|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 02/25/2012 : 07:48:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
This is still a typo. |
So was my mistake, hypocrite.| Why don't you correct people who misquote and get it wrong. |
I didn't misquote your statements:Originally posted by jamalrapper
What they did not know or hid was the fact that the particular type of yeast they used in their experiment was dimorphic and capable of multi-cellular mutation. So in fact they were not growing/mutating a single-cellular organism into a multi-cellular organism. There are brewers yeast that are known to be single-cellular. |
So again: please provide evidence that there is a species of brewer's yeast which is not dimorphic (capable of pseudohyphal activity). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2012 : 08:45:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by jamalrapper
This is still a typo. |
So was my mistake, hypocrite.| Why don't you correct people who misquote and get it wrong. |
I didn't misquote your statements:Originally posted by jamalrapper
What they did not know or hid was the fact that the particular type of yeast they used in their experiment was dimorphic and capable of multi-cellular mutation. So in fact they were not growing/mutating a single-cellular organism into a multi-cellular organism. There are brewers yeast that are known to be single-cellular. |
So again: please provide evidence that there is a species of brewer's yeast which is not dimorphic (capable of pseudohyphal activity).
|
I don't know what you are hoping to get from this type of questioning. Why do I have to prove there is a species of brewers's yeast which is not dimorphic (capable of pseudohyphal activity). When the issue was Ratcliff using Saccharomyces Cerevisiae which is capable of pseudohyphal activity.
It is up to Ratcliff to prove he is using true single-celled which according to the link I provided wrote.
| "Ratcliff and his colleagues are planning to address that objection head-on, by doing similar experiments with Chlamydomonas, a single-celled alga that has no multicellular ancestors. |
Are you saying if I can tell Ratcliff to use a particular type of yeast which is not dimorphic (capable of pseudohyphal activity) of my choosing and if he does the scientific community will accept the results as conclusive.
I might take you up on that dare. Let Ratcliff ask me what yeast to use in his next experiment. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2012 : 11:59:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
I don't know what you are hoping to get from this type of questioning. Why do I have to prove there is a species of brewers's yeast which is not dimorphic (capable of pseudohyphal activity). When the issue was Ratcliff using Saccharomyces Cerevisiae which is capable of pseudohyphal activity. |
It's a matter of you providing evidence to demonstrate that your arguments are valid and sound. You made a statement, and refuse to either retract it or provide supporting evidence. It's a matter of you having the balls to confess that you made shit up.| It is up to Ratcliff to prove he is using true single-celled which according to the link I provided wrote. |
Ratcliff has nothing to do with the statements you made.| Are you saying if I can tell Ratcliff to use a particular type of yeast which is not dimorphic (capable of pseudohyphal activity) of my choosing and if he does the scientific community will accept the results as conclusive. |
No, I'm saying that we'd all be impressed if you either showed that there is a non-pseudohyphal brewer's yeast, or if you admitted to a mistake. This has nothing at all to do with Ratcliff. It's all about you, and you just trying to distract away from your failures. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2012 : 12:21:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by jamalrapper
I don't know what you are hoping to get from this type of questioning. Why do I have to prove there is a species of brewers's yeast which is not dimorphic (capable of pseudohyphal activity). When the issue was Ratcliff using Saccharomyces Cerevisiae which is capable of pseudohyphal activity. |
It's a matter of you providing evidence to demonstrate that your arguments are valid and sound. You made a statement, and refuse to either retract it or provide supporting evidence. It's a matter of you having the balls to confess that you made shit up.| It is up to Ratcliff to prove he is using true single-celled which according to the link I provided wrote. |
Ratcliff has nothing to do with the statements you made.| Are you saying if I can tell Ratcliff to use a particular type of yeast which is not dimorphic (capable of pseudohyphal activity) of my choosing and if he does the scientific community will accept the results as conclusive. |
No, I'm saying that we'd all be impressed if you either showed that there is a non-pseudohyphal brewer's yeast, or if you admitted to a mistake. This has nothing at all to do with Ratcliff. It's all about you, and you just trying to distract away from your failures.
|
So you don't know if there are yeast that are not dimorphic (capable of pseudohyphal activity). And you accept Ratcliff, by using in his experiment Saccharomyces Cerevisiae was using a yeast that was dimorphic (capable of pseudohyphal activity) |
| Edited by - jamalrapper on 02/25/2012 12:47:21 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2012 : 08:15:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
So you don't know if there are yeast that are not dimorphic (capable of pseudohyphal activity). |
I'm saying that you were lying when you claimed there is.| And you accept Ratcliff, by using in his experiment Saccharomyces Cerevisiae was using a yeast that was dimorphic (capable of pseudohyphal activity) |
Well, gee, Gomer, one only had to read his paper to know that (which showed that you lied when you claimed he either didn't know or tried to hide that fact). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2012 : 09:21:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by jamalrapper
So you don't know if there are yeast that are not dimorphic (capable of pseudohyphal activity). |
I'm saying that you were lying when you claimed there is.| And you accept Ratcliff, by using in his experiment Saccharomyces Cerevisiae was using a yeast that was dimorphic (capable of pseudohyphal activity) |
Well, gee, Gomer, one only had to read his paper to know that (which showed that you lied when you claimed he either didn't know or tried to hide that fact).
|
How can I be lying when you don't even know there are yeast that are not dimorphic (capable of pseudohyphal activity).
To you all yeast are dimorphic (capable of pseudohyphal activity) because you don't know of any that are not or you would not be asking the question.
If you knew of yeast that were not dimorphic (capable of pseudohyphal activity) you would have pointed it out to us the yeast Saccharomyces Cerevisiaeknow used by Ratcliff was such a yeast and provided evidence to support your claim.
So you wasted all our time arguing without even knowing what type of yeast(dimorphic or not dimorphic( capable of pseudohyphal activity) Ratcliff used, which according to him was Saccharomyces Cerevisiae.
You even misquoted me which you denied.
| DaveW wrote:Read your own post. You claimed that there are brewers yeasts which do not create pseudohyphae which Ratcliff could have used, instead. Provide evidence to support your assertion. |
Never said that at all. Here is what I said which you even put in quotes. "What they did not know or hid was the fact that the particular type of yeast they used in their experiment was dimorphic and capable of multi-cellular mutation. So in fact they were not growing/mutating a single-cellular organism into a multi-cellular organism. There are brewers yeast that are known to be single-cellular.
Nowhere do I mention yeast which do not create pseudohyphae which Ratcliff could have used, instead. I always talked about single cell to multi-cellular transitions.
Your understanding of yeast is so poor or non existent and your reading is even worse.
Show me where I said yeast which do not create pseudohyphae.
You are just blinded by rage. Take a chill pill. |
| Edited by - jamalrapper on 02/26/2012 09:56:12 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2012 : 16:33:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Show me where I said yeast which do not create pseudohyphae. |
The only reason that you claimed S. cerevisiae is "multi-cellular" is because it can create pseudohyphae. You were claiming that Ratcliff should have used a yeast which isn't "multi-cellular," obviously meaning "doesn't create pseudohyphae." If you're now denying that that's what you meant, you're just lying some more.| You are just blinded by rage. |
You're projecting again. I find your transparent lies to be pitiable, not enraging. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2012 : 17:20:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Show me where I said yeast which do not create pseudohyphae. |
The only reason that you claimed S. cerevisiae is "multi-cellular" is because it can create pseudohyphae. You were claiming that Ratcliff should have used a yeast which isn't "multi-cellular," obviously meaning "doesn't create pseudohyphae." If you're now denying that that's what you meant, you're just lying some more.| You are just blinded by rage. |
You're projecting again. I find your transparent lies to be pitiable, not enraging.
|
To begin with you don't even have the basic understanding of single-celled and multi-celled organisms.
Multi-cellular does not mean nor is it interchangeable with the word pseudohyphae.
You need to give up here and get a science 101 lesson on just what cells are before you can deal with complex adaptation.
Look up: What is?
1. single celled (unicellular)
2. multi-celled (multicellular)
You will find they are totally different than your understanding of them. Hopefully you will stop asking dumb questions once you get your 101 on singlecelled and multicelled confusion cleared.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2012 : 20:22:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
To begin with you don't even have the basic understanding of single-celled and multi-celled organisms.
Multi-cellular does not mean nor is it interchangeable with the word pseudohyphae. |
I never said it was. But that was your clear meaning, since the only reason you called any brewer's yeast multicellular was because they "clump" by creating pseudohyphae when starved. That was your entire argument by the time you wrote your idiotic statement about how Ratcliff should have used a "single-cellular" (hahaha!) brewer's yeast.
You're a liar, a hypocrite and a troll. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2012 : 20:44:31 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
You're a liar, a hypocrite and a troll. |
Why would he have changed from the last time he was here? |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2012 : 21:07:49 [Permalink]
|
Your reading is completely out of wack.
| jamalrapper wrote:Hi Bill. I would'nt take the experiment too seriously. It has already been proven deception was involved. The authors hid the fact they used common brewer's yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae), which normally grows as individual cells but is also known to grow as "multicellular" structures in a clumped manner forming "pseudohyphae" when grown under adverse conditions. |
Here is your read on it.
| DaveW wrote:the only reason you called any brewer's yeast multicellular was because they "clump" by creating pseudohyphae when starved. |
Here specifically I did not say any brewers's yeast, I said Saccharomyces cerevisiae is also known to grow as "multicellular" structures in a clumped manner forming "pseudohyphae.
There is a big difference in reading properly the statement. The Saccharomyces cerevisiae is both single-celled and is also known as multicellular, it grows structures in a clumping manner forming pseudohyphae. Which if you looked for the meaning of pseudohyphae, they are filamentous growth.
What you are confusing is complex cells such as multicellular is interchangeable with pseudohyphae. One is a complex organism and the other a filamentous growth. It just happens saccharomyces cerevisiae show this growth when starved/stressed.
To help you understand better.
1. When saccharomyces cerevisiae is grown normally it will not form clumping or go through the pseudohyphae stage. Under a microscope they will look like any single celled organism
2. Under stress like starvation saccharomyces cerevisiae will go through the clumping/pseudohyphae stage and show under a microscope filamentous growth.
All this is well known because saccharomyces cerevisiae is used as brewers yeast and very well studied.
But to use the word multicullar interchangably with pseudohyphae is inaccurate because multicellular requires more than going through a clumping/pseudohyphae stage. It has to satisfy all the requirements of a multicelled organism.
Just as implying the word unicellular is the absence of pseudohyphae. But even though that is what is seen under the microscope no clumping. Single cell is defined as a single self contained independent functional cell. |
| Edited by - jamalrapper on 02/27/2012 01:12:39 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2012 : 05:14:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Here specifically I did not say any brewers's yeast... |
You said, "There are brewers yeast that are known to be single-cellular." We are indeed specifically talking about some species of brewer's yeast.| What you are confusing is complex cells such as multicellular is interchangeable with pseudohyphae. |
No, that was your confusion.| But to use the word multicullar interchangably with pseudohyphae is inaccurate... |
So you were being inaccurate. I knew that. It's my whole point.| Just as implying the word unicellular is the absence of pseudohyphae. But even though that is what is seen under the microscope no clumping. Single cell is defined as a single self contained independent functional cell. |
So is S. cerevisiae unicellular or multicellular? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2012 : 05:22:17 [Permalink]
|
By the way, this:Originally posted by jamalrapper
There is a big difference in reading properly the statement. |
And this:| What you are confusing is complex cells such as multicellular is interchangeable with pseudohyphae. |
Are classic justintime broken English. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2012 : 07:03:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Here specifically I did not say any brewers's yeast... |
You said, "There are brewers yeast that are known to be single-cellular." We are indeed specifically talking about some species of brewer's yeast.| What you are confusing is complex cells such as multicellular is interchangeable with pseudohyphae. |
No, that was your confusion.| But to use the word multicullar interchangably with pseudohyphae is inaccurate... |
So you were being inaccurate. I knew that. It's my whole point.| Just as implying the word unicellular is the absence of pseudohyphae. But even though that is what is seen under the microscope no clumping. Single cell is defined as a single self contained independent functional cell. |
So is S. cerevisiae unicellular or multicellular?
|
DaveW is totally confused again. I don't know why he just won't read up on saccharomyces cerevisiae to get a better understanding of the yeast used in Ratcliff's experiment.
Here DaveW is asking if saccharomyces cerevisiae is unicellular or multicellular.
How many times does he have to be told saccharomyces cerevisiae under normal conditions will develop as a unicellular organism.
Under stress/starvation they will develop as a multicellular organism and go through a stage of filamentous grown known as pseudohyphae.
Failing to deal with his ignorance of basic biology and now on page 15 of the discussion. He is asking this.
| DavW just asked: So is S. cerevisiae unicellular or multicellular? |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2012 : 08:16:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Under stress/starvation they will develop as a multicellular organism and go through a stage of filamentous grown known as pseudohyphae. |
But you said, "But to use the word multicullar interchangably with pseudohyphae is inaccurate because multicellular requires more than going through a clumping/pseudohyphae stage." So do you think that S. cerevisiae is unicellular or multicellular, given that you correctly stated that pseudohyphal growth is not enough to classify an organism as multicellular?| Failing to deal with his ignorance of basic biology and now on page 15 of the discussion. He is asking this. |
No, I'm asking what you think. I'm not asking because I don't know the correct answer. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
A disturbing trend, 'er no?
