence in our genomes is intricately functional, that >>>>> the idea of junk DNA was a mistake that can now be mostly discarded. >>>>> But almost all researchers in molecular evolution have disagreed with >>>>> this. Laurence A. Moran's clear and incisive book explains why many
biologists are so thoroughly mistaken – why our genomes are ‘messy,’
and full of junk DNA."
Joe Felsenstein, Professor Emeritus, Departments of Genome Sciences
and of Biology, University of Washington, Seattle
"The writing is so crisp and exquisite that it's almost as if a magical code
is being revealed whereby the reader is being invited to step inside a >>>>> furious scientific debate."
Lee McIntyre, Research Fellow, Center for Philosophy and History of Science,
Boston University
"A serious warning to scientists and science writers who, to seduce their >>>>> public, privilege the too-fast announcement of novelties and revolutions >>>>> instead of doing a cautious examination of the results. Laurence A.
Moran has written a deeply honest and extremely well-documented book >>>>> on one of the hottest recent controversies in science. A master class on >>>>> what science is and what it must continue to be."
Michel Morange, Professor Emeritus of Biology, Institute of the History >>>>> and Philosophy of Sciences and Techniques , Université Paris 1
Panthéon-Sorbonne
"Laurence A. Moran lucidly explains the science behind an ugly yet thrilling
truth – the DNA sequences that specify our body’s proteins and RNAs are
indeed finely honed by natural selection (like a Swiss watch), but they are
only tiny islands of information embedded in a swamp of evolved gibberish."
Rosemary J. Redfield, Professor Emerita of Zoology, University of British Columbia
"Rarely does a science writer respect their audience enough to bring them >>>>> into the weeds of confusion the way that Dr. Moran does, but the rewards >>>>> are there to be reaped. A thorough reader will never look at the genome of
any living organism or the concept of junk DNA the same way after reading >>>>> this and will be left wondering how so many baseless claims have made >>>>> headlines in recent years. In the capable hands of Dr. Moran, we can all >>>>> learn to untangle facts from unsupported assertions and come away
understanding why our genome is structured in precisely the way that it is."
Ethan Siegel, Theoretical Astrophysicist and founder of Starts With A Bang
"Junk DNA is a concept that’s not well understood, even by most biologists,
yet arguments about its existence are commonplace. In What’s in Your >>>>> Genome?, Moran brings together evolution, genomics, and decades of
scientific history to make the case for it. Even if you don’t agree with all
of his conclusions, you’d benefit from the clarity he brings to the topic."
John R. Timmer, Science Editor, Ars Technica
"This book is a clear and fascinating guide to the exotic menagerie of >>>>> elements that exists in our DNA and a no-holds-barred defense of an
important but often ignored fact about the human genome: most of it
has no function. But Moran shows that, even without function, junk DNA >>>>> is incredibly interesting."
Michael White, Associate Professor of Genetics, Washington University >>>>> in St. Louis School of Medicine
I'd perhaps prefer to everyone who teaches biology/genetics/molecular
biology at the AP high school or college level. And just for fun, everyone >>> who works for or ever worked for John Mattick.
John is actually a nice man, and a strong advocate for science in general.
He has a particular hobby horse which is unfortunate but there is room for that within science. He's known to do a good job of looking after the young scientists who have worked for him, and there have been many. He's also
a good rainmaker for a pretty large effort. So I'd suggest substituting Rupert Murdoch for John in your little witticism.
Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 3:35:06 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 06:59:17 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 9:35:05?AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote: >>>> On 4/28/23 7:38 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:John Mattick and Ken Ham are Australia's vengeance for cane toads.
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:50:05?PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote: >>>>>> Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:It would be great if some billionaire would send a copy to every member >>>> of the ENCODE project, everyone who's ever claimed that all non-codimg >>>> DNA was originally thought to be junk DNA, and in general any biologist >>>> who's ever said that junk was dead as a concept.
I can't help but notice the myriad ways that postersI think I’m stuck on pause. My cataract surgery at 55 changed my >>>>>> perspective. Not as much single eye halos and multivision. Best non-aided
seem capable of pulling the strings of others and making
them dance. The stark thing is how oblivious so many
are to the extent to which they are being manipulated.
Seriously, it isn't about whether or not you are sitting
on the North shore or South shore of an important
river flowing along a significant waterway. It isn't even
about whether or not you have a compelling argument
in favor of the prospects afforded to those on your
side of the River. It's seemingly reduced to your pugnacious
perspective in support of your antagonistic point of view.
I damn well think that many here are diametrically opposed
to people some of you are fighting against. And yet,
your own inept retorts land squarely in the "you're not
helping" pumpkin patch.
Seriously, pause and ask yourself if your contribution is
helping. Far too often, the appropriate meme is "you're not
helping." It really isn't necessary to retort to idiots. Their >>>>>>> idiocy is obvious sans your annotation. To any for whom
it isn't, they are likely refractive to enlightenment. And watching >>>>>>> your feeble retorts is demoralizing.
vision I’ve had ever but with some minor flare and ghosting. Looking
forward to the anesthetic bliss of my other eye.
Wait. What was the topic? You pulling my strings? I’m waiting for Larry’s
book. Too much junk in the trunk.
"What's in Your Genome? is a thought-provoking and pugnacious book >>>>> that will make you wonder afresh at the molecular intricacies of life. >>>>> When it comes to our genomes, we humans are nothing special – Moran >>>>> makes a convincing argument that the vast majority of our sloppy human >>>>> genome is not mysterious genetic treasures but boring old junk."
Kat Arney, science writer, broadcaster, and author of Rebel Cell: Cancer,
Evolution, and the New Science of Life’s Oldest Betrayal
"What’s in Your Genome? is an enormously useful book and a powerful >>>>> and necessary defense of the concept of junk DNA. Moran presents
a clear summary of how the public can be misled by even the most
experienced of science writers. We need more outspoken scientists like him."
W. Ford Doolittle, Professor Emeritus, Department of Biochemistry >>>>> and Molecular Biology, Dalhousie University
"
Recently most molecular biologists and genomicists have been convinced >>>>> that most of the sequence in our genomes is intricately functional, that
the idea of junk DNA was a mistake that can now be mostly discarded. >>>>> But almost all researchers in molecular evolution have disagreed with >>>>> this. Laurence A. Moran's clear and incisive book explains why many >>>>> biologists are so thoroughly mistaken – why our genomes are ‘messy,’
and full of junk DNA."
Joe Felsenstein, Professor Emeritus, Departments of Genome Sciences >>>>> and of Biology, University of Washington, Seattle
"The writing is so crisp and exquisite that it's almost as if a magical code
is being revealed whereby the reader is being invited to step inside a >>>>> furious scientific debate."
Lee McIntyre, Research Fellow, Center for Philosophy and History of Science,
Boston University
"A serious warning to scientists and science writers who, to seduce their
public, privilege the too-fast announcement of novelties and revolutions
instead of doing a cautious examination of the results. Laurence A. >>>>> Moran has written a deeply honest and extremely well-documented book >>>>> on one of the hottest recent controversies in science. A master class on
what science is and what it must continue to be."
Michel Morange, Professor Emeritus of Biology, Institute of the History
and Philosophy of Sciences and Techniques , Université Paris 1
Panthéon-Sorbonne
"Laurence A. Moran lucidly explains the science behind an ugly yet thrilling
truth – the DNA sequences that specify our body’s proteins and RNAs are
indeed finely honed by natural selection (like a Swiss watch), but they are
only tiny islands of information embedded in a swamp of evolved gibberish."
Rosemary J. Redfield, Professor Emerita of Zoology, University of British Columbia
"Rarely does a science writer respect their audience enough to bring them
into the weeds of confusion the way that Dr. Moran does, but the rewards
are there to be reaped. A thorough reader will never look at the genome of
any living organism or the concept of junk DNA the same way after reading
this and will be left wondering how so many baseless claims have made >>>>> headlines in recent years. In the capable hands of Dr. Moran, we can all
learn to untangle facts from unsupported assertions and come away >>>>> understanding why our genome is structured in precisely the way that it is."
Ethan Siegel, Theoretical Astrophysicist and founder of Starts With A Bang
"Junk DNA is a concept that’s not well understood, even by most biologists,
yet arguments about its existence are commonplace. In What’s in Your >>>>> Genome?, Moran brings together evolution, genomics, and decades of >>>>> scientific history to make the case for it. Even if you don’t agree with all
of his conclusions, you’d benefit from the clarity he brings to the topic."
John R. Timmer, Science Editor, Ars Technica
"This book is a clear and fascinating guide to the exotic menagerie of >>>>> elements that exists in our DNA and a no-holds-barred defense of an >>>>> important but often ignored fact about the human genome: most of it >>>>> has no function. But Moran shows that, even without function, junk DNA >>>>> is incredibly interesting."
Michael White, Associate Professor of Genetics, Washington University >>>>> in St. Louis School of Medicine
I'd perhaps prefer to everyone who teaches biology/genetics/molecular >>> biology at the AP high school or college level. And just for fun, everyone
who works for or ever worked for John Mattick.
John is actually a nice man, and a strong advocate for science in general. He has a particular hobby horse which is unfortunate but there is room for that within science. He's known to do a good job of looking after the young
scientists who have worked for him, and there have been many. He's also
a good rainmaker for a pretty large effort. So I'd suggest substituting Rupert Murdoch for John in your little witticism.
He seems to have a biased pushback against junk.
https://www.unsw.edu.au/staff/john-mattick
In context of noncoding RNAs: “These discoveries mean that the assumption that combinatorial control by transcription factors and other regulatory proteins is sufficient to account for human ontogeny is incorrect, as are circular assumptions about the neutral evolution of the genome.”
There is often a confusing wordplay between noncoding DNA and “junk” (scare
quotes intended). Most laypeople think genes are solely for encoding
protein producing transcripts, but even the existence of rRNA and tRNA say no. I see he’s into noncoding RNAs which is fine, but that’s not enough to
refute junk.
ENCODE may have shown more of the genome lights up than functionally inert junk would entail, but the adaptionist bias leads to assumptions that this lighting up as transcription means the resulting transcripts aren’t themselves junk RNA or just the genome being inadvertently tapped for no organismic reason. That’s my sloppy lay perspective.
People are trying to imply that finding actual function in noncoding (not coding for peptides) regions means junk was a misnomer and that benighted junk enthusiasts must have thought noncoding regions were inert. There’s glory in contrarian perspectives that overturn paradigms. You see, those benighted standard social science model folks like Durkheim, Weber, and Comte have been refuted by Dawkins, Wilson, Buss, Pinker, and Saad. Finding function in junk is like finding modules in socially plastic mental processes.
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 3:35:06?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 06:59:17 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 9:35:05?AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:John Mattick and Ken Ham are Australia's vengeance for cane toads.
On 4/28/23 7:38 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 8:50:05?PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote: >> >> >> Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:It would be great if some billionaire would send a copy to every member >> >> of the ENCODE project, everyone who's ever claimed that all non-codimg >> >> DNA was originally thought to be junk DNA, and in general any biologist >> >> who's ever said that junk was dead as a concept.
I can't help but notice the myriad ways that postersI think I’m stuck on pause. My cataract surgery at 55 changed my
seem capable of pulling the strings of others and making
them dance. The stark thing is how oblivious so many
are to the extent to which they are being manipulated.
Seriously, it isn't about whether or not you are sitting
on the North shore or South shore of an important
river flowing along a significant waterway. It isn't even
about whether or not you have a compelling argument
in favor of the prospects afforded to those on your
side of the River. It's seemingly reduced to your pugnacious
perspective in support of your antagonistic point of view.
I damn well think that many here are diametrically opposed
to people some of you are fighting against. And yet,
your own inept retorts land squarely in the "you're not
helping" pumpkin patch.
Seriously, pause and ask yourself if your contribution is
helping. Far too often, the appropriate meme is "you're not
helping." It really isn't necessary to retort to idiots. Their
idiocy is obvious sans your annotation. To any for whom
it isn't, they are likely refractive to enlightenment. And watching >> >> >>> your feeble retorts is demoralizing.
perspective. Not as much single eye halos and multivision. Best non-aided
vision I’ve had ever but with some minor flare and ghosting. Looking
forward to the anesthetic bliss of my other eye.
Wait. What was the topic? You pulling my strings? I’m waiting for Larry’s
book. Too much junk in the trunk.
"What's in Your Genome? is a thought-provoking and pugnacious book
that will make you wonder afresh at the molecular intricacies of life. >> >> > When it comes to our genomes, we humans are nothing special – Moran >> >> > makes a convincing argument that the vast majority of our sloppy human >> >> > genome is not mysterious genetic treasures but boring old junk."
Kat Arney, science writer, broadcaster, and author of Rebel Cell: Cancer,
Evolution, and the New Science of Life’s Oldest Betrayal
"What’s in Your Genome? is an enormously useful book and a powerful >> >> > and necessary defense of the concept of junk DNA. Moran presents
a clear summary of how the public can be misled by even the most
experienced of science writers. We need more outspoken scientists like him."
W. Ford Doolittle, Professor Emeritus, Department of Biochemistry
and Molecular Biology, Dalhousie University
"
Recently most molecular biologists and genomicists have been convinced >> >> > that most of the sequence in our genomes is intricately functional, that
the idea of junk DNA was a mistake that can now be mostly discarded. >> >> > But almost all researchers in molecular evolution have disagreed with >> >> > this. Laurence A. Moran's clear and incisive book explains why many
biologists are so thoroughly mistaken – why our genomes are ‘messy,’
and full of junk DNA."
Joe Felsenstein, Professor Emeritus, Departments of Genome Sciences
and of Biology, University of Washington, Seattle
"The writing is so crisp and exquisite that it's almost as if a magical code
is being revealed whereby the reader is being invited to step inside a >> >> > furious scientific debate."
Lee McIntyre, Research Fellow, Center for Philosophy and History of Science,
Boston University
"A serious warning to scientists and science writers who, to seduce their
public, privilege the too-fast announcement of novelties and revolutions
instead of doing a cautious examination of the results. Laurence A.
Moran has written a deeply honest and extremely well-documented book >> >> > on one of the hottest recent controversies in science. A master class on
what science is and what it must continue to be."
Michel Morange, Professor Emeritus of Biology, Institute of the History
and Philosophy of Sciences and Techniques , Université Paris 1
Panthéon-Sorbonne
"Laurence A. Moran lucidly explains the science behind an ugly yet thrilling
truth – the DNA sequences that specify our body’s proteins and RNAs are
indeed finely honed by natural selection (like a Swiss watch), but they are
only tiny islands of information embedded in a swamp of evolved gibberish."
Rosemary J. Redfield, Professor Emerita of Zoology, University of British Columbia
"Rarely does a science writer respect their audience enough to bring them
into the weeds of confusion the way that Dr. Moran does, but the rewards
are there to be reaped. A thorough reader will never look at the genome of
any living organism or the concept of junk DNA the same way after reading
this and will be left wondering how so many baseless claims have made >> >> > headlines in recent years. In the capable hands of Dr. Moran, we can all
learn to untangle facts from unsupported assertions and come away
understanding why our genome is structured in precisely the way that it is."
Ethan Siegel, Theoretical Astrophysicist and founder of Starts With A Bang
"Junk DNA is a concept that’s not well understood, even by most biologists,
yet arguments about its existence are commonplace. In What’s in Your >> >> > Genome?, Moran brings together evolution, genomics, and decades of
scientific history to make the case for it. Even if you don’t agree with all
of his conclusions, you’d benefit from the clarity he brings to the topic."
John R. Timmer, Science Editor, Ars Technica
"This book is a clear and fascinating guide to the exotic menagerie of >> >> > elements that exists in our DNA and a no-holds-barred defense of an
important but often ignored fact about the human genome: most of it
has no function. But Moran shows that, even without function, junk DNA >> >> > is incredibly interesting."
Michael White, Associate Professor of Genetics, Washington University >> >> > in St. Louis School of Medicine
I'd perhaps prefer to everyone who teaches biology/genetics/molecular
biology at the AP high school or college level. And just for fun, everyone >> >who works for or ever worked for John Mattick.
John is actually a nice man, and a strong advocate for science in general.
He has a particular hobby horse which is unfortunate but there is room for >that within science. He's known to do a good job of looking after the young >scientists who have worked for him, and there have been many. He's also
a good rainmaker for a pretty large effort. So I'd suggest substituting >Rupert Murdoch for John in your little witticism.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 308 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 93:19:34 |
| Calls: | 6,923 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,382 |
| Messages: | 5,434,161 |