.Because (1) there are some people here who write interesting and informative posts and (2) in the process of responding to creationist and ID claims I sometimes get pushed to read up on areas of biology that I do not know much about - for example, I
.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 2:00:16 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
.I heard it was a good way to pick up hot chicks.
I was apparently misinformed.
.- Pathological need to teach
Why do you participate here?
.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:00:16 PM UTC+1, MarkE wrote:
.- Pathological need to teach
- spotted someone being wrong on the internet
- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:15:15 PM UTC+1, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 2:00:16 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
.I heard it was a good way to pick up hot chicks.
I was apparently misinformed.
In the TO context, they probably meant hot dinosaurs https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dinosaurs-that-were-secretly-hot_n_560d860ee4b0dd85030b2ddd/amp
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:00:16?PM UTC+1, MarkE wrote:
.- Pathological need to teach
- spotted someone being wrong on the internet
- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC--
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 15:22:07 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.schafer@ed.ac.uk>:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:00:16?PM UTC+1, MarkE wrote:No! Please say it ain't so!
.- Pathological need to teach
- spotted someone being wrong on the internet
- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC
.Because evidence of existence of whatever supernatural has always interested me.
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 18:59:54 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 15:22:07 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:00:16?PM UTC+1, MarkE wrote:No! Please say it ain't so!
.- Pathological need to teach
- spotted someone being wrong on the internet
So when person X participates, it's due to a virtuous if perhaps pathological need to teach, and when person Y participates, it's due- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC
to a mindless reaction to someone being wrong on the internet. Yet
another case of not what is said but who says it.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
.As Christian with an appreciation of science, the nexus of the two has always been of great interest to me. My faith doesn't depend on any particular scientific model, but science does have some bearing on how I think about the world and belief.
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 7:50:16?AM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 18:59:54 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 15:22:07 -0700 (PDT), the followingpathological need to teach, and when person Y participates, it's due
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:00:16?PM UTC+1, MarkE wrote:No! Please say it ain't so!
.- Pathological need to teach
- spotted someone being wrong on the internet
- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC >> So when person X participates, it's due to a virtuous if perhaps
to a mindless reaction to someone being wrong on the internet. Yet
another case of not what is said but who says it.
But in both cases it was me who said it?
So I read Bob's reply as a humorous: "what, something false on the Internet? >Incredible! Please tell me it ain't so, and that everything on the webs is truth itself"
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 7:50:16?AM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 18:59:54 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 15:22:07 -0700 (PDT), the followingpathological need to teach, and when person Y participates, it's due
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:00:16?PM UTC+1, MarkE wrote:No! Please say it ain't so!
.- Pathological need to teach
- spotted someone being wrong on the internet
- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC >> So when person X participates, it's due to a virtuous if perhaps
to a mindless reaction to someone being wrong on the internet. Yet
another case of not what is said but who says it.
But in both cases it was me who said it?
So I read Bob's reply as a humorous: "what, something false on the Internet? >Incredible! Please tell me it ain't so, and that everything on the webs is truth itself"
--
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 00:34:03 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 7:50:16?AM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 18:59:54 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 15:22:07 -0700 (PDT), the followingSo when person X participates, it's due to a virtuous if perhaps
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:00:16?PM UTC+1, MarkE wrote:No! Please say it ain't so!
.- Pathological need to teach
- spotted someone being wrong on the internet
- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC
pathological need to teach, and when person Y participates, it's due
to a mindless reaction to someone being wrong on the internet. Yet
another case of not what is said but who says it.
But in both cases it was me who said it?Do you doubt it was you who said it? Or do you think I don't know you
said it?
So I read Bob's reply as a humorous: "what, something false on the Internet?Ok. I acknowledge your mileage varies.
Incredible! Please tell me it ain't so, and that everything on the webs is truth itself"
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
MarkE wrote:
Why do you participate here?
Occasionally I learn something about biology, geology, etc. It's worth skimming just to see what comes up, and just ignoring the stuff that is a waste of time.
On 8/26/2023 12:57 PM, MarkE wrote:[]
.
I started reading TO back in 1993 because I was curious if there was any legitimate creation science. What I learned by reading TO was that
The origin of life is #3 of the Top Six. The Big Bang comes first and happened over 13 billion years ago. Fine tuning (#2) was probably done during the Big Bang, and around 8 billion years later there was a second round of fine tuning in order to assemble the elements, that it took 8 billion years of stellar deaths to produce, into a solar system that
could support life on the planet earth. Around 3.8 billion years ago
life arose on this planet (#3). Life was microbial for billions of
years and over a billion years ago the flagellum was designed among the microbes that existed at that time (#4). There was a diversification of multicellular bilateral animals around half a billion years ago that is called the Cambrian explosion (#5). The gaps in the human fossil record occur within the last 10 million years of the existence of life on earth (#6).
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 17:36:54 -0500
RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 8/26/2023 12:57 PM, MarkE wrote:[]
.I started reading TO back in 1993 because I was curious if there was any
legitimate creation science. What I learned by reading TO was that
The origin of life is #3 of the Top Six. The Big Bang comes first andThese are all good points, but it seems no-one here is engaging in a
happened over 13 billion years ago. Fine tuning (#2) was probably done
during the Big Bang, and around 8 billion years later there was a second
round of fine tuning in order to assemble the elements, that it took 8
billion years of stellar deaths to produce, into a solar system that
could support life on the planet earth. Around 3.8 billion years ago
life arose on this planet (#3). Life was microbial for billions of
years and over a billion years ago the flagellum was designed among the
microbes that existed at that time (#4). There was a diversification of
multicellular bilateral animals around half a billion years ago that is
called the Cambrian explosion (#5). The gaps in the human fossil record
occur within the last 10 million years of the existence of life on earth
(#6).
debate about it/them.
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 00:34:03 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.schafer@ed.ac.uk>:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 7:50:16?AM UTC+1, jillery wrote:And that's exactly how it was meant ("You saw it on the
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 18:59:54 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 15:22:07 -0700 (PDT), the followingpathological need to teach, and when person Y participates, it's due
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:00:16?PM UTC+1, MarkE wrote:No! Please say it ain't so!
.- Pathological need to teach
- spotted someone being wrong on the internet
- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC >>> So when person X participates, it's due to a virtuous if perhaps
to a mindless reaction to someone being wrong on the internet. Yet
another case of not what is said but who says it.
But in both cases it was me who said it?
So I read Bob's reply as a humorous: "what, something false on the Internet? >>Incredible! Please tell me it ain't so, and that everything on the webs is truth itself"
Internet? Well, then, it *must* be correct!"); I'm glad at
least *you* understood.
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 09:04:06 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 00:34:03 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.schafer@ed.ac.uk>:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 7:50:16?AM UTC+1, jillery wrote:And that's exactly how it was meant ("You saw it on the
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 18:59:54 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 15:22:07 -0700 (PDT), the followingpathological need to teach, and when person Y participates, it's due
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:00:16?PM UTC+1, MarkE wrote:No! Please say it ain't so!
.- Pathological need to teach
- spotted someone being wrong on the internet
- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC >>>> So when person X participates, it's due to a virtuous if perhaps
to a mindless reaction to someone being wrong on the internet. Yet
another case of not what is said but who says it.
But in both cases it was me who said it?
So I read Bob's reply as a humorous: "what, something false on the Internet? >>>Incredible! Please tell me it ain't so, and that everything on the webs is truth itself"
Internet? Well, then, it *must* be correct!"); I'm glad at
least *you* understood.
"If it's on the Internet is must be correct."
and
"Someone is wrong on the Internet."
are contradictory claims, and so not the same thing.
More to the point, you regularly criticize others for reacting to
someone being wrong on the Internet, even as you regularly react to
someone being wrong on the Internet. All of which make your comments
above a self-parody.
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 4:25:16?PM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 00:34:03 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 7:50:16?AM UTC+1, jillery wrote:Do you doubt it was you who said it? Or do you think I don't know you
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 18:59:54 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 15:22:07 -0700 (PDT), the followingSo when person X participates, it's due to a virtuous if perhaps
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:00:16?PM UTC+1, MarkE wrote:No! Please say it ain't so!
.- Pathological need to teach
- spotted someone being wrong on the internet
- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC
pathological need to teach, and when person Y participates, it's due
to a mindless reaction to someone being wrong on the internet. Yet
another case of not what is said but who says it.
But in both cases it was me who said it?
said it?
Well, I considered it possible that you got the attribution wrong and thought they came
from different people, which after all can happen easily.
As both referred to me, and hence X=Y , I could not see how you got from that >to the first being complementary of one person, and the second critical of another
person.
So I read Bob's reply as a humorous: "what, something false on the Internet?Ok. I acknowledge your mileage varies.
Incredible! Please tell me it ain't so, and that everything on the webs is truth itself"
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 17:36:54 -0500
RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 8/26/2023 12:57 PM, MarkE wrote:[]
.I started reading TO back in 1993 because I was curious if there was any
legitimate creation science. What I learned by reading TO was that
The origin of life is #3 of the Top Six. The Big Bang comes first andThese are all good points, but it seems no-one here is engaging in a
happened over 13 billion years ago. Fine tuning (#2) was probably done
during the Big Bang, and around 8 billion years later there was a second
round of fine tuning in order to assemble the elements, that it took 8
billion years of stellar deaths to produce, into a solar system that
could support life on the planet earth. Around 3.8 billion years ago
life arose on this planet (#3). Life was microbial for billions of
years and over a billion years ago the flagellum was designed among the
microbes that existed at that time (#4). There was a diversification of
multicellular bilateral animals around half a billion years ago that is
called the Cambrian explosion (#5). The gaps in the human fossil record
occur within the last 10 million years of the existence of life on earth
(#6).
debate about it/them.
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 10:20:57 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
<b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 4:25:16?PM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 00:34:03 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 7:50:16?AM UTC+1, jillery wrote:Do you doubt it was you who said it? Or do you think I don't know you
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 18:59:54 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 15:22:07 -0700 (PDT), the followingSo when person X participates, it's due to a virtuous if perhaps
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:00:16?PM UTC+1, MarkE wrote:No! Please say it ain't so!
.- Pathological need to teach
- spotted someone being wrong on the internet
- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC
pathological need to teach, and when person Y participates, it's due >>>>> to a mindless reaction to someone being wrong on the internet. Yet
another case of not what is said but who says it.
But in both cases it was me who said it?
said it?
Well, I considered it possible that you got the attribution wrong and thought they came
from different people, which after all can happen easily.
I acknowledge it could have. In this case it did not. Do you
acknowledge your "?" was ambiguous?
As both referred to me, and hence X=Y , I could not see how you got from that
to the first being complementary of one person, and the second critical of another
person.
You seem to be unaware of the fact that Bob regularly posts "Someone
is wrong on the Internet" as a criticism of others' behavior, even as
he also practices that same behavior, and thus my previous comment.
I started out of interest in biology and religious religion and their intersection. I stayed to learn a lot (on diverse topics, including
many having nothing to do with origins) and to hone my writing skills.
I continue to stay for that, for the community, and out of habit.
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 09:04:06 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 00:34:03 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
"If it's on the Internet is must be correct."On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 7:50:16?AM UTC+1, jillery wrote:And that's exactly how it was meant ("You saw it on the
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 18:59:54 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 15:22:07 -0700 (PDT), the followingSo when person X participates, it's due to a virtuous if perhaps
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:00:16?PM UTC+1, MarkE wrote:No! Please say it ain't so!
.- Pathological need to teach
- spotted someone being wrong on the internet
- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC
pathological need to teach, and when person Y participates, it's due
to a mindless reaction to someone being wrong on the internet. Yet
another case of not what is said but who says it.
But in both cases it was me who said it?
So I read Bob's reply as a humorous: "what, something false on the Internet?
Incredible! Please tell me it ain't so, and that everything on the webs is truth itself"
Internet? Well, then, it *must* be correct!"); I'm glad at
least *you* understood.
and
"Someone is wrong on the Internet."
are contradictory claims, and so not the same thing.
More to the point, you regularly criticize others for reacting to
someone being wrong on the Internet, even as you regularly react to
someone being wrong on the Internet. All of which make your comments
above a self-parody.
- Pathological need to teach
- spotted someone being wrong on the internet
- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 11:08:18 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 09:04:06 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>Uh-huh.
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 00:34:03 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.schafer@ed.ac.uk>:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 7:50:16?AM UTC+1, jillery wrote:And that's exactly how it was meant ("You saw it on the
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 18:59:54 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 15:22:07 -0700 (PDT), the followingSo when person X participates, it's due to a virtuous if perhaps
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:00:16?PM UTC+1, MarkE wrote:No! Please say it ain't so!
.- Pathological need to teach
- spotted someone being wrong on the internet
- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC
pathological need to teach, and when person Y participates, it's due >>>>> to a mindless reaction to someone being wrong on the internet. Yet
another case of not what is said but who says it.
But in both cases it was me who said it?
So I read Bob's reply as a humorous: "what, something false on the Internet?
Incredible! Please tell me it ain't so, and that everything on the webs is truth itself"
Internet? Well, then, it *must* be correct!"); I'm glad at
least *you* understood.
"If it's on the Internet is must be correct."
and
"Someone is wrong on the Internet."
are contradictory claims, and so not the same thing.
More to the point, you regularly criticize others for reacting to
someone being wrong on the Internet, even as you regularly react to
someone being wrong on the Internet. All of which make your comments
above a self-parody.
Please continue to enjoy yourself with your delusions.
Do you think Burkhard is Socratic? What is Socratic?….
As a gadfly Burkhard isn’t very good at being pesky. Instead of midwifing the thoughts of others he usually supplies more of his own situated well-informed content. Socratic method doesn’t lend itself to a usenet sort
of interaction very well.
[snip rest]
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 4:00:16 AM UTC+10, MarkE wrote:
.As Christian with an appreciation of science, the nexus of the two has
always been of great interest to me. My faith doesn't depend on any particular scientific model, but science does have some bearing on how I think about the world and belief.
A growing understanding of the cell reveals greater and greater levels of complexity. The simplest cell is recognised to be a finely-tuned factory.
If we were to witness an operating cell enlarged to our scale, it would
be an overwhelming experience I think. Similarly with DNA, once
reductively thought of as an inert linear code and mostly "junk". But
more and more its amazing spatial properties, ultra-dense information storage, regulation and intricate function are being discovered. I see a creator's hand in these.
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 11:10:18 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 09:04:06 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 00:34:03 -0700 (PDT), the following"If it's on the Internet is must be correct."
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 7:50:16?AM UTC+1, jillery wrote:And that's exactly how it was meant ("You saw it on the
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 18:59:54 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 15:22:07 -0700 (PDT), the followingSo when person X participates, it's due to a virtuous if perhaps
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:00:16?PM UTC+1, MarkE wrote:No! Please say it ain't so!
.- Pathological need to teach
- spotted someone being wrong on the internet
- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC
pathological need to teach, and when person Y participates, it's due >>>>> to a mindless reaction to someone being wrong on the internet. Yet
another case of not what is said but who says it.
But in both cases it was me who said it?
So I read Bob's reply as a humorous: "what, something false on the Internet?
Incredible! Please tell me it ain't so, and that everything on the
webs is truth itself"
Internet? Well, then, it *must* be correct!"); I'm glad at
least *you* understood.
and
"Someone is wrong on the Internet."
are contradictory claims, and so not the same thing.
More to the point, you regularly criticize others for reacting to
someone being wrong on the Internet, even as you regularly react to
someone being wrong on the Internet. All of which make your comments
above a self-parody.
Let's review. Burkhard answer "why do you post here?" with
- Pathological need to teach
- spotted someone being wrong on the internet
- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC
It's that mix of sincere, smart, and funny that some of us like.
Let me completely ruin it. The first is self-awareness but borders on pomposity which makes a fella feel uncomfortable. The 'pathological'
takes the edge off. The second line of course references a classic
comic drawing, someone is calling you to join then in bed but you say
you can't because someone is wrong on the internet. This is full on self-deprecation, laughing at oneself and their reasons for spewing
forth on usenet. Then it's followed by a semi-oblique reference to
Socrates, and his ultimate fate. It's a 7 layer cake in just 3 lines,
and in that it adds frosting on top about enjoying inside jokes even
if few get them but appreciating that some few readers might.
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 10:20:57 -0700 (PDT), BurkhardThread downward spiral to commence in 3…, 2…, 1…
<b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 4:25:16?PM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 00:34:03 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 7:50:16?AM UTC+1, jillery wrote:Do you doubt it was you who said it? Or do you think I don't know you
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 18:59:54 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> >>>>>> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 15:22:07 -0700 (PDT), the followingSo when person X participates, it's due to a virtuous if perhaps
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:00:16?PM UTC+1, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>>>> .No! Please say it ain't so!
- Pathological need to teach
- spotted someone being wrong on the internet
- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC
pathological need to teach, and when person Y participates, it's due >>>>>> to a mindless reaction to someone being wrong on the internet. Yet >>>>>> another case of not what is said but who says it.
But in both cases it was me who said it?
said it?
Well, I considered it possible that you got the attribution wrong and thought they came
from different people, which after all can happen easily.
I acknowledge it could have. In this case it did not. Do you
acknowledge your "?" was ambiguous?
As both referred to me, and hence X=Y , I could not see how you got from that
to the first being complementary of one person, and the second critical of another
person.
You seem to be unaware of the fact that Bob regularly posts "Someone
is wrong on the Internet" as a criticism of others' behavior, even as
he also practices that same behavior, and thus my previous comment.
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 11:10:18?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 09:04:06 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 00:34:03 -0700 (PDT), the following"If it's on the Internet is must be correct."
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 7:50:16?AM UTC+1, jillery wrote:And that's exactly how it was meant ("You saw it on the
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 18:59:54 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 15:22:07 -0700 (PDT), the followingSo when person X participates, it's due to a virtuous if perhaps
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:00:16?PM UTC+1, MarkE wrote:No! Please say it ain't so!
.- Pathological need to teach
- spotted someone being wrong on the internet
- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC
pathological need to teach, and when person Y participates, it's due
to a mindless reaction to someone being wrong on the internet. Yet
another case of not what is said but who says it.
But in both cases it was me who said it?
So I read Bob's reply as a humorous: "what, something false on the Internet?
Incredible! Please tell me it ain't so, and that everything on the webs is truth itself"
Internet? Well, then, it *must* be correct!"); I'm glad at
least *you* understood.
and
"Someone is wrong on the Internet."
are contradictory claims, and so not the same thing.
More to the point, you regularly criticize others for reacting to
someone being wrong on the Internet, even as you regularly react to
someone being wrong on the Internet. All of which make your comments
above a self-parody.
Let's review. Burkhard answer "why do you post here?" with
- Pathological need to teach
- spotted someone being wrong on the internet
- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC
It's that mix of sincere, smart, and funny that some of us like.
Let me completely ruin it.
The first is self-awareness but borders on
pomposity which makes a fella feel uncomfortable. The 'pathological'
takes the edge off. The second line of course references a classic
comic drawing, someone is calling you to join then in bed but you say
you can't because someone is wrong on the internet. This is full on >self-deprecation, laughing at oneself and their reasons for spewing
forth on usenet. Then it's followed by a semi-oblique reference to
Socrates, and his ultimate fate. It's a 7 layer cake in just 3 lines,
and in that it adds frosting on top about enjoying inside jokes even
if few get them but appreciating that some few readers might.
That was the set-up.
Bob responds to show some appreciation. No idea if he saw it in
the layers I saw it, or if Burkhard intended all the layering I perceive,
but he appreciated at least some of the humor. Liking humor, he
gave a bit of positive re-enforcement. He does that, even if it's just
to groan at especially bad puns when he doesn't even have a bad
pun to toss back.
Then, we get your response. You uncorked something that seems
like bottled up frustration, only not clear when it gets bottled up.
Apparently the "someone's wrong on the internet" is a trigger line
as you feel it's been unfairly directed at you at times in criticism.
Frankly, I think we should all have that comic printed out and taped
next to our monitors. If I were more creative, I'd build a tool that would >have it pop up on screen every time someone clicks to send a post.
It would fill you screen, pause for 3 seconds --- which is actually a
very long time --- and then put up an "Are you sure???" overlay.
It would be customizable so people could add in a few more layers
of "Are you sure?" with messages like "is the asshole worth it?",
"does anybody else care?", "does anyone whose opinion you value
not already know?", "he'll probably enjoy it", and for myself in particular, >"you're not as funny as you imagine." noli turbare circulos meos.
I appreciate your good intentions in trying to defuse the unnecessary
aggro that pollutes TO but I think that ignoring the religious aspect,
the Serenity Prayer is a worthwhile reminder alongside the comic
strip.
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 11:10:18?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 09:04:06 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 00:34:03 -0700 (PDT), the following"If it's on the Internet is must be correct."
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 7:50:16?AM UTC+1, jillery wrote:And that's exactly how it was meant ("You saw it on the
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 18:59:54 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 15:22:07 -0700 (PDT), the followingSo when person X participates, it's due to a virtuous if perhaps
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:00:16?PM UTC+1, MarkE wrote:No! Please say it ain't so!
.- Pathological need to teach
- spotted someone being wrong on the internet
- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC
pathological need to teach, and when person Y participates, it's due
to a mindless reaction to someone being wrong on the internet. Yet
another case of not what is said but who says it.
But in both cases it was me who said it?
So I read Bob's reply as a humorous: "what, something false on the Internet?
Incredible! Please tell me it ain't so, and that everything on the webs is truth itself"
Internet? Well, then, it *must* be correct!"); I'm glad at
least *you* understood.
and
"Someone is wrong on the Internet."
are contradictory claims, and so not the same thing.
More to the point, you regularly criticize others for reacting to
someone being wrong on the Internet, even as you regularly react to
someone being wrong on the Internet. All of which make your comments
above a self-parody.
Let's review. Burkhard answer "why do you post here?" with
- Pathological need to teach
- spotted someone being wrong on the internet
- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC
It's that mix of sincere, smart, and funny that some of us like.
Let me completely ruin it. The first is self-awareness but borders on >pomposity which makes a fella feel uncomfortable. The 'pathological'
takes the edge off. The second line of course references a classic
comic drawing, someone is calling you to join then in bed but you say
you can't because someone is wrong on the internet. This is full on >self-deprecation, laughing at oneself and their reasons for spewing
forth on usenet. Then it's followed by a semi-oblique reference to
Socrates, and his ultimate fate. It's a 7 layer cake in just 3 lines,
and in that it adds frosting on top about enjoying inside jokes even
if few get them but appreciating that some few readers might.
That was the set-up.
Bob responds to show some appreciation. No idea if he saw it in
the layers I saw it, or if Burkhard intended all the layering I perceive,
but he appreciated at least some of the humor. Liking humor, he
gave a bit of positive re-enforcement. He does that, even if it's just
to groan at especially bad puns when he doesn't even have a bad
pun to toss back.
Then, we get your response. You uncorked something that seems
like bottled up frustration, only not clear when it gets bottled up. >Apparently the "someone's wrong on the internet" is a trigger line
as you feel it's been unfairly directed at you at times in criticism.
Frankly, I think we should all have that comic printed out and taped
next to our monitors. If I were more creative, I'd build a tool that would >have it pop up on screen every time someone clicks to send a post.
It would fill you screen, pause for 3 seconds --- which is actually a
very long time --- and then put up an "Are you sure???" overlay.
It would be customizable so people could add in a few more layers
of "Are you sure?" with messages like "is the asshole worth it?",
"does anybody else care?", "does anyone whose opinion you value
not already know?", "he'll probably enjoy it", and for myself in particular, >"you're not as funny as you imagine." noli turbare circulos meos.
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 09:27:38 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett ><j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 11:10:18?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 09:04:06 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 00:34:03 -0700 (PDT), the following"If it's on the Internet is must be correct."
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 7:50:16?AM UTC+1, jillery wrote:And that's exactly how it was meant ("You saw it on the
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 18:59:54 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 15:22:07 -0700 (PDT), the followingSo when person X participates, it's due to a virtuous if perhaps
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:00:16?PM UTC+1, MarkE wrote:No! Please say it ain't so!
.- Pathological need to teach
- spotted someone being wrong on the internet
- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC
pathological need to teach, and when person Y participates, it's due >>> >>> to a mindless reaction to someone being wrong on the internet. Yet
another case of not what is said but who says it.
But in both cases it was me who said it?
So I read Bob's reply as a humorous: "what, something false on the Internet?
Incredible! Please tell me it ain't so, and that everything on the webs is truth itself"
Internet? Well, then, it *must* be correct!"); I'm glad at
least *you* understood.
and
"Someone is wrong on the Internet."
are contradictory claims, and so not the same thing.
More to the point, you regularly criticize others for reacting to
someone being wrong on the Internet, even as you regularly react to
someone being wrong on the Internet. All of which make your comments
above a self-parody.
Let's review. Burkhard answer "why do you post here?" with
- Pathological need to teach
- spotted someone being wrong on the internet
- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC
It's that mix of sincere, smart, and funny that some of us like.
Let me completely ruin it. The first is self-awareness but borders on >>pomposity which makes a fella feel uncomfortable. The 'pathological'
takes the edge off. The second line of course references a classic
comic drawing, someone is calling you to join then in bed but you say
you can't because someone is wrong on the internet. This is full on >>self-deprecation, laughing at oneself and their reasons for spewing
forth on usenet. Then it's followed by a semi-oblique reference to >>Socrates, and his ultimate fate. It's a 7 layer cake in just 3 lines,
and in that it adds frosting on top about enjoying inside jokes even
if few get them but appreciating that some few readers might.
That was the set-up.
Bob responds to show some appreciation. No idea if he saw it in
the layers I saw it, or if Burkhard intended all the layering I perceive, >>but he appreciated at least some of the humor. Liking humor, he
gave a bit of positive re-enforcement. He does that, even if it's just
to groan at especially bad puns when he doesn't even have a bad
pun to toss back.
Then, we get your response. You uncorked something that seems
like bottled up frustration, only not clear when it gets bottled up. >>Apparently the "someone's wrong on the internet" is a trigger line
as you feel it's been unfairly directed at you at times in criticism.
Frankly, I think we should all have that comic printed out and taped
next to our monitors. If I were more creative, I'd build a tool that would >>have it pop up on screen every time someone clicks to send a post.
It would fill you screen, pause for 3 seconds --- which is actually a
very long time --- and then put up an "Are you sure???" overlay.
It would be customizable so people could add in a few more layers
of "Are you sure?" with messages like "is the asshole worth it?",
"does anybody else care?", "does anyone whose opinion you value
not already know?", "he'll probably enjoy it", and for myself in particular, >>"you're not as funny as you imagine." noli turbare circulos meos.
I appreciate your good intentions in trying to defuse the unnecessary
aggro that pollutes TO but I think that ignoring the religious aspect,
the Serenity Prayer is a worthwhile reminder alongside the comic
strip.
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 09:27:38 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:.
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 11:10:18?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 09:04:06 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 00:34:03 -0700 (PDT), the following"If it's on the Internet is must be correct."
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 7:50:16?AM UTC+1, jillery wrote:And that's exactly how it was meant ("You saw it on the
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 18:59:54 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 15:22:07 -0700 (PDT), the followingSo when person X participates, it's due to a virtuous if perhaps
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:00:16?PM UTC+1, MarkE wrote:No! Please say it ain't so!
.- Pathological need to teach
- spotted someone being wrong on the internet
- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC
pathological need to teach, and when person Y participates, it's due >> >>> to a mindless reaction to someone being wrong on the internet. Yet
another case of not what is said but who says it.
But in both cases it was me who said it?
So I read Bob's reply as a humorous: "what, something false on the Internet?
Incredible! Please tell me it ain't so, and that everything on the webs is truth itself"
Internet? Well, then, it *must* be correct!"); I'm glad at
least *you* understood.
and
"Someone is wrong on the Internet."
are contradictory claims, and so not the same thing.
More to the point, you regularly criticize others for reacting to
someone being wrong on the Internet, even as you regularly react to
someone being wrong on the Internet. All of which make your comments
above a self-parody.
Let's review. Burkhard answer "why do you post here?" with
- Pathological need to teach
- spotted someone being wrong on the internet
- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC
It's that mix of sincere, smart, and funny that some of us like.It isn't the first time. It almost certainly won't be the last.
Let me completely ruin it.
The first is self-awareness but borders on
pomposity which makes a fella feel uncomfortable. The 'pathological'
takes the edge off. The second line of course references a classic
comic drawing, someone is calling you to join then in bed but you say
you can't because someone is wrong on the internet. This is full on >self-deprecation, laughing at oneself and their reasons for spewing
forth on usenet. Then it's followed by a semi-oblique reference to >Socrates, and his ultimate fate. It's a 7 layer cake in just 3 lines,
and in that it adds frosting on top about enjoying inside jokes even
if few get them but appreciating that some few readers might.
That was the set-up.
Bob responds to show some appreciation. No idea if he saw it in
the layers I saw it, or if Burkhard intended all the layering I perceive, >but he appreciated at least some of the humor. Liking humor, he
gave a bit of positive re-enforcement. He does that, even if it's just
to groan at especially bad puns when he doesn't even have a bad
pun to toss back.
Then, we get your response. You uncorked something that seemsHere's a deal; you let me worry about bottling up my frustrations, and
like bottled up frustration, only not clear when it gets bottled up.
I'll let you worry about bottling up yours.
Apparently the "someone's wrong on the internet" is a trigger line
as you feel it's been unfairly directed at you at times in criticism.
Frankly, I think we should all have that comic printed out and taped
next to our monitors. If I were more creative, I'd build a tool that would >have it pop up on screen every time someone clicks to send a post.
It would fill you screen, pause for 3 seconds --- which is actually a
very long time --- and then put up an "Are you sure???" overlay.
It would be customizable so people could add in a few more layers
of "Are you sure?" with messages like "is the asshole worth it?",
"does anybody else care?", "does anyone whose opinion you value
not already know?", "he'll probably enjoy it", and for myself in particular,
"you're not as funny as you imagine." noli turbare circulos meos.
Your comments above are you reacting to me being wrong on the.
Interact, even as you criticize me for reacting to Bob for being wrong
on the Internet. What would be great would be if there was a device
that detected when you post comments like yours, and before you hit
"send", would put up a mirror in front of your face.
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 1:15:17?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 09:27:38 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett.
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 11:10:18?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:It isn't the first time. It almost certainly won't be the last.
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 09:04:06 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 00:34:03 -0700 (PDT), the following"If it's on the Internet is must be correct."
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 7:50:16?AM UTC+1, jillery wrote:And that's exactly how it was meant ("You saw it on the
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 18:59:54 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> >> >> >>> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 15:22:07 -0700 (PDT), the followingSo when person X participates, it's due to a virtuous if perhaps
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:00:16?PM UTC+1, MarkE wrote:No! Please say it ain't so!
.- Pathological need to teach
- spotted someone being wrong on the internet
- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC
pathological need to teach, and when person Y participates, it's due >> >> >>> to a mindless reaction to someone being wrong on the internet. Yet >> >> >>> another case of not what is said but who says it.
But in both cases it was me who said it?
So I read Bob's reply as a humorous: "what, something false on the Internet?
Incredible! Please tell me it ain't so, and that everything on the webs is truth itself"
Internet? Well, then, it *must* be correct!"); I'm glad at
least *you* understood.
and
"Someone is wrong on the Internet."
are contradictory claims, and so not the same thing.
More to the point, you regularly criticize others for reacting to
someone being wrong on the Internet, even as you regularly react to
someone being wrong on the Internet. All of which make your comments
above a self-parody.
Let's review. Burkhard answer "why do you post here?" with
- Pathological need to teach
- spotted someone being wrong on the internet
- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC
It's that mix of sincere, smart, and funny that some of us like.
Let me completely ruin it.
The first is self-awareness but borders onHere's a deal; you let me worry about bottling up my frustrations, and
pomposity which makes a fella feel uncomfortable. The 'pathological'
takes the edge off. The second line of course references a classic
comic drawing, someone is calling you to join then in bed but you say
you can't because someone is wrong on the internet. This is full on
self-deprecation, laughing at oneself and their reasons for spewing
forth on usenet. Then it's followed by a semi-oblique reference to
Socrates, and his ultimate fate. It's a 7 layer cake in just 3 lines,
and in that it adds frosting on top about enjoying inside jokes even
if few get them but appreciating that some few readers might.
That was the set-up.
Bob responds to show some appreciation. No idea if he saw it in
the layers I saw it, or if Burkhard intended all the layering I perceive, >> >but he appreciated at least some of the humor. Liking humor, he
gave a bit of positive re-enforcement. He does that, even if it's just
to groan at especially bad puns when he doesn't even have a bad
pun to toss back.
Then, we get your response. You uncorked something that seems
like bottled up frustration, only not clear when it gets bottled up.
I'll let you worry about bottling up yours.
Apparently the "someone's wrong on the internet" is a trigger line
as you feel it's been unfairly directed at you at times in criticism.
Frankly, I think we should all have that comic printed out and taped
next to our monitors. If I were more creative, I'd build a tool that would >> >have it pop up on screen every time someone clicks to send a post.
It would fill you screen, pause for 3 seconds --- which is actually a
very long time --- and then put up an "Are you sure???" overlay.
It would be customizable so people could add in a few more layers
of "Are you sure?" with messages like "is the asshole worth it?",
"does anybody else care?", "does anyone whose opinion you value
not already know?", "he'll probably enjoy it", and for myself in particular,
"you're not as funny as you imagine." noli turbare circulos meos.
Your comments above are you reacting to me being wrong on the.
Interact, even as you criticize me for reacting to Bob for being wrong
on the Internet. What would be great would be if there was a device
that detected when you post comments like yours, and before you hit
"send", would put up a mirror in front of your face.
Funny thing, I did point the mirror to myself, including myself in the
broad criticism of all talk.origins posters who run the risk of taking >themselves too seriously. Was that not explicit enough? Essentially
nothing in what I wrote there was targeted specifically towards you
beyond the recounting of how we got there, but then I followed with >"frankly, I think we should all ...". The words "we" and "all" seemed >significant to me. Apparently, my writing skills have failed me again.
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 1:25:18 PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
I appreciate your good intentions in trying to defuse the unnecessary
aggro that pollutes TO but I think that ignoring the religious aspect,
the Serenity Prayer is a worthwhile reminder alongside the comic
strip.
Delusions spring eternal.
Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 1:25:18 PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
I appreciate your good intentions in trying to defuse the unnecessary
aggro that pollutes TO but I think that ignoring the religious aspect,
the Serenity Prayer is a worthwhile reminder alongside the comic
strip.
Delusions spring eternal.
What’s delusional about having the serenity to accept the things one cannot
change, courage to change the things one can, and wisdom to know the difference? Martin was alluding to a more secularized version. Maybe not being granted such by a higher power but cultivating such within oneself as other self-help chants run amok.
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 10:47:33 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 1:15:17?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 09:27:38 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett.
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 11:10:18?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:It isn't the first time. It almost certainly won't be the last.
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 09:04:06 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 00:34:03 -0700 (PDT), the following"If it's on the Internet is must be correct."
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 7:50:16?AM UTC+1, jillery wrote:And that's exactly how it was meant ("You saw it on the
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 18:59:54 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 15:22:07 -0700 (PDT), the followingSo when person X participates, it's due to a virtuous if perhaps >>>>>>>> pathological need to teach, and when person Y participates, it's due >>>>>>>> to a mindless reaction to someone being wrong on the internet. Yet >>>>>>>> another case of not what is said but who says it.
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:00:16?PM UTC+1, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> .No! Please say it ain't so!
- Pathological need to teach
- spotted someone being wrong on the internet
- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC
But in both cases it was me who said it?
So I read Bob's reply as a humorous: "what, something false on the Internet?
Incredible! Please tell me it ain't so, and that everything on the >>>>>>> webs is truth itself"
Internet? Well, then, it *must* be correct!"); I'm glad at
least *you* understood.
and
"Someone is wrong on the Internet."
are contradictory claims, and so not the same thing.
More to the point, you regularly criticize others for reacting to
someone being wrong on the Internet, even as you regularly react to
someone being wrong on the Internet. All of which make your comments >>>>> above a self-parody.
Let's review. Burkhard answer "why do you post here?" with
- Pathological need to teach
- spotted someone being wrong on the internet
- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC
It's that mix of sincere, smart, and funny that some of us like.
Let me completely ruin it.
The first is self-awareness but borders onHere's a deal; you let me worry about bottling up my frustrations, and
pomposity which makes a fella feel uncomfortable. The 'pathological'
takes the edge off. The second line of course references a classic
comic drawing, someone is calling you to join then in bed but you say
you can't because someone is wrong on the internet. This is full on
self-deprecation, laughing at oneself and their reasons for spewing
forth on usenet. Then it's followed by a semi-oblique reference to
Socrates, and his ultimate fate. It's a 7 layer cake in just 3 lines,
and in that it adds frosting on top about enjoying inside jokes even
if few get them but appreciating that some few readers might.
That was the set-up.
Bob responds to show some appreciation. No idea if he saw it in
the layers I saw it, or if Burkhard intended all the layering I perceive, >>>> but he appreciated at least some of the humor. Liking humor, he
gave a bit of positive re-enforcement. He does that, even if it's just >>>> to groan at especially bad puns when he doesn't even have a bad
pun to toss back.
Then, we get your response. You uncorked something that seems
like bottled up frustration, only not clear when it gets bottled up.
I'll let you worry about bottling up yours.
Apparently the "someone's wrong on the internet" is a trigger line
as you feel it's been unfairly directed at you at times in criticism.
Frankly, I think we should all have that comic printed out and taped
next to our monitors. If I were more creative, I'd build a tool that would >>>> have it pop up on screen every time someone clicks to send a post.
It would fill you screen, pause for 3 seconds --- which is actually a
very long time --- and then put up an "Are you sure???" overlay.
It would be customizable so people could add in a few more layers
of "Are you sure?" with messages like "is the asshole worth it?",
"does anybody else care?", "does anyone whose opinion you value
not already know?", "he'll probably enjoy it", and for myself in particular,
"you're not as funny as you imagine." noli turbare circulos meos.
Your comments above are you reacting to me being wrong on the.
Interact, even as you criticize me for reacting to Bob for being wrong
on the Internet. What would be great would be if there was a device
that detected when you post comments like yours, and before you hit
"send", would put up a mirror in front of your face.
Funny thing, I did point the mirror to myself, including myself in the
broad criticism of all talk.origins posters who run the risk of taking
themselves too seriously. Was that not explicit enough? Essentially
nothing in what I wrote there was targeted specifically towards you
beyond the recounting of how we got there, but then I followed with
"frankly, I think we should all ...". The words "we" and "all" seemed
significant to me. Apparently, my writing skills have failed me again.
Funny thing, I recall reading you explicitly and baselessly
criticizing me:
*****************************************
Then, we get your response. You uncorked something that seems
like bottled up frustration, only not clear when it gets bottled up. *****************************************
Apparently, your writing skills correlates with your convenient
amnesia.
Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 1:25:18?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:Whats delusional about having the serenity to accept the things one cannot >change, courage to change the things one can, and wisdom to know the >difference? Martin was alluding to a more secularized version. Maybe not >being granted such by a higher power but cultivating such within oneself as >other self-help chants run amok.
I appreciate your good intentions in trying to defuse the unnecessary
aggro that pollutes TO but I think that ignoring the religious aspect,
the Serenity Prayer is a worthwhile reminder alongside the comic
strip.
Delusions spring eternal.
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 4:20:17?PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 1:25:18?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:Whats delusional about having the serenity to accept the things one cannot >> change, courage to change the things one can, and wisdom to know the
I appreciate your good intentions in trying to defuse the unnecessary
aggro that pollutes TO but I think that ignoring the religious aspect,
the Serenity Prayer is a worthwhile reminder alongside the comic
strip.
Delusions spring eternal.
difference? Martin was alluding to a more secularized version. Maybe not
being granted such by a higher power but cultivating such within oneself as >> other self-help chants run amok.
Follow along with me here.
Accept the things one cannot change.
Hope springs eternal.
Now here comes the tricky part, acknowledge that some hopes are
in fact delusional, then distill it all down. Only do it in reverse.
Admittedly it may have a few too many dots to connect but I figured
the "springs eternal" part would trigger the hope line which is a rather >natural retort to the serenity prayer and it would come together,
at least for some.
My mind works in nearly ineffable ways.
Because (1) there are some people here who write interesting and informative posts and (2) in the process of responding to creationist and ID claims I sometimes get pushed to read up on areas of biology that I do not know much about - for example, Iwould not have read all the literature about long term experimental evolution in E. coli if it weren't for DrDrDrDr Kleinman's bringing it up (and drawing incorrect conclusions from it) and you, and others, have gotten me interested in reading the latest
On 8/26/23 3:20 PM, Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:15:15 PM UTC+1, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 2:00:16 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
.I heard it was a good way to pick up hot chicks.
I was apparently misinformed.
In the TO context, they probably meant hot dinosaurs https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dinosaurs-that-were-secretly-hot_n_560d860ee4b0dd85030b2ddd/amp
Or Jack Chick tracts.
On 8/28/2023 3:04 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 17:36:54 -0500
RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
On 8/26/2023 12:57 PM, MarkE wrote:[]
.I started reading TO back in 1993 because I was curious if there was any >> legitimate creation science. What I learned by reading TO was that
The origin of life is #3 of the Top Six. The Big Bang comes first andThese are all good points, but it seems no-one here is engaging in a debate about it/them.
happened over 13 billion years ago. Fine tuning (#2) was probably done
during the Big Bang, and around 8 billion years later there was a second >> round of fine tuning in order to assemble the elements, that it took 8
billion years of stellar deaths to produce, into a solar system that
could support life on the planet earth. Around 3.8 billion years ago
life arose on this planet (#3). Life was microbial for billions of
years and over a billion years ago the flagellum was designed among the >> microbes that existed at that time (#4). There was a diversification of >> multicellular bilateral animals around half a billion years ago that is >> called the Cambrian explosion (#5). The gaps in the human fossil record >> occur within the last 10 million years of the existence of life on earth >> (#6).
They aren't addressed here because denial is all the IDiotic type creationists have left.
of the Top Six). He is only interested in the denial. He doesn't want
to better understand nature, and what is known about the other Top Six
gaps because if Tour is ever successful in filling the origin of life
gap with a god, it would not be the god of the Bible.
It turned out that the scientific creationists figured out that there
was no science that they wanted to accomplish.
Their geology, age of
the earth, and things like flood geology never panned out in terms of
giving them the answers that they wanted to see, so they essentially
gave up on the science and by their loss in the Supreme Court they only
had obfuscation and denial to sell to the rubes. The god-of-the-gaps
denial was their major effort. They had the Big Bang, Cambrian
explosion, and flagellum as a designed machine long before the ID scam started. The Top Six best evidences for IDiocy were all used by the Scientific Creationists that had come before the ID perps.
The sad thing about the Top Six is that it was all gap denial that the majority of scientific creationists and IDiots have to deny. The
majority of scientific creationists and IDiots are young earth
creationists, and they do not want to believe in any designer
responsible for things that occurred millions or billions of years ago.
Not only that, but they occur in an order inconsistent with a literal reading of the Bible. All the scientific creationists and ID perps
would use the Top Six for was to allow the biblical creationists to lie
to themselves for a brief moment and then forget that argument and move
on to the next bit of denial. When the ID perps put them up as a
related group, and in their order of how they must have occurred in this reality, they killed IDiocy on TO. There just are not many IDiotic type biblical creationists that can deal with the science of the Top Six and
what it tells them about the creation.
It turned out that there was never any science that IDiotic creationists ever wanted to accomplish. Any success would have just been more
science that they had to deny.
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 4:20:17 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 1:25:18 PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:What’s delusional about having the serenity to accept the things one cannot
I appreciate your good intentions in trying to defuse the unnecessary
aggro that pollutes TO but I think that ignoring the religious aspect, >>>> the Serenity Prayer is a worthwhile reminder alongside the comic
strip.
Delusions spring eternal.
change, courage to change the things one can, and wisdom to know the
difference? Martin was alluding to a more secularized version. Maybe not
being granted such by a higher power but cultivating such within oneself as >> other self-help chants run amok.
Follow along with me here.
Accept the things one cannot change.
Hope springs eternal.
Now here comes the tricky part, acknowledge that some hopes are
in fact delusional, then distill it all down. Only do it in reverse.
Admittedly it may have a few too many dots to connect but I figured
the "springs eternal" part would trigger the hope line which is a rather natural retort to the serenity prayer and it would come together,
at least for some. My mind works in nearly ineffable ways.
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 20:16:29 +0000, *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 1:25:18?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:Whats delusional about having the serenity to accept the things one cannot >> change, courage to change the things one can, and wisdom to know the
I appreciate your good intentions in trying to defuse the unnecessary
aggro that pollutes TO but I think that ignoring the religious aspect, >>>> the Serenity Prayer is a worthwhile reminder alongside the comic
strip.
Delusions spring eternal.
difference? Martin was alluding to a more secularized version. Maybe not
being granted such by a higher power but cultivating such within oneself as >> other self-help chants run amok.
FWIW, I read his response as simply akin to the frog delusionally
hoping the scorpion might be able to control its stinging instinct.
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 13:48:56 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 4:20:17?PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 1:25:18?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:Whats delusional about having the serenity to accept the things one cannot
I appreciate your good intentions in trying to defuse the unnecessary >>>>> aggro that pollutes TO but I think that ignoring the religious aspect, >>>>> the Serenity Prayer is a worthwhile reminder alongside the comic
strip.
Delusions spring eternal.
change, courage to change the things one can, and wisdom to know the
difference? Martin was alluding to a more secularized version. Maybe not >>> being granted such by a higher power but cultivating such within oneself as >>> other self-help chants run amok.
Follow along with me here.
Accept the things one cannot change.
Hope springs eternal.
Now here comes the tricky part, acknowledge that some hopes are
in fact delusional, then distill it all down. Only do it in reverse.
Admittedly it may have a few too many dots to connect but I figured
the "springs eternal" part would trigger the hope line which is a rather
natural retort to the serenity prayer and it would come together,
at least for some.
For me, "the wisdom to know the difference" underpins the other two
parts. Badly founded hope can be counter poroductive.
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 6:25:17 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
There’s plenty of the outside world (brute facts or Randroid
“metaphysically given”) that cannot be changed. What is most pliable is how
one chooses to deal with that world, though parts of ones psychic makeup
are pretty much set in stone (or stone age) or second nature forces of
habit. To the degree one can, one might change their ways of dealing with
the outwardly unchangeable as the latter won’t budge. I kinda lost myself >> here (you too?), but will close with Kant’s dictum that ought implies can.
https://br.ifunny.co/picture/had-the-right-to-remain-silent-but-i-didn-thave-tRw7LfFu9
There’s plenty of the outside world (brute facts or Randroid “metaphysically given”) that cannot be changed. What is most pliable is how
one chooses to deal with that world, though parts of ones psychic makeup
are pretty much set in stone (or stone age) or second nature forces of habit. To the degree one can, one might change their ways of dealing with the outwardly unchangeable as the latter won’t budge. I kinda lost myself here (you too?), but will close with Kant’s dictum that ought implies can.
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 6:55:17 AM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
On 8/28/2023 3:04 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 17:36:54 -0500They aren't addressed here because denial is all the IDiotic type
RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
On 8/26/2023 12:57 PM, MarkE wrote:[]
.I started reading TO back in 1993 because I was curious if there was any >>>> legitimate creation science. What I learned by reading TO was that
The origin of life is #3 of the Top Six. The Big Bang comes first andThese are all good points, but it seems no-one here is engaging in a
happened over 13 billion years ago. Fine tuning (#2) was probably done >>>> during the Big Bang, and around 8 billion years later there was a second >>>> round of fine tuning in order to assemble the elements, that it took 8 >>>> billion years of stellar deaths to produce, into a solar system that
could support life on the planet earth. Around 3.8 billion years ago
life arose on this planet (#3). Life was microbial for billions of
years and over a billion years ago the flagellum was designed among the >>>> microbes that existed at that time (#4). There was a diversification of >>>> multicellular bilateral animals around half a billion years ago that is >>>> called the Cambrian explosion (#5). The gaps in the human fossil record >>>> occur within the last 10 million years of the existence of life on earth >>>> (#6).
debate about it/them.
creationists have left.
More to the point: YOU aren't interested in debating them.
YOUR interest in them is a bunch of speculation about
the reasons why MarkE and Glenn and Kalkidas
don't want to support all six of them at once.
Look at MarkE's use of the origin of life (#3
of the Top Six). He is only interested in the denial. He doesn't want
to better understand nature, and what is known about the other Top Six
gaps because if Tour is ever successful in filling the origin of life
gap with a god, it would not be the god of the Bible.
The God of the Bible has many interpreters. Augustine already
made fun of some stories of Genesis before the time of Abraham.
Like many Christians, he was only interested in the OT in places where
it was relevant to the NT.
The Catholic Church is a big tent which includes Thomists
on the one hand and Michael Behe on the other.
Behe is happy with all the top six, especially #4,
while the Thomists don't like the top six for reasons almost diametrically opposed to the reasons you imagine that MarkE, Glenn, and Kalkidas dislike them.
Personally, I don't think any of these three dislike them. I think they
don't want to discuss "the top six" with YOU because of the hate-driven
way you treat them.
It turned out that the scientific creationists figured out that there
was no science that they wanted to accomplish.
They have nothing to do with the scientific side of ID exemplified
by Behe and even Stephen Meyer, and are therefore straw men
where meaningful discussion of ID is concerned.
Their geology, age of
the earth, and things like flood geology never panned out in terms of
giving them the answers that they wanted to see, so they essentially
gave up on the science and by their loss in the Supreme Court they only
had obfuscation and denial to sell to the rubes. The god-of-the-gaps
denial was their major effort. They had the Big Bang, Cambrian
explosion, and flagellum as a designed machine long before the ID scam
started. The Top Six best evidences for IDiocy were all used by the
Scientific Creationists that had come before the ID perps.
In what you say next, you have to be referring to six articles
in Evolution News which INTRODUCE six topics. If you
mean the six topics they introduce, then you lie every
time you call an article in Evolution News that discusses one or more of them "second rate denial compared to the Top Six."
The sad thing about the Top Six is that it was all gap denial that the
majority of scientific creationists and IDiots have to deny. The
majority of scientific creationists and IDiots are young earth
creationists, and they do not want to believe in any designer
responsible for things that occurred millions or billions of years ago.
Not only that, but they occur in an order inconsistent with a literal
reading of the Bible. All the scientific creationists and ID perps
would use the Top Six for was to allow the biblical creationists to lie
to themselves for a brief moment and then forget that argument and move
on to the next bit of denial. When the ID perps put them up as a
related group, and in their order of how they must have occurred in this
reality, they killed IDiocy on TO. There just are not many IDiotic type
biblical creationists that can deal with the science of the Top Six and
what it tells them about the creation.
It turned out that there was never any science that IDiotic creationists
ever wanted to accomplish. Any success would have just been more
science that they had to deny.
Behe is not a creationist. He even argues for common descent
in _The Edge of Evolution_ and _Darwin Devolves_. These two
books don't even mention Irreducible Complexity (IC) but
talk about much more mainstream science.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On 8/28/2023 2:56 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 6:55:17 AM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
On 8/28/2023 3:04 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 17:36:54 -0500They aren't addressed here because denial is all the IDiotic type
RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
On 8/26/2023 12:57 PM, MarkE wrote:[]
.I started reading TO back in 1993 because I was curious if there was any >>>>> legitimate creation science. What I learned by reading TO was that
The origin of life is #3 of the Top Six. The Big Bang comes first and >>>>> happened over 13 billion years ago. Fine tuning (#2) was probably done >>>>> during the Big Bang, and around 8 billion years later there was a second >>>>> round of fine tuning in order to assemble the elements, that it took 8 >>>>> billion years of stellar deaths to produce, into a solar system that >>>>> could support life on the planet earth. Around 3.8 billion years ago >>>>> life arose on this planet (#3). Life was microbial for billions ofThese are all good points, but it seems no-one here is engaging in a
years and over a billion years ago the flagellum was designed among the >>>>> microbes that existed at that time (#4). There was a diversification of >>>>> multicellular bilateral animals around half a billion years ago that is >>>>> called the Cambrian explosion (#5). The gaps in the human fossil record >>>>> occur within the last 10 million years of the existence of life on earth >>>>> (#6).
debate about it/them.
creationists have left.
More to the point: YOU aren't interested in debating them.
YOUR interest in them is a bunch of speculation about
the reasons why MarkE and Glenn and Kalkidas
don't want to support all six of them at once.
Look at MarkE's use of the origin of life (#3
of the Top Six). He is only interested in the denial. He doesn't want
to better understand nature, and what is known about the other Top Six
gaps because if Tour is ever successful in filling the origin of life
gap with a god, it would not be the god of the Bible.
The God of the Bible has many interpreters. Augustine already
made fun of some stories of Genesis before the time of Abraham.
Like many Christians, he was only interested in the OT in places where
it was relevant to the NT.
The Catholic Church is a big tent which includes Thomists
on the one hand and Michael Behe on the other.
Behe is happy with all the top six, especially #4,
while the Thomists don't like the top six for reasons almost diametrically >> opposed to the reasons you imagine that MarkE, Glenn, and Kalkidas dislike them.
Personally, I don't think any of these three dislike them. I think they
don't want to discuss "the top six" with YOU because of the hate-driven
way you treat them.
It turned out that the scientific creationists figured out that there
was no science that they wanted to accomplish.
They have nothing to do with the scientific side of ID exemplified
by Behe and even Stephen Meyer, and are therefore straw men
where meaningful discussion of ID is concerned.
Their geology, age of
the earth, and things like flood geology never panned out in terms of
giving them the answers that they wanted to see, so they essentially
gave up on the science and by their loss in the Supreme Court they only
had obfuscation and denial to sell to the rubes. The god-of-the-gaps
denial was their major effort. They had the Big Bang, Cambrian
explosion, and flagellum as a designed machine long before the ID scam
started. The Top Six best evidences for IDiocy were all used by the
Scientific Creationists that had come before the ID perps.
In what you say next, you have to be referring to six articles
in Evolution News which INTRODUCE six topics. If you
mean the six topics they introduce, then you lie every
time you call an article in Evolution News that discusses one or more of them
"second rate denial compared to the Top Six."
The sad thing about the Top Six is that it was all gap denial that the
majority of scientific creationists and IDiots have to deny. The
majority of scientific creationists and IDiots are young earth
creationists, and they do not want to believe in any designer
responsible for things that occurred millions or billions of years ago.
Not only that, but they occur in an order inconsistent with a literal
reading of the Bible. All the scientific creationists and ID perps
would use the Top Six for was to allow the biblical creationists to lie
to themselves for a brief moment and then forget that argument and move
on to the next bit of denial. When the ID perps put them up as a
related group, and in their order of how they must have occurred in this >>> reality, they killed IDiocy on TO. There just are not many IDiotic type
biblical creationists that can deal with the science of the Top Six and
what it tells them about the creation.
It turned out that there was never any science that IDiotic creationists >>> ever wanted to accomplish. Any success would have just been more
science that they had to deny.
Behe is not a creationist. He even argues for common descent
in _The Edge of Evolution_ and _Darwin Devolves_. These two
books don't even mention Irreducible Complexity (IC) but
talk about much more mainstream science.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
I have little interest in the "Top Six". The ever-expanding vocabulary
of the pseudo-science of evolution is only a smoke and mirrors cover-up intended to draw attention away from the philosophical dead-end of
Darwinism and all its materialistic cousins.
Philosophy rules science.
If that order is reversed, you get
totalitarian monsters like Dr. Fauci.
On 8/28/2023 2:56 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 6:55:17 AM UTC-4, RonO wrote:
On 8/28/2023 3:04 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 17:36:54 -0500They aren't addressed here because denial is all the IDiotic type
RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
On 8/26/2023 12:57 PM, MarkE wrote:[]
.I started reading TO back in 1993 because I was curious if there
was any
legitimate creation science. What I learned by reading TO was that
The origin of life is #3 of the Top Six. The Big Bang comes first and >>>>> happened over 13 billion years ago. Fine tuning (#2) was probably done >>>>> during the Big Bang, and around 8 billion years later there was aThese are all good points, but it seems no-one here is engaging in a
second
round of fine tuning in order to assemble the elements, that it took 8 >>>>> billion years of stellar deaths to produce, into a solar system that >>>>> could support life on the planet earth. Around 3.8 billion years ago >>>>> life arose on this planet (#3). Life was microbial for billions of
years and over a billion years ago the flagellum was designed among
the
microbes that existed at that time (#4). There was a
diversification of
multicellular bilateral animals around half a billion years ago
that is
called the Cambrian explosion (#5). The gaps in the human fossil
record
occur within the last 10 million years of the existence of life on
earth
(#6).
debate about it/them.
creationists have left.
More to the point: YOU aren't interested in debating them.
YOUR interest in them is a bunch of speculation about
the reasons why MarkE and Glenn and Kalkidas
don't want to support all six of them at once.
Look at MarkE's use of the origin of life (#3
of the Top Six). He is only interested in the denial. He doesn't want
to better understand nature, and what is known about the other Top Six
gaps because if Tour is ever successful in filling the origin of life
gap with a god, it would not be the god of the Bible.
The God of the Bible has many interpreters. Augustine already
made fun of some stories of Genesis before the time of Abraham.
Like many Christians, he was only interested in the OT in places where
it was relevant to the NT.
The Catholic Church is a big tent which includes Thomists
on the one hand and Michael Behe on the other.
Behe is happy with all the top six, especially #4,
while the Thomists don't like the top six for reasons almost
diametrically
opposed to the reasons you imagine that MarkE, Glenn, and Kalkidas
dislike them.
Personally, I don't think any of these three dislike them. I think they
don't want to discuss "the top six" with YOU because of the hate-driven
way you treat them.
It turned out that the scientific creationists figured out that there
was no science that they wanted to accomplish.
They have nothing to do with the scientific side of ID exemplified
by Behe and even Stephen Meyer, and are therefore straw men
where meaningful discussion of ID is concerned.
Their geology, age of
the earth, and things like flood geology never panned out in terms of
giving them the answers that they wanted to see, so they essentially
gave up on the science and by their loss in the Supreme Court they only
had obfuscation and denial to sell to the rubes. The god-of-the-gaps
denial was their major effort. They had the Big Bang, Cambrian
explosion, and flagellum as a designed machine long before the ID scam
started. The Top Six best evidences for IDiocy were all used by the
Scientific Creationists that had come before the ID perps.
In what you say next, you have to be referring to six articles
in Evolution News which INTRODUCE six topics. If you
mean the six topics they introduce, then you lie every
time you call an article in Evolution News that discusses one or more
of them
"second rate denial compared to the Top Six."
The sad thing about the Top Six is that it was all gap denial that the
majority of scientific creationists and IDiots have to deny. The
majority of scientific creationists and IDiots are young earth
creationists, and they do not want to believe in any designer
responsible for things that occurred millions or billions of years ago.
Not only that, but they occur in an order inconsistent with a literal
reading of the Bible. All the scientific creationists and ID perps
would use the Top Six for was to allow the biblical creationists to lie
to themselves for a brief moment and then forget that argument and move
on to the next bit of denial. When the ID perps put them up as a
related group, and in their order of how they must have occurred in this >>> reality, they killed IDiocy on TO. There just are not many IDiotic type
biblical creationists that can deal with the science of the Top Six and
what it tells them about the creation.
It turned out that there was never any science that IDiotic creationists >>> ever wanted to accomplish. Any success would have just been more
science that they had to deny.
Behe is not a creationist. He even argues for common descent
in _The Edge of Evolution_ and _Darwin Devolves_. These two
books don't even mention Irreducible Complexity (IC) but
talk about much more mainstream science.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
I have little interest in the "Top Six". The ever-expanding vocabulary
of the pseudo-science of evolution is only a smoke and mirrors cover-up intended to draw attention away from the philosophical dead-end of
Darwinism and all its materialistic cousins.
Philosophy rules science. If that order is reversed, you get
totalitarian monsters like Dr. Fauci.
Mark Isaak <specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
I started out of interest in biology and religious religion and their intersection. I stayed to learn a lot (on diverse topics, including
many having nothing to do with origins) and to hone my writing skills.
I continue to stay for that, for the community, and out of habit.
And you wrote a talk.origins adjacent book more in tune with the Golden Age of the group.
Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 6:25:17 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
There’s plenty of the outside world (brute facts or Randroid
“metaphysically given”) that cannot be changed. What is most pliable is how
one chooses to deal with that world, though parts of ones psychic makeup >> are pretty much set in stone (or stone age) or second nature forces of
habit. To the degree one can, one might change their ways of dealing with >> the outwardly unchangeable as the latter won’t budge. I kinda lost myself
here (you too?), but will close with Kant’s dictum that ought implies can.
https://br.ifunny.co/picture/had-the-right-to-remain-silent-but-i-didn-thave-tRw7LfFu9
I could ... perceive a slight where you are using that
Ron White joke as a veiled means of saying I should shut up. Or I could apply the rule to interpret in the best light and realize the joke aligns well with Kant’s dictum. I opt for the latter. Plus I lack the stamina to turn this into a neverending subthread about my bruised ego. I do
appreciate me some Blue Collar comedy, but am more a fan of Bill Engvall.
On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 21:00:16 UTC+3, MarkE wrote:
.Because evidence of existence of whatever supernatural has always interested me.
Mainly because by my understanding the life of our grandchildren will apparently become
quite crappy and they might need extra aid. Unfortunately nothing comes up ever.
I have read scriptures of various religions, but these seem indistinguishable from
man-written fairy tales. Also requirement to believe without questioning is impossible
to fulfill in world where big part of phone calls and mails one receives is scam.
Various televangelists and psychics claiming having paranormal abilities and contact
with supernatural have been shown to be charlatans and stage magicians. Scientists like James Tour or Michael Behe promise to find evidence of something
supernatural but then point only at gaps in naturalist explanations.
The "evidence" like interesting properties of water or unclear origins of petroleum
are not indication of supernatural activities, just our ignorance.
But if something comes up I'm sure it will be discussed here.
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 11:10:18 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 09:04:06 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 00:34:03 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
"If it's on the Internet is must be correct."On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 7:50:16?AM UTC+1, jillery wrote:And that's exactly how it was meant ("You saw it on the
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 18:59:54 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 15:22:07 -0700 (PDT), the followingSo when person X participates, it's due to a virtuous if perhaps
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:00:16?PM UTC+1, MarkE wrote:No! Please say it ain't so!
.- Pathological need to teach
- spotted someone being wrong on the internet
- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC
pathological need to teach, and when person Y participates, it's due >>> to a mindless reaction to someone being wrong on the internet. Yet
another case of not what is said but who says it.
But in both cases it was me who said it?
So I read Bob's reply as a humorous: "what, something false on the Internet?
Incredible! Please tell me it ain't so, and that everything on the webs is truth itself"
Internet? Well, then, it *must* be correct!"); I'm glad at
least *you* understood.
and
"Someone is wrong on the Internet."
are contradictory claims, and so not the same thing.
More to the point, you regularly criticize others for reacting to
someone being wrong on the Internet, even as you regularly react to someone being wrong on the Internet. All of which make your comments
above a self-parody.
Let's review. Burkhard answer "why do you post here?" with
- Pathological need to teach
- spotted someone being wrong on the internet
- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC
It's that mix of sincere, smart, and funny that some of us like.
Let me completely ruin it.
The first is self-awareness but borders on
pomposity which makes a fella feel uncomfortable. The 'pathological'
takes the edge off.
The second line of course references a classic
comic drawing, someone is calling you to join then in bed but you say
you can't because someone is wrong on the internet.
This is full on
self-deprecation, laughing at oneself and their reasons for spewing
forth on usenet. Then it's followed by a semi-oblique reference to
Socrates, and his ultimate fate.
It's a 7 layer cake in just 3 lines,
and in that it adds frosting on top about enjoying inside jokes even
if few get them but appreciating that some few readers might.
That was the set-up.
Bob responds to show some appreciation. No idea if he saw it in
the layers I saw it, or if Burkhard intended all the layering I perceive, but he appreciated at least some of the humor. Liking humor, he
gave a bit of positive re-enforcement. He does that, even if it's just
to groan at especially bad puns when he doesn't even have a bad
pun to toss back.
Then, we get your response. You uncorked something that seems
like bottled up frustration, only not clear when it gets bottled up. Apparently the "someone's wrong on the internet" is a trigger line
as you feel it's been unfairly directed at you at times in criticism.
Frankly, I think we should all have that comic printed out and taped
next to our monitors. If I were more creative, I'd build a tool that would have it pop up on screen every time someone clicks to send a post.
It would fill you screen, pause for 3 seconds --- which is actually a
very long time --- and then put up an "Are you sure???" overlay.
It would be customizable so people could add in a few more layers
of "Are you sure?" with messages like "is the asshole worth it?",
"does anybody else care?", "does anyone whose opinion you value
not already know?", "he'll probably enjoy it", and for myself in particular, "you're not as funny as you imagine."
noli turbare circulos meos.
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 3:05:16 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 21:00:16 UTC+3, MarkE wrote:
.Because evidence of existence of whatever supernatural has always interested me.
Mainly because by my understanding the life of our grandchildren will apparently become
quite crappy and they might need extra aid. Unfortunately nothing comes up ever.
It exists nonetheless; keep reading.
I have read scriptures of various religions, but these seem indistinguishable from
man-written fairy tales. Also requirement to believe without questioning is impossible
to fulfill in world where big part of phone calls and mails one receives is scam.
Various televangelists and psychics claiming having paranormal abilities and contact
with supernatural have been shown to be charlatans and stage magicians.
Scientists like James Tour or Michael Behe promise to find evidence of something
supernatural but then point only at gaps in naturalist explanations.
The "evidence" like interesting properties of water or unclear origins of petroleum
are not indication of supernatural activities, just our ignorance.
But if something comes up I'm sure it will be discussed here.
It has been, but it is easy to miss the few posts that really address it here.
Here is something that condenses a lot of what I've written here over the years:
The "fine tuning" of the fundamental constants of our universe forces atheists
[and all people who think deeply of the ultimate questions of our existence]
to choose between a multiverse containing an inconceivably large number of universes,
and a Designer of our physical universe.
By "fine tuning" is meant the incredibly small tolerance of the fundamental constants for the existence of life,
and even more so for intelligent life. You can read about it in the superb and quite readable book, _Just Six Numbers_,
by Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal of England.
On 8/28/23 6:40 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 3:05:16?AM UTC-4, Tiib wrote:
On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 21:00:16 UTC+3, MarkE wrote:
.Because evidence of existence of whatever supernatural has always interested me.
Mainly because by my understanding the life of our grandchildren will apparently become
quite crappy and they might need extra aid. Unfortunately nothing comes up ever.
It exists nonetheless; keep reading.
I have read scriptures of various religions, but these seem indistinguishable from
man-written fairy tales. Also requirement to believe without questioning is impossible
to fulfill in world where big part of phone calls and mails one receives is scam.
Various televangelists and psychics claiming having paranormal abilities and contact
with supernatural have been shown to be charlatans and stage magicians.
Scientists like James Tour or Michael Behe promise to find evidence of something
supernatural but then point only at gaps in naturalist explanations.
The "evidence" like interesting properties of water or unclear origins of petroleum
are not indication of supernatural activities, just our ignorance.
But if something comes up I'm sure it will be discussed here.
It has been, but it is easy to miss the few posts that really address it here.
Here is something that condenses a lot of what I've written here over the years:
The "fine tuning" of the fundamental constants of our universe forces atheists
[and all people who think deeply of the ultimate questions of our existence] >> to choose between a multiverse containing an inconceivably large number of universes,
and a Designer of our physical universe.
By "fine tuning" is meant the incredibly small tolerance of the fundamental constants for the existence of life,
and even more so for intelligent life. You can read about it in the superb and quite readable book, _Just Six Numbers_,
by Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal of England.
That fine tuning argument impresses only people who don't understand >probability. They ask, "What is the probability of a universe that
could support us?" and get a very small probability, but the relevant >question is really, "What is the probability of a universe that could
support us, given that we are here in the universe to ask the
question?", and the answer to that is 1.
The second line of course references a classic
comic drawing, someone is calling you to join then in bed but you say
you can't because someone is wrong on the internet.
Yup, I saw that one when it came out. From the looks of it, jillery
may have missed it.
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 13:48:56 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett ><j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 4:20:17?PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 1:25:18?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:What’s delusional about having the serenity to accept the things one cannot
I appreciate your good intentions in trying to defuse the unnecessary >>> >> aggro that pollutes TO but I think that ignoring the religious aspect, >>> >> the Serenity Prayer is a worthwhile reminder alongside the comic
strip.
Delusions spring eternal.
change, courage to change the things one can, and wisdom to know the
difference? Martin was alluding to a more secularized version. Maybe not >>> being granted such by a higher power but cultivating such within oneself as
other self-help chants run amok.
Follow along with me here.
Accept the things one cannot change.
Hope springs eternal.
Now here comes the tricky part, acknowledge that some hopes are
in fact delusional, then distill it all down. Only do it in reverse.
Admittedly it may have a few too many dots to connect but I figured
the "springs eternal" part would trigger the hope line which is a rather >>natural retort to the serenity prayer and it would come together,
at least for some.
For me, "the wisdom to know the difference" underpins the other two
parts. Badly founded hope can be counter poroductive.
My mind works in nearly ineffable ways.
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 6:55:18?PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 6:25:17?PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:I could ... perceive a slight where you are using that
There’s plenty of the outside world (brute facts or Randroid
“metaphysically given”) that cannot be changed. What is most pliable is how
one chooses to deal with that world, though parts of ones psychic makeup >> >> are pretty much set in stone (or stone age) or second nature forces of >> >> habit. To the degree one can, one might change their ways of dealing with
the outwardly unchangeable as the latter won’t budge. I kinda lost myself
here (you too?), but will close with Kant’s dictum that ought implies can.
https://br.ifunny.co/picture/had-the-right-to-remain-silent-but-i-didn-thave-tRw7LfFu9
Ron White joke as a veiled means of saying I should shut up. Or I could
apply the rule to interpret in the best light and realize the joke aligns >> well with Kant’s dictum. I opt for the latter. Plus I lack the stamina to >> turn this into a neverending subthread about my bruised ego. I do
appreciate me some Blue Collar comedy, but am more a fan of Bill Engvall.
I don't like doing this but here goes.
Set your ego to rest. I generally like
your contributions. Even the rambled philosophical musings that tempt
me to have flashbacks. If there are some posts I dislike, they are the ones >where you indulge in flaming aholes as aholes, usually because I tend to >agree, realize how unnecessary it is because we already know, and I
am tempted to realize that people probably have a similar reaction
when I let loose. That and most flames are boring. Then again, I try to make >allowances for others and even for myself, as long as there's some rarity
to it all, and an attempt to make it less boring. Now don't ever make me
do this again.
Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 20:16:29 +0000, *Hemidactylus*Good point. Thanks.
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 1:25:18?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:What?s delusional about having the serenity to accept the things one cannot >>> change, courage to change the things one can, and wisdom to know the
I appreciate your good intentions in trying to defuse the unnecessary >>>>> aggro that pollutes TO but I think that ignoring the religious aspect, >>>>> the Serenity Prayer is a worthwhile reminder alongside the comic
strip.
Delusions spring eternal.
difference? Martin was alluding to a more secularized version. Maybe not >>> being granted such by a higher power but cultivating such within oneself as >>> other self-help chants run amok.
FWIW, I read his response as simply akin to the frog delusionally
hoping the scorpion might be able to control its stinging instinct.
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 10:47:33 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer DaggettI let my frustrations get the best of me and go on the occasional f-bomb >tirade but I do have a damper switch. Find yours.
<j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 1:15:17?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 09:27:38 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett.
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 11:10:18?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:It isn't the first time. It almost certainly won't be the last.
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 09:04:06 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> >>>>>> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 00:34:03 -0700 (PDT), the following"If it's on the Internet is must be correct."
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 7:50:16?AM UTC+1, jillery wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 18:59:54 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> >>>>>>>>> wrote:And that's exactly how it was meant ("You saw it on the
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 15:22:07 -0700 (PDT), the followingSo when person X participates, it's due to a virtuous if perhaps >>>>>>>>> pathological need to teach, and when person Y participates, it's due >>>>>>>>> to a mindless reaction to someone being wrong on the internet. Yet >>>>>>>>> another case of not what is said but who says it.
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:00:16?PM UTC+1, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> .No! Please say it ain't so!
- Pathological need to teach
- spotted someone being wrong on the internet
- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC
But in both cases it was me who said it?
So I read Bob's reply as a humorous: "what, something false on the Internet?
Incredible! Please tell me it ain't so, and that everything on the >>>>>>>> webs is truth itself"
Internet? Well, then, it *must* be correct!"); I'm glad at
least *you* understood.
and
"Someone is wrong on the Internet."
are contradictory claims, and so not the same thing.
More to the point, you regularly criticize others for reacting to >>>>>> someone being wrong on the Internet, even as you regularly react to >>>>>> someone being wrong on the Internet. All of which make your comments >>>>>> above a self-parody.
Let's review. Burkhard answer "why do you post here?" with
- Pathological need to teach
- spotted someone being wrong on the internet
- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC
It's that mix of sincere, smart, and funny that some of us like.
Let me completely ruin it.
The first is self-awareness but borders onHere's a deal; you let me worry about bottling up my frustrations, and >>>> I'll let you worry about bottling up yours.
pomposity which makes a fella feel uncomfortable. The 'pathological' >>>>> takes the edge off. The second line of course references a classic
comic drawing, someone is calling you to join then in bed but you say >>>>> you can't because someone is wrong on the internet. This is full on >>>>> self-deprecation, laughing at oneself and their reasons for spewing >>>>> forth on usenet. Then it's followed by a semi-oblique reference to
Socrates, and his ultimate fate. It's a 7 layer cake in just 3 lines, >>>>> and in that it adds frosting on top about enjoying inside jokes even >>>>> if few get them but appreciating that some few readers might.
That was the set-up.
Bob responds to show some appreciation. No idea if he saw it in
the layers I saw it, or if Burkhard intended all the layering I perceive,
but he appreciated at least some of the humor. Liking humor, he
gave a bit of positive re-enforcement. He does that, even if it's just >>>>> to groan at especially bad puns when he doesn't even have a bad
pun to toss back.
Then, we get your response. You uncorked something that seems
like bottled up frustration, only not clear when it gets bottled up.
Apparently the "someone's wrong on the internet" is a trigger line
as you feel it's been unfairly directed at you at times in criticism. >>>>>
Frankly, I think we should all have that comic printed out and taped >>>>> next to our monitors. If I were more creative, I'd build a tool that would
have it pop up on screen every time someone clicks to send a post.
It would fill you screen, pause for 3 seconds --- which is actually a >>>>> very long time --- and then put up an "Are you sure???" overlay.
It would be customizable so people could add in a few more layers
of "Are you sure?" with messages like "is the asshole worth it?",
"does anybody else care?", "does anyone whose opinion you value
not already know?", "he'll probably enjoy it", and for myself in particular,
"you're not as funny as you imagine." noli turbare circulos meos.
Your comments above are you reacting to me being wrong on the.
Interact, even as you criticize me for reacting to Bob for being wrong >>>> on the Internet. What would be great would be if there was a device
that detected when you post comments like yours, and before you hit
"send", would put up a mirror in front of your face.
Funny thing, I did point the mirror to myself, including myself in the
broad criticism of all talk.origins posters who run the risk of taking
themselves too seriously. Was that not explicit enough? Essentially
nothing in what I wrote there was targeted specifically towards you
beyond the recounting of how we got there, but then I followed with
"frankly, I think we should all ...". The words "we" and "all" seemed
significant to me. Apparently, my writing skills have failed me again.
Funny thing, I recall reading you explicitly and baselessly
criticizing me:
*****************************************
Then, we get your response. You uncorked something that seems
like bottled up frustration, only not clear when it gets bottled up.
*****************************************
Apparently, your writing skills correlates with your convenient
amnesia.
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 21:12:45 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
On 8/28/23 6:40 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 3:05:16?AM UTC-4, 嘱 Tiib wrote:
On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 21:00:16 UTC+3, MarkE wrote:
.Because evidence of existence of whatever supernatural has always interested me.
Mainly because by my understanding the life of our grandchildren will apparently become
quite crappy and they might need extra aid. Unfortunately nothing comes up ever.
It exists nonetheless; keep reading.
I have read scriptures of various religions, but these seem indistinguishable from
man-written fairy tales. Also requirement to believe without questioning is impossible
to fulfill in world where big part of phone calls and mails one receives is scam.
Various televangelists and psychics claiming having paranormal abilities and contact
with supernatural have been shown to be charlatans and stage magicians. >>> Scientists like James Tour or Michael Behe promise to find evidence of something
supernatural but then point only at gaps in naturalist explanations.
The "evidence" like interesting properties of water or unclear origins of petroleum
are not indication of supernatural activities, just our ignorance.
But if something comes up I'm sure it will be discussed here.
It has been, but it is easy to miss the few posts that really address it here.
Here is something that condenses a lot of what I've written here over the years:
The "fine tuning" of the fundamental constants of our universe forces atheists
[and all people who think deeply of the ultimate questions of our existence]
to choose between a multiverse containing an inconceivably large number of universes,
and a Designer of our physical universe.
By "fine tuning" is meant the incredibly small tolerance of the fundamental constants for the existence of life,
and even more so for intelligent life. You can read about it in the superb and quite readable book, _Just Six Numbers_,
by Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal of England.
That fine tuning argument impresses only people who don't understand >probability. They ask, "What is the probability of a universe that
could support us?" and get a very small probability, but the relevant >question is really, "What is the probability of a universe that could >support us, given that we are here in the universe to ask the
question?", and the answer to that is 1.
It still boggles that this elementary point seems to be
beyond the understanding of supposedly-intelligent people.
Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 6:25:17?PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:I could go the jillery route and perceive a slight where you are using that >Ron White joke as a veiled means of saying I should shut up. Or I could >apply the rule to interpret in the best light and realize the joke aligns >well with Kant’s dictum. I opt for the latter. Plus I lack the stamina to >turn this into a neverending subthread about my bruised ego. I do
There’s plenty of the outside world (brute facts or Randroid
“metaphysically given”) that cannot be changed. What is most pliable is how
one chooses to deal with that world, though parts of ones psychic makeup >>> are pretty much set in stone (or stone age) or second nature forces of
habit. To the degree one can, one might change their ways of dealing with >>> the outwardly unchangeable as the latter won’t budge. I kinda lost myself
here (you too?), but will close with Kant’s dictum that ought implies can.
https://br.ifunny.co/picture/had-the-right-to-remain-silent-but-i-didn-thave-tRw7LfFu9
appreciate me some Blue Collar comedy, but am more a fan of Bill Engvall.
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 22:53:57 +0000, *Hemidactylus* ><ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 6:25:17?PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:I could go the jillery route and perceive a slight where you are using that >>Ron White joke as a veiled means of saying I should shut up. Or I could >>apply the rule to interpret in the best light and realize the joke aligns >>well with Kant’s dictum. I opt for the latter. Plus I lack the stamina to >>turn this into a neverending subthread about my bruised ego. I do >>appreciate me some Blue Collar comedy, but am more a fan of Bill Engvall.
There’s plenty of the outside world (brute facts or Randroid
“metaphysically given”) that cannot be changed. What is most pliable is how
one chooses to deal with that world, though parts of ones psychic makeup >>>> are pretty much set in stone (or stone age) or second nature forces of >>>> habit. To the degree one can, one might change their ways of dealing with >>>> the outwardly unchangeable as the latter won’t budge. I kinda lost myself
here (you too?), but will close with Kant’s dictum that ought implies can.
https://br.ifunny.co/picture/had-the-right-to-remain-silent-but-i-didn-thave-tRw7LfFu9
Even allowing for argument's sake that's not how the phrase was
originally used in this specific thread, in fact it is how the phrase
is typically used in T.O., to gaslight other posters' concerns as
petty and unworthy of discussion. Another phrase similarly used in
T.O. is "killfiles are your friend".
Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 4:20:17?PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 1:25:18?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:Whats delusional about having the serenity to accept the things one cannot >>> change, courage to change the things one can, and wisdom to know the
I appreciate your good intentions in trying to defuse the unnecessary >>>>> aggro that pollutes TO but I think that ignoring the religious aspect, >>>>> the Serenity Prayer is a worthwhile reminder alongside the comic
strip.
Delusions spring eternal.
difference? Martin was alluding to a more secularized version. Maybe not >>> being granted such by a higher power but cultivating such within oneself as >>> other self-help chants run amok.
Follow along with me here.
Accept the things one cannot change.
Hope springs eternal.
And if one is a pessimist or fatalist or jaded cynic? Im recalling a >one-line dismissal of the movie Hope Floats that said So does a turd.
Now here comes the tricky part, acknowledge that some hopes areSome optimism may be healthy. Those more in tune with reality tend toward >mild depression.
in fact delusional, then distill it all down. Only do it in reverse.
Theres plenty of the outside world (brute facts or Randroid
Admittedly it may have a few too many dots to connect but I figured
the "springs eternal" part would trigger the hope line which is a rather
natural retort to the serenity prayer and it would come together,
at least for some. My mind works in nearly ineffable ways.
metaphysically given) that cannot be changed. What is most pliable is how >one chooses to deal with that world, though parts of ones psychic makeup
are pretty much set in stone (or stone age) or second nature forces of
habit. To the degree one can, one might change their ways of dealing with
the outwardly unchangeable as the latter wont budge. I kinda lost myself >here (you too?), but will close with Kants dictum that ought implies can.
On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 02:28:17 -0400, jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 22:53:57 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 6:25:17?PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:I could go the jillery route and perceive a slight where you are using that >>> Ron White joke as a veiled means of saying I should shut up. Or I could >>> apply the rule to interpret in the best light and realize the joke aligns >>> well with Kant’s dictum. I opt for the latter. Plus I lack the stamina to >>> turn this into a neverending subthread about my bruised ego. I do
There’s plenty of the outside world (brute facts or Randroid
“metaphysically given”) that cannot be changed. What is most pliable is how
one chooses to deal with that world, though parts of ones psychic makeup >>>>> are pretty much set in stone (or stone age) or second nature forces of >>>>> habit. To the degree one can, one might change their ways of dealing with >>>>> the outwardly unchangeable as the latter won’t budge. I kinda lost myself
here (you too?), but will close with Kant’s dictum that ought implies can.
https://br.ifunny.co/picture/had-the-right-to-remain-silent-but-i-didn-thave-tRw7LfFu9
appreciate me some Blue Collar comedy, but am more a fan of Bill Engvall. >>
Even allowing for argument's sake that's not how the phrase was
originally used in this specific thread, in fact it is how the phrase
is typically used in T.O., to gaslight other posters' concerns as
petty and unworthy of discussion. Another phrase similarly used in
T.O. is "killfiles are your friend".
Hemidactylus' comments raise the question; if the phrase is so
innocent, why do he and other posters twist their knickers over
someone being wrong on the Internet.
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 20:20:53 +0000, *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 10:47:33 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer DaggettI let my frustrations get the best of me and go on the occasional f-bomb
<j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 1:15:17?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 09:27:38 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett.
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 11:10:18?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:It isn't the first time. It almost certainly won't be the last.
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 09:04:06 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 00:34:03 -0700 (PDT), the following"If it's on the Internet is must be correct."
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 7:50:16?AM UTC+1, jillery wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 18:59:54 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:And that's exactly how it was meant ("You saw it on the
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 15:22:07 -0700 (PDT), the followingSo when person X participates, it's due to a virtuous if perhaps >>>>>>>>>> pathological need to teach, and when person Y participates, it's due >>>>>>>>>> to a mindless reaction to someone being wrong on the internet. Yet >>>>>>>>>> another case of not what is said but who says it.
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:00:16?PM UTC+1, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> .No! Please say it ain't so!
- Pathological need to teach
- spotted someone being wrong on the internet
- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC
But in both cases it was me who said it?
So I read Bob's reply as a humorous: "what, something false on the Internet?
Incredible! Please tell me it ain't so, and that everything on the >>>>>>>>> webs is truth itself"
Internet? Well, then, it *must* be correct!"); I'm glad at
least *you* understood.
and
"Someone is wrong on the Internet."
are contradictory claims, and so not the same thing.
More to the point, you regularly criticize others for reacting to >>>>>>> someone being wrong on the Internet, even as you regularly react to >>>>>>> someone being wrong on the Internet. All of which make your comments >>>>>>> above a self-parody.
Let's review. Burkhard answer "why do you post here?" with
- Pathological need to teach
- spotted someone being wrong on the internet
- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC
It's that mix of sincere, smart, and funny that some of us like.
Let me completely ruin it.
The first is self-awareness but borders on
pomposity which makes a fella feel uncomfortable. The 'pathological' >>>>>> takes the edge off. The second line of course references a classic >>>>>> comic drawing, someone is calling you to join then in bed but you say >>>>>> you can't because someone is wrong on the internet. This is full on >>>>>> self-deprecation, laughing at oneself and their reasons for spewing >>>>>> forth on usenet. Then it's followed by a semi-oblique reference to >>>>>> Socrates, and his ultimate fate. It's a 7 layer cake in just 3 lines, >>>>>> and in that it adds frosting on top about enjoying inside jokes even >>>>>> if few get them but appreciating that some few readers might.
That was the set-up.
Bob responds to show some appreciation. No idea if he saw it in
the layers I saw it, or if Burkhard intended all the layering I perceive,
but he appreciated at least some of the humor. Liking humor, he
gave a bit of positive re-enforcement. He does that, even if it's just >>>>>> to groan at especially bad puns when he doesn't even have a bad
pun to toss back.
Then, we get your response. You uncorked something that seems
like bottled up frustration, only not clear when it gets bottled up. >>>>> Here's a deal; you let me worry about bottling up my frustrations, and >>>>> I'll let you worry about bottling up yours.
Apparently the "someone's wrong on the internet" is a trigger line >>>>>> as you feel it's been unfairly directed at you at times in criticism. >>>>>>
Frankly, I think we should all have that comic printed out and taped >>>>>> next to our monitors. If I were more creative, I'd build a tool that would
have it pop up on screen every time someone clicks to send a post. >>>>>> It would fill you screen, pause for 3 seconds --- which is actually a >>>>>> very long time --- and then put up an "Are you sure???" overlay.
It would be customizable so people could add in a few more layers
of "Are you sure?" with messages like "is the asshole worth it?",
"does anybody else care?", "does anyone whose opinion you value
not already know?", "he'll probably enjoy it", and for myself in particular,
"you're not as funny as you imagine." noli turbare circulos meos.
Your comments above are you reacting to me being wrong on the.
Interact, even as you criticize me for reacting to Bob for being wrong >>>>> on the Internet. What would be great would be if there was a device
that detected when you post comments like yours, and before you hit
"send", would put up a mirror in front of your face.
Funny thing, I did point the mirror to myself, including myself in the >>>> broad criticism of all talk.origins posters who run the risk of taking >>>> themselves too seriously. Was that not explicit enough? Essentially
nothing in what I wrote there was targeted specifically towards you
beyond the recounting of how we got there, but then I followed with
"frankly, I think we should all ...". The words "we" and "all" seemed
significant to me. Apparently, my writing skills have failed me again.
Funny thing, I recall reading you explicitly and baselessly
criticizing me:
*****************************************
Then, we get your response. You uncorked something that seems
like bottled up frustration, only not clear when it gets bottled up.
*****************************************
Apparently, your writing skills correlates with your convenient
amnesia.
tirade but I do have a damper switch. Find yours.
I know you know you can't cite where I post f-bombs, or anything of
the kind. So your comments above are just more of your baseless
allusions that you post when you feel like exercising your inner
troll.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 3:05:15 PM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:would not have read all the literature about long term experimental evolution in E. coli if it weren't for DrDrDrDr Kleinman's bringing it up (and drawing incorrect conclusions from it) and you, and others, have gotten me interested in reading the latest
My reasons for participating in t.o. include those Bill Rogers describes below.
However, my main impetus towards learning in many areas of science comes from anti-ID claims
AND from just plain scientific discussions AND from helping ID sympathizers get better at understanding all aspects of ID.
I rate all these things as high or higher than the things Bill Rogers writes about below.
Because (1) there are some people here who write interesting and informative posts and (2) in the process of responding to creationist and ID claims I sometimes get pushed to read up on areas of biology that I do not know much about - for example, I
NOTE TO ANYONE READING THIS:
Just think of how much more Bill Rogers could have been
"pushed to read up on areas of biology that [he did] not know much about"
if he hadn't stopped reading my posts three or more years ago.
In that time interval, MarkE kept enduring unending frustration as Bill Rogers kept
"reading the latest stuff on origin of life" and then flaming MarkE for not having read it himself.
The frustration came from MarkE wanting Bill Rogers to discuss something far beyond
"the latest stuff," which barely follows primitive earth conditions up to where the first
nucleotides [like the four (4) RNA nucleotides] had been produced.
MarkE was trying to get Bill Rogers interested in the steps from that point to
several "Holy Grails" leading to life as we know it.
The first "Holy Grail" involves an efficient RNA ribozyme polymerase.
This is the technical term for an enzyme that is NOT a protein enzyme such as the one on which "life as we know it"
is heavily dependent. Rather, it is a strand of RNA which can take *any* strand of RNA,
in a bath rich in the 4 RNA nucleotides, and produce the complementary strand.
The first "Holy Grail" is a step by step way of producing this kind of enzyme
under primitive earth conditions.
We are so far from this that we haven't the foggiest idea what an RNA ribozyme polymerase
could possibly look like. We do know plenty about RNA *protein* enzyme polymerases,
because some viruses have them. [If it weren't for those viruses, we would be totally
in the dark about what *these* enzymes could possibly look like.]
If you, the reader [this includes both participants and lurkers],
have read this far, and would like to know what the five later "Holy Grails" are
that I have envisioned, let me know.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 11:10:18 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 09:04:06 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 00:34:03 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
"If it's on the Internet is must be correct."On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 7:50:16?AM UTC+1, jillery wrote:And that's exactly how it was meant ("You saw it on the
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 18:59:54 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 15:22:07 -0700 (PDT), the followingSo when person X participates, it's due to a virtuous if perhaps
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:00:16?PM UTC+1, MarkE wrote:No! Please say it ain't so!
.- Pathological need to teach
- spotted someone being wrong on the internet
- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC
pathological need to teach, and when person Y participates, it's due >>> to a mindless reaction to someone being wrong on the internet. Yet
another case of not what is said but who says it.
But in both cases it was me who said it?
So I read Bob's reply as a humorous: "what, something false on the Internet?
Incredible! Please tell me it ain't so, and that everything on the webs is truth itself"
Internet? Well, then, it *must* be correct!"); I'm glad at
least *you* understood.
and
"Someone is wrong on the Internet."
are contradictory claims, and so not the same thing.
More to the point, you regularly criticize others for reacting toLet's review. Burkhard answer "why do you post here?" with
someone being wrong on the Internet, even as you regularly react to someone being wrong on the Internet. All of which make your comments
above a self-parody.
It's that mix of sincere, smart, and funny that some of us like.- Pathological need to teach
- spotted someone being wrong on the internet
- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC
Let me completely ruin it. The first is self-awareness but borders on pomposity which makes a fella feel uncomfortable. The 'pathological'
takes the edge off. The second line of course references a classic
comic drawing, someone is calling you to join then in bed but you say
you can't because someone is wrong on the internet. This is full on self-deprecation, laughing at oneself and their reasons for spewing
forth on usenet. Then it's followed by a semi-oblique reference to
Socrates, and his ultimate fate. It's a 7 layer cake in just 3 lines,
and in that it adds frosting on top about enjoying inside jokes even
if few get them but appreciating that some few readers might.
That was the set-up.
Bob responds to show some appreciation. No idea if he saw it in
the layers I saw it, or if Burkhard intended all the layering I perceive, but he appreciated at least some of the humor. Liking humor, he
gave a bit of positive re-enforcement. He does that, even if it's just
to groan at especially bad puns when he doesn't even have a bad
pun to toss back.
Then, we get your response. You uncorked something that seems
like bottled up frustration, only not clear when it gets bottled up. Apparently the "someone's wrong on the internet" is a trigger line
as you feel it's been unfairly directed at you at times in criticism.
Frankly, I think we should all have that comic printed out and taped
next to our monitors. If I were more creative, I'd build a tool that would have it pop up on screen every time someone clicks to send a post.
It would fill you screen, pause for 3 seconds --- which is actually a
very long time --- and then put up an "Are you sure???" overlay.
It would be customizable so people could add in a few more layers
of "Are you sure?" with messages like "is the asshole worth it?",
"does anybody else care?", "does anyone whose opinion you value
not already know?", "he'll probably enjoy it", and for myself in particular, "you're not as funny as you imagine." noli turbare circulos meos.
On 8/28/23 6:40 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 3:05:16 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 21:00:16 UTC+3, MarkE wrote:
.Because evidence of existence of whatever supernatural has always interested me.
Mainly because by my understanding the life of our grandchildren will apparently become
quite crappy and they might need extra aid. Unfortunately nothing comes up ever.
It exists nonetheless; keep reading.
I have read scriptures of various religions, but these seem indistinguishable from
man-written fairy tales. Also requirement to believe without questioning is impossible
to fulfill in world where big part of phone calls and mails one receives is scam.
Various televangelists and psychics claiming having paranormal abilities and contact
with supernatural have been shown to be charlatans and stage magicians. >> Scientists like James Tour or Michael Behe promise to find evidence of something
supernatural but then point only at gaps in naturalist explanations.
The "evidence" like interesting properties of water or unclear origins of petroleum
are not indication of supernatural activities, just our ignorance.
But if something comes up I'm sure it will be discussed here.
It has been, but it is easy to miss the few posts that really address it here.
Here is something that condenses a lot of what I've written here over the years:
The "fine tuning" of the fundamental constants of our universe forces atheists
[and all people who think deeply of the ultimate questions of our existence]
to choose between a multiverse containing an inconceivably large number of universes,
and a Designer of our physical universe.
By "fine tuning" is meant the incredibly small tolerance of the fundamental constants for the existence of life,
and even more so for intelligent life. You can read about it in the superb and quite readable book, _Just Six Numbers_,
by Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal of England.
That fine tuning argument impresses only people who don't understand probability.
They ask, "What is the probability of a universe that
could support us?
question is really, "What is the probability of a universe that could support us, given that we are here in the universe to ask the
question?", and the answer to that is 1.
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 7:00:18 AM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:I would not have read all the literature about long term experimental evolution in E. coli if it weren't for DrDrDrDr Kleinman's bringing it up (and drawing incorrect conclusions from it) and you, and others, have gotten me interested in reading the
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 3:05:15 PM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
My reasons for participating in t.o. include those Bill Rogers describes below.
However, my main impetus towards learning in many areas of science comes from anti-ID claims
AND from just plain scientific discussions AND from helping ID sympathizers
get better at understanding all aspects of ID.
I rate all these things as high or higher than the things Bill Rogers writes about below.
Because (1) there are some people here who write interesting and informative posts and (2) in the process of responding to creationist and ID claims I sometimes get pushed to read up on areas of biology that I do not know much about - for example,
NOTE TO ANYONE READING THIS:
Just think of how much more Bill Rogers could have been
"pushed to read up on areas of biology that [he did] not know much about" if he hadn't stopped reading my posts three or more years ago.
In that time interval, MarkE kept enduring unending frustration as Bill Rogers kept
"reading the latest stuff on origin of life" and then flaming MarkE for not having read it himself.
The frustration came from MarkE wanting Bill Rogers to discuss something far beyond
"the latest stuff," which barely follows primitive earth conditions up to where the first
nucleotides [like the four (4) RNA nucleotides] had been produced.
MarkE was trying to get Bill Rogers interested in the steps from that point to
several "Holy Grails" leading to life as we know it.
Thanks Peter for your acknowledgement of this--it is somewhat therapeutic :) All the same, Bill has been mostly engaging, knowledgeable, and insightful in his responses.
Bill: You have provoked me to look into Deamer's work again. No, I haven't purchased Assembling Life (though I did download the kindle sample), but I have found a few things to discuss is a new thread. I know, the suspense must be unbearable...
The first "Holy Grail" involves an efficient RNA ribozyme polymerase.
This is the technical term for an enzyme that is NOT a protein enzyme such as the one on which "life as we know it"
is heavily dependent. Rather, it is a strand of RNA which can take *any* strand of RNA,
in a bath rich in the 4 RNA nucleotides, and produce the complementary strand.
The first "Holy Grail" is a step by step way of producing this kind of enzyme
under primitive earth conditions.
We are so far from this that we haven't the foggiest idea what an RNA ribozyme polymerase
could possibly look like. We do know plenty about RNA *protein* enzyme polymerases,
because some viruses have them. [If it weren't for those viruses, we would be totally
in the dark about what *these* enzymes could possibly look like.]
If you, the reader [this includes both participants and lurkers],
have read this far, and would like to know what the five later "Holy Grails" are
that I have envisioned, let me know.
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 12:45:18?AM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:Assuming your point is that the source affects the
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 21:12:45 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
On 8/28/23 6:40 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:It still boggles that this elementary point seems to be
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 3:05:16?AM UTC-4, ? Tiib wrote:
On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 21:00:16 UTC+3, MarkE wrote:
.Because evidence of existence of whatever supernatural has always interested me.
Mainly because by my understanding the life of our grandchildren will apparently become
quite crappy and they might need extra aid. Unfortunately nothing comes up ever.
It exists nonetheless; keep reading.
I have read scriptures of various religions, but these seem indistinguishable from
man-written fairy tales. Also requirement to believe without questioning is impossible
to fulfill in world where big part of phone calls and mails one receives is scam.
Various televangelists and psychics claiming having paranormal abilities and contact
with supernatural have been shown to be charlatans and stage magicians. >> >>> Scientists like James Tour or Michael Behe promise to find evidence of something
supernatural but then point only at gaps in naturalist explanations.
The "evidence" like interesting properties of water or unclear origins of petroleum
are not indication of supernatural activities, just our ignorance.
But if something comes up I'm sure it will be discussed here.
It has been, but it is easy to miss the few posts that really address it here.
Here is something that condenses a lot of what I've written here over the years:
The "fine tuning" of the fundamental constants of our universe forces atheists
[and all people who think deeply of the ultimate questions of our existence]
to choose between a multiverse containing an inconceivably large number of universes,
and a Designer of our physical universe.
By "fine tuning" is meant the incredibly small tolerance of the fundamental constants for the existence of life,
and even more so for intelligent life. You can read about it in the superb and quite readable book, _Just Six Numbers_,
by Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal of England.
That fine tuning argument impresses only people who don't understand
probability. They ask, "What is the probability of a universe that
could support us?" and get a very small probability, but the relevant
question is really, "What is the probability of a universe that could
support us, given that we are here in the universe to ask the
question?", and the answer to that is 1.
beyond the understanding of supposedly-intelligent people.
I think there are some caveats here.
Generally speaking, I agree. Technically, there are some issues.
If one admits some scenario whereby some oddball exceptional
thing kicks off our universe, that scenario cuts into being a
part of the probability of 1 and those that invoke this oddball
scenario have a foot in the door. Of course, we still have no
useful parameters with which to bound the likelihood of the
oddball scenario(s). I don't know how to admit or exclude
such oddball scenarios other than by fiat.
.
The problem is presuming that the probability of 1 excludes
scenarios that would be perceived as supernatural influence.
.
As much as it pains me, I have to give a nod to Ron Okimoto
that invocations of oddball scenarios for specific stages of
events that lead to us here and now seemingly require a
succession of additional oddball scenarios in a confluence
of special pleading that is exceptionally dubious. I'm going
to be nasty and say that Ron is spectacularly inept at
clearly elucidating this point, even though it is at root
behind much of what he argues. And at root he is on target.
If he could lose the jargon about perps and rubes he could
be dramatically more effective. Call me bad names if it helps.
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 02:28:17 -0400, jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>Ought implies can"I had the right to remain silent... but I didn't have
wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 22:53:57 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 6:25:17?PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote: >>>>>I could go the jillery route and perceive a slight where you are using that
Theres plenty of the outside world (brute facts or Randroid
metaphysically given) that cannot be changed. What is most pliable is how
one chooses to deal with that world, though parts of ones psychic makeup >>>>>> are pretty much set in stone (or stone age) or second nature forces of >>>>>> habit. To the degree one can, one might change their ways of dealing with
the outwardly unchangeable as the latter wont budge. I kinda lost myself
here (you too?), but will close with Kants dictum that ought implies can.
https://br.ifunny.co/picture/had-the-right-to-remain-silent-but-i-didn-thave-tRw7LfFu9
Ron White joke as a veiled means of saying I should shut up. Or I could >>>> apply the rule to interpret in the best light and realize the joke aligns >>>> well with Kants dictum. I opt for the latter. Plus I lack the stamina to >>>> turn this into a neverending subthread about my bruised ego. I do
appreciate me some Blue Collar comedy, but am more a fan of Bill Engvall. >>>
Even allowing for argument's sake that's not how the phrase was
originally used in this specific thread, in fact it is how the phrase
is typically used in T.O., to gaslight other posters' concerns as
petty and unworthy of discussion. Another phrase similarly used in
T.O. is "killfiles are your friend".
Hemidactylus' comments raise the question; if the phrase is so
innocent, why do he and other posters twist their knickers over
someone being wrong on the Internet.
the ability."
What phrase are you talking about? I cited Kant. Daggett cited Ron White.
You made this exchange oddly about you.
Cue Carly Simon: You walked into the party like you were walking onto a >yacht
Your hat strategically dipped below one eye
What is your major malfunction?--
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 20:20:53 +0000, *Hemidactylus* ><ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 10:47:33 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer DaggettI let my frustrations get the best of me and go on the occasional f-bomb >>tirade but I do have a damper switch. Find yours.
<j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 1:15:17?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 09:27:38 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett.
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 11:10:18?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:It isn't the first time. It almost certainly won't be the last.
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 09:04:06 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 00:34:03 -0700 (PDT), the following"If it's on the Internet is must be correct."
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 7:50:16?AM UTC+1, jillery wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 18:59:54 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:And that's exactly how it was meant ("You saw it on the
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 15:22:07 -0700 (PDT), the followingSo when person X participates, it's due to a virtuous if perhaps >>>>>>>>>> pathological need to teach, and when person Y participates, it's due >>>>>>>>>> to a mindless reaction to someone being wrong on the internet. Yet >>>>>>>>>> another case of not what is said but who says it.
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:00:16?PM UTC+1, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> .No! Please say it ain't so!
- Pathological need to teach
- spotted someone being wrong on the internet
- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC
But in both cases it was me who said it?
So I read Bob's reply as a humorous: "what, something false on the Internet?
Incredible! Please tell me it ain't so, and that everything on the >>>>>>>>> webs is truth itself"
Internet? Well, then, it *must* be correct!"); I'm glad at
least *you* understood.
and
"Someone is wrong on the Internet."
are contradictory claims, and so not the same thing.
More to the point, you regularly criticize others for reacting to >>>>>>> someone being wrong on the Internet, even as you regularly react to >>>>>>> someone being wrong on the Internet. All of which make your comments >>>>>>> above a self-parody.
Let's review. Burkhard answer "why do you post here?" with
- Pathological need to teach
- spotted someone being wrong on the internet
- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC
It's that mix of sincere, smart, and funny that some of us like.
Let me completely ruin it.
The first is self-awareness but borders on
pomposity which makes a fella feel uncomfortable. The 'pathological' >>>>>> takes the edge off. The second line of course references a classic >>>>>> comic drawing, someone is calling you to join then in bed but you say >>>>>> you can't because someone is wrong on the internet. This is full on >>>>>> self-deprecation, laughing at oneself and their reasons for spewing >>>>>> forth on usenet. Then it's followed by a semi-oblique reference to >>>>>> Socrates, and his ultimate fate. It's a 7 layer cake in just 3 lines, >>>>>> and in that it adds frosting on top about enjoying inside jokes even >>>>>> if few get them but appreciating that some few readers might.
That was the set-up.
Bob responds to show some appreciation. No idea if he saw it in
the layers I saw it, or if Burkhard intended all the layering I perceive,
but he appreciated at least some of the humor. Liking humor, he
gave a bit of positive re-enforcement. He does that, even if it's just >>>>>> to groan at especially bad puns when he doesn't even have a bad
pun to toss back.
Then, we get your response. You uncorked something that seems
like bottled up frustration, only not clear when it gets bottled up. >>>>> Here's a deal; you let me worry about bottling up my frustrations, and >>>>> I'll let you worry about bottling up yours.
Apparently the "someone's wrong on the internet" is a trigger line >>>>>> as you feel it's been unfairly directed at you at times in criticism. >>>>>>
Frankly, I think we should all have that comic printed out and taped >>>>>> next to our monitors. If I were more creative, I'd build a tool that would
have it pop up on screen every time someone clicks to send a post. >>>>>> It would fill you screen, pause for 3 seconds --- which is actually a >>>>>> very long time --- and then put up an "Are you sure???" overlay.
It would be customizable so people could add in a few more layers
of "Are you sure?" with messages like "is the asshole worth it?",
"does anybody else care?", "does anyone whose opinion you value
not already know?", "he'll probably enjoy it", and for myself in particular,
"you're not as funny as you imagine." noli turbare circulos meos.
Your comments above are you reacting to me being wrong on the.
Interact, even as you criticize me for reacting to Bob for being wrong >>>>> on the Internet. What would be great would be if there was a device
that detected when you post comments like yours, and before you hit
"send", would put up a mirror in front of your face.
Funny thing, I did point the mirror to myself, including myself in the >>>> broad criticism of all talk.origins posters who run the risk of taking >>>> themselves too seriously. Was that not explicit enough? Essentially
nothing in what I wrote there was targeted specifically towards you
beyond the recounting of how we got there, but then I followed with
"frankly, I think we should all ...". The words "we" and "all" seemed
significant to me. Apparently, my writing skills have failed me again.
Funny thing, I recall reading you explicitly and baselessly
criticizing me:
*****************************************
Then, we get your response. You uncorked something that seems
like bottled up frustration, only not clear when it gets bottled up.
*****************************************
Apparently, your writing skills correlates with your convenient
amnesia.
I know you know you can't cite where I post f-bombs, or anything of
the kind. So your comments above are just more of your baseless
allusions that you post when you feel like exercising your inner
troll.
The "fine tuning" of the fundamental constants of our universe forces atheists
[and all people who think deeply of the ultimate questions of our existence] to choose between a multiverse containing an inconceivably large number of universes,
and a Designer of our physical universe.
By "fine tuning" is meant the incredibly small tolerance of the fundamental constants
for the existence of life, and even more so for intelligent life.
He said he
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 8:30:19 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:I would not have read all the literature about long term experimental evolution in E. coli if it weren't for DrDrDrDr Kleinman's bringing it up (and drawing incorrect conclusions from it) and you, and others, have gotten me interested in reading the
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 7:00:18 AM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 3:05:15 PM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
My reasons for participating in t.o. include those Bill Rogers describes below.
However, my main impetus towards learning in many areas of science comes from anti-ID claims
AND from just plain scientific discussions AND from helping ID sympathizers
get better at understanding all aspects of ID.
I rate all these things as high or higher than the things Bill Rogers writes about below.
Because (1) there are some people here who write interesting and informative posts and (2) in the process of responding to creationist and ID claims I sometimes get pushed to read up on areas of biology that I do not know much about - for example,
NOTE TO ANYONE READING THIS:
Just think of how much more Bill Rogers could have been
"pushed to read up on areas of biology that [he did] not know much about"
if he hadn't stopped reading my posts three or more years ago.
In that time interval, MarkE kept enduring unending frustration as Bill Rogers kept
"reading the latest stuff on origin of life" and then flaming MarkE for not having read it himself.
By the way, Mark, I don't recall you writing anything that specific, but you certainly were hoping for at least as many steps as could lead to the first "Holy Grail."The frustration came from MarkE wanting Bill Rogers to discuss something far beyond
"the latest stuff," which barely follows primitive earth conditions up to where the first
nucleotides [like the four (4) RNA nucleotides] had been produced.
MarkE was trying to get Bill Rogers interested in the steps from that point to
several "Holy Grails" leading to life as we know it.
Thanks Peter for your acknowledgement of this--it is somewhat therapeutic :) All the same, Bill has been mostly engaging, knowledgeable, and insightful in his responses.As long as you engage him with both eyes open, so to speak,
I cannot fault you for saying that.
Bill: You have provoked me to look into Deamer's work again. No, I haven't purchased Assembling Life (though I did download the kindle sample), but I have found a few things to discuss is a new thread. I know, the suspense must be unbearable...I think he can be very patient -- after all, it's been months since you last showed up here.
In the meantime, I recommend that you also take a close look at what I wrote below.
That will help you to keep your eyes wide open.
The first "Holy Grail" involves an efficient RNA ribozyme polymerase.
This is the technical term for an enzyme that is NOT a protein enzyme such as the one on which "life as we know it"
is heavily dependent. Rather, it is a strand of RNA which can take *any* strand of RNA,
in a bath rich in the 4 RNA nucleotides, and produce the complementary strand.
The first "Holy Grail" is a step by step way of producing this kind of enzyme
under primitive earth conditions.
We are so far from this that we haven't the foggiest idea what an RNA ribozyme polymerase
could possibly look like. We do know plenty about RNA *protein* enzyme polymerases,
because some viruses have them. [If it weren't for those viruses, we would be totally
in the dark about what *these* enzymes could possibly look like.]
Did *you* read this far, Mark? Aren't you curious about them?If you, the reader [this includes both participants and lurkers],
have read this far, and would like to know what the five later "Holy Grails" are
that I have envisioned, let me know.
Peter Nyikos
Peter wrote:........
The "fine tuning" of the fundamental constants of our universe forces atheistsI'm not so sure about that - it has the odor of a false dilemma to me; but the idea
[and all people who think deeply of the ultimate questions of our existence]
to choose between a multiverse containing an inconceivably large number of universes,
and a Designer of our physical universe.
of an infinite or very large number of universes has some interesting possibilities to it.
Have you read "Before the Big Bang" by Laura Mersini-Houghton? It argues for a
merger of quantum mechanics and Big Bang theory in a way that leads to the conclusion
that our type of universe, while not the only type of universe that could come into
existence, would be a highly probable type of universe. They then looked for ways
that the idea could be tested - leaving possible marks on our universe as a result of
quantum interference before the universe had expanded very far - and tried to test
the idea. They got some interesting results from the testing as well ... a lot of the
features their ideas predict are seen in our universe.
I'm not a devotee of the idea of infinite universes, but I found her ideas (and those of
her colleagues) a lot more interesting than the "every different possibility leads to a
whole new universe" version of infinite universes.
By "fine tuning" is meant the incredibly small tolerance of the fundamental constantsNow that argument I find to be rather specious. We have enough trouble determining
for the existence of life, and even more so for intelligent life.
exactly what is needed for life to occur in our universe under our physical rules.
Figuring out the probability of life occurring under alternate physical rules strikes me
as stretching far beyond even our current level of knowledge. I've seen a number of
analyses of the probability of Earth-like life occurring under alternate physical rules,
and I generally find those to be a bit beyond what we can say (given that we can't
really even calculate it under our rules, doing it under alternate rules strikes me as
beyond our abilities). But calculating the probabilities of *any* form of life under
*any* rules? I've seen a lot of hand-waving, where some people end up deciding
that it is basically impossible, some people end up deciding that it is basically inevitable,
and anywhere in between, depending on which arbitrary assumptions were chosen.
And they usually seem to choose the assumptions that lead to the results they want
to fall out at the end of the calculation ... IMO such calculations are ideology, not
really math or science, and will remain so until we know a lot more about how
universes come into being than we currently know (which is perilously close to
nothing IMO).
At this point I would say "We don't know yet" is by far a better answer than the
results of any calculation done by any mathematician. If you can get any results you want out of the calculation just by adjusting the numbers, the calculations are worthless. This particular question is far, far more difficult
than solving the odds of abiogenesis on Earth, and we are far from even being able to solve that much simpler case.
If you think we can do such calculations, please calculate the odds of life occurring
in a universe which comes out with four spacial dimensions.
Not "life as we know
it", but anything that could reasonably be thought of as life. Please state your
assumptions and show your work. If you don't want to waste the time on
it, just think how useful proving the odds would be for coming up with a really neat article for a mathematics journal. You don't have to show it to me ...
this is really more for your to try for yourself. How would you even set it up?
Until people can really do this sort of thing and not get arbitrary answers, I will continue to stick with "We don't know yet" as my answer on this question.
Peter wrote:
The "fine tuning" of the fundamental constants of our universe forces atheistsI'm not so sure about that - it has the odor of a false dilemma to me; but the idea
[and all people who think deeply of the ultimate questions of our existence]
to choose between a multiverse containing an inconceivably large number of universes,
and a Designer of our physical universe.
of an infinite or very large number of universes has some interesting possibilities to it.
Have you read "Before the Big Bang" by Laura Mersini-Houghton? It argues for a
merger of quantum mechanics and Big Bang theory in a way that leads to the conclusion
that our type of universe, while not the only type of universe that could come into
existence, would be a highly probable type of universe. They then looked for ways
that the idea could be tested - leaving possible marks on our universe as a result of
quantum interference before the universe had expanded very far - and tried to test
the idea. They got some interesting results from the testing as well ... a lot of the
features their ideas predict are seen in our universe.
I'm not a devotee of the idea of infinite universes, but I found her ideas (and those of
her colleagues) a lot more interesting than the "every different possibility leads to a
whole new universe" version of infinite universes.
By "fine tuning" is meant the incredibly small tolerance of the fundamental constantsNow that argument I find to be rather specious. We have enough trouble determining
for the existence of life, and even more so for intelligent life.
exactly what is needed for life to occur in our universe under our physical rules.
Figuring out the probability of life occurring under alternate physical rules strikes me
as stretching far beyond even our current level of knowledge. I've seen a number of
analyses of the probability of Earth-like life occurring under alternate physical rules,
and I generally find those to be a bit beyond what we can say (given that we can't
really even calculate it under our rules, doing it under alternate rules strikes me as
beyond our abilities). But calculating the probabilities of *any* form of life under
*any* rules? I've seen a lot of hand-waving, where some people end up deciding
that it is basically impossible, some people end up deciding that it is basically inevitable,
and anywhere in between, depending on which arbitrary assumptions were chosen.
And they usually seem to choose the assumptions that lead to the results they want
to fall out at the end of the calculation ... IMO such calculations are ideology, not
really math or science, and will remain so until we know a lot more about how
universes come into being than we currently know (which is perilously close to
nothing IMO).
At this point I would say "We don't know yet" is by far a better answer than the
results of any calculation done by any mathematician. If you can get any results you want out of the calculation just by adjusting the numbers, the calculations are worthless. This particular question is far, far more difficult
than solving the odds of abiogenesis on Earth, and we are far from even being able to solve that much simpler case.
If you think we can do such calculations, please calculate the odds of life occurring
in a universe which comes out with four spacial dimensions. Not "life as we know
it", but anything that could reasonably be thought of as life. Please state your
assumptions and show your work. If you don't want to waste the time on
it, just think how useful proving the odds would be for coming up with a really neat article for a mathematics journal. You don't have to show it to me ...
this is really more for your to try for yourself. How would you even set it up?
Until people can really do this sort of thing and not get arbitrary answers, I will continue to stick with "We don't know yet" as my answer on this question.
.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 11:00:16 AM UTC-7, MarkE wrote:
.
I was the director of a natural history museum in the 1990s. We had crazy people come and insist the fossils were fakes, and that we were Satanists destroying American children.
The internet was still rather new and slow.
I wanted to learn more about creationists. I did find a "usenet" group TalkOrigins. It had been started to dump trolls wasting bandwidth on
other usenet groups. Wesley Elsberry started a website, and a review
process to maintain the more interesting posts by scientists.
To have a paper published by the TO Archive you needed to post to the
public TO discussion, and respond to critical comments. I think my first
one was "Dino-blood and the Young Earth" in 2005.
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 7:05:18 PM UTC-4, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:[much mercy snippage]
As before, the theory of everything should be easily attainable with the
computing power of an ordinary pc. That when you order things based on
zero, then the main laws of the universe, and constants, would become
quite apparent in that ordering.
Even Jonathan, with his belief that chaos theory would give us the solution to the enmity
between Israelis and Palestinians, seemed sober in comparison to you.
Another dead water discussion.
Creatio ex nihilo. Efficient steps of mathematical structures in respect to zero, with rewriting. Which provides a maximally efficient ordering which in all probablity, is the same as the ordering of the universe. The efficient theory is the deffaulttheory, because it makes the least assumptions, so it has low risk of errors. Then also the DNA sytem, and the human mind, have the same universal mathematical ordering.
Efficiency is how things work. The superposition does not even collapse autonomously, it is just left undecided without some kind of interaction.
Life is therefore built into the mainline of the universe, because the DNA system has the same fundamental ordering as the universe.
As before, the theory of everything should be easily attainable with the computing power of an ordinary pc. That when you order things based on zero, then the main laws of the universe, and constants, would become quite apparent in that ordering.
Probably "communication" is the highest explanatory concept, to describe things with. Because creationism shows that the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion. Which is communication. Objects, such as planets, areexpressive of the spirit.
Op dinsdag 29 augustus 2023 om 23:55:19 UTC+2 schreef Abner:
Peter wrote:
The "fine tuning" of the fundamental constants of our universe forces atheistsI'm not so sure about that - it has the odor of a false dilemma to me; but the idea
[and all people who think deeply of the ultimate questions of our existence]
to choose between a multiverse containing an inconceivably large number of universes,
and a Designer of our physical universe.
of an infinite or very large number of universes has some interesting possibilities to it.
Have you read "Before the Big Bang" by Laura Mersini-Houghton? It argues for a
merger of quantum mechanics and Big Bang theory in a way that leads to the conclusion
that our type of universe, while not the only type of universe that could come into
existence, would be a highly probable type of universe. They then looked for ways
that the idea could be tested - leaving possible marks on our universe as a result of
quantum interference before the universe had expanded very far - and tried to test
the idea. They got some interesting results from the testing as well ... a lot of the
features their ideas predict are seen in our universe.
I'm not a devotee of the idea of infinite universes, but I found her ideas (and those of
her colleagues) a lot more interesting than the "every different possibility leads to a
whole new universe" version of infinite universes.
By "fine tuning" is meant the incredibly small tolerance of the fundamental constantsNow that argument I find to be rather specious. We have enough trouble determining
for the existence of life, and even more so for intelligent life.
exactly what is needed for life to occur in our universe under our physical rules.
Figuring out the probability of life occurring under alternate physical rules strikes me
as stretching far beyond even our current level of knowledge. I've seen a number of
analyses of the probability of Earth-like life occurring under alternate physical rules,
and I generally find those to be a bit beyond what we can say (given that we can't
really even calculate it under our rules, doing it under alternate rules strikes me as
beyond our abilities). But calculating the probabilities of *any* form of life under
*any* rules? I've seen a lot of hand-waving, where some people end up deciding
that it is basically impossible, some people end up deciding that it is basically inevitable,
and anywhere in between, depending on which arbitrary assumptions were chosen.
And they usually seem to choose the assumptions that lead to the results they want
to fall out at the end of the calculation ... IMO such calculations are ideology, not
really math or science, and will remain so until we know a lot more about how
universes come into being than we currently know (which is perilously close to
nothing IMO).
At this point I would say "We don't know yet" is by far a better answer than the
results of any calculation done by any mathematician. If you can get any results you want out of the calculation just by adjusting the numbers, the calculations are worthless. This particular question is far, far more difficult
than solving the odds of abiogenesis on Earth, and we are far from even being able to solve that much simpler case.
If you think we can do such calculations, please calculate the odds of life occurring
in a universe which comes out with four spacial dimensions. Not "life as we know
it", but anything that could reasonably be thought of as life. Please state your
assumptions and show your work. If you don't want to waste the time on
it, just think how useful proving the odds would be for coming up with a really neat article for a mathematics journal. You don't have to show it to me ...
this is really more for your to try for yourself. How would you even set it up?
Until people can really do this sort of thing and not get arbitrary answers,
I will continue to stick with "We don't know yet" as my answer on this question.
Peter wrote:
The "fine tuning" of the fundamental constants of our universe forces atheists
[and all people who think deeply of the ultimate questions of our existence]
to choose between a multiverse containing an inconceivably large number of universes,
and a Designer of our physical universe.
I'm not so sure about that - it has the odor of a false dilemma to me;
but the idea
of an infinite or very large number of universes has some interesting possibilities to it.
Have you read "Before the Big Bang" by Laura Mersini-Houghton? It argues for a
merger of quantum mechanics and Big Bang theory in a way that leads to the conclusion
that our type of universe, while not the only type of universe that could come into
existence, would be a highly probable type of universe.
They then looked for ways
that the idea could be tested - leaving possible marks on our universe as a result of
quantum interference before the universe had expanded very far - and tried to test
the idea. They got some interesting results from the testing as well ... a lot of the
features their ideas predict are seen in our universe.
I'm not a devotee of the idea of infinite universes, but I found her ideas (and those of
her colleagues) a lot more interesting than the "every different possibility leads to a
whole new universe" version of infinite universes.
By "fine tuning" is meant the incredibly small tolerance of the fundamental constants
for the existence of life, and even more so for intelligent life.
Now that argument I find to be rather specious. We have enough trouble determining
exactly what is needed for life to occur in our universe under our physical rules.
Figuring out the probability of life occurring under alternate physical rules strikes me
as stretching far beyond even our current level of knowledge.
I've seen a number of
analyses of the probability of Earth-like life occurring under alternate physical rules,
and I generally find those to be a bit beyond what we can say (given that we can't
really even calculate it under our rules, doing it under alternate rules strikes me as
beyond our abilities). But calculating the probabilities of *any* form of life under
*any* rules? I've seen a lot of hand-waving, where some people end up deciding
that it is basically impossible, some people end up deciding that it is basically inevitable,
and anywhere in between, depending on which arbitrary assumptions were chosen.
And they usually seem to choose the assumptions that lead to the results they want
to fall out at the end of the calculation ...
IMO such calculations are ideology, not
really math or science, and will remain so until we know a lot more about how
universes come into being than we currently know (which is perilously close to
nothing IMO).
At this point I would say "We don't know yet" is by far a better answer than the
results of any calculation done by any mathematician. If you can get any results you want out of the calculation just by adjusting the numbers, the calculations are worthless. This particular question is far, far more difficult
than solving the odds of abiogenesis on Earth, and we are far from even being able to solve that much simpler case.
If you think we can do such calculations, please calculate the odds of life occurring
in a universe which comes out with four spacial dimensions.
Not "life as we know
it", but anything that could reasonably be thought of as life. Please state your
assumptions and show your work. If you don't want to waste the time on
it, just think how useful proving the odds would be for coming up with a really neat article for a mathematics journal.
You don't have to show it to me ...
this is really more for your to try for yourself. How would you even set it up?
Until people can really do this sort of thing and not get arbitrary answers, I will continue to stick with "We don't know yet" as my answer on this question.
It's nice to see a response to me by you, Abner. I was just about to comment on your own account of why you participate here, but that can wait.
I'm not so sure about that - it has the odor of a false dilemma to me;
It is one, technically. Did you look at what I wrote about the following third
possibility before you deleted it?
And note, in The World According to Carl Sagan, there is no possibility of any other
universe coming into existence in the whole of reality. Is this something which
sits well with you?
Have you read "Before the Big Bang" by Laura Mersini-Houghton? It argues for a
merger of quantum mechanics and Big Bang theory in a way that leads to the conclusion
that our type of universe, while not the only type of universe that could come into
existence, would be a highly probable type of universe.
I haven't read it, but the concept of "type of universe" is quite ambiguous.
By "fine tuning" is meant the incredibly small tolerance of the fundamental constants
for the existence of life, and even more so for intelligent life.
Now that argument I find to be rather specious. We have enough trouble determining
exactly what is needed for life to occur in our universe under our physical rules.
I see that you have not read Martin Rees's _Just Six Numbers_.
Figuring out the probability of life occurring under alternate physical rules strikes me
as stretching far beyond even our current level of knowledge.
How well does the picture I gave, attested to by the Astronomer Royal of England,
and a Professor of Physics at Cambridge University when Rees wrote that book, sit with you?
If you think we can do such calculations, please calculate the odds of life occurring
in a universe which comes out with four spacial dimensions.
Rees gives the answer that Newton may have figured out already:
planetary orbits would be completely unstable under the inverse-cube
law that would result from four spatial dimensions. The slightest perturbation
would either send a planet crashing into its "sun," or speeding out into the cold void between the stars.
Not "life as we know
it", but anything that could reasonably be thought of as life. Please state your
assumptions and show your work. If you don't want to waste the time on
it, just think how useful proving the odds would be for coming up with a really neat article for a mathematics journal.
Nobody would want an article that "reinvents the wheel" of planetary orbits.
Until people can really do this sort of thing and not get arbitrary answers,
I will continue to stick with "We don't know yet" as my answer on this question.
I hate to burst your bubble, but you have a lot of reading to do.
Even Jonathan, with his belief that chaos theory would give us the solution to the enmity
between Israelis and Palestinians, seemed sober in comparison to you.
And I posted a reply to him a few minutes ago. It was a pleasure that you are unable to provide.
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 12:15:19 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 8/28/23 6:40 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 3:05:16 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 21:00:16 UTC+3, MarkE wrote:
.Because evidence of existence of whatever supernatural has always interested me.
Mainly because by my understanding the life of our grandchildren will apparently become
quite crappy and they might need extra aid. Unfortunately nothing comes up ever.
It exists nonetheless; keep reading.
I have read scriptures of various religions, but these seem indistinguishable from
man-written fairy tales. Also requirement to believe without questioning is impossible
to fulfill in world where big part of phone calls and mails one receives is scam.
Various televangelists and psychics claiming having paranormal abilities and contact
with supernatural have been shown to be charlatans and stage magicians. >>>> Scientists like James Tour or Michael Behe promise to find evidence of something
supernatural but then point only at gaps in naturalist explanations.
The "evidence" like interesting properties of water or unclear origins of petroleum
are not indication of supernatural activities, just our ignorance.
But if something comes up I'm sure it will be discussed here.
It has been, but it is easy to miss the few posts that really address it here.
Here is something that condenses a lot of what I've written here over the years:
The "fine tuning" of the fundamental constants of our universe forces atheists
[and all people who think deeply of the ultimate questions of our existence]
to choose between a multiverse containing an inconceivably large number of universes,
and a Designer of our physical universe.
By "fine tuning" is meant the incredibly small tolerance of the fundamental constants for the existence of life,
and even more so for intelligent life. You can read about it in the superb and quite readable book, _Just Six Numbers_,
by Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal of England.
That fine tuning argument impresses only people who don't understand
probability.
I understand it, and have arguments that involve extending probabilities
to the infinite plane or whatever, that the sophomoric naysayers who try
to flesh out your little sentence don't have any clue about.
All they can say is that the probability theory of which *they* know
makes it impossible to justify the fine tuning argument.
They ask, "What is the probability of a universe that
could support us?
That use of "us" is idiotic and bespeaks a literalist reading
of Genesis 1.
Correction: it goes beyond it by being ignorant of C.S. Lewis's
Perelandra trilogy, which talks at great length about four species
of intelligent creatures, three on Mars and one on Venus. .
" and get a very small probability, but the relevant
question is really, "What is the probability of a universe that could
support us, given that we are here in the universe to ask the
question?", and the answer to that is 1.
That is a denial of the very existence of probability theory,
because it implicitly gives any statement about actual data
-- past, present and future -- a probability of either 1 or 0.
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 12:45:18 AM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 21:12:45 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
On 8/28/23 6:40 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:It still boggles that this elementary point seems to be
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 3:05:16?AM UTC-4, 嘱 Tiib wrote:
On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 21:00:16 UTC+3, MarkE wrote:
.Because evidence of existence of whatever supernatural has always interested me.
Mainly because by my understanding the life of our grandchildren will apparently become
quite crappy and they might need extra aid. Unfortunately nothing comes up ever.
It exists nonetheless; keep reading.
I have read scriptures of various religions, but these seem indistinguishable from
man-written fairy tales. Also requirement to believe without questioning is impossible
to fulfill in world where big part of phone calls and mails one receives is scam.
Various televangelists and psychics claiming having paranormal abilities and contact
with supernatural have been shown to be charlatans and stage magicians. >>>>> Scientists like James Tour or Michael Behe promise to find evidence of something
supernatural but then point only at gaps in naturalist explanations. >>>>> The "evidence" like interesting properties of water or unclear origins of petroleum
are not indication of supernatural activities, just our ignorance.
But if something comes up I'm sure it will be discussed here.
It has been, but it is easy to miss the few posts that really address it here.
Here is something that condenses a lot of what I've written here over the years:
The "fine tuning" of the fundamental constants of our universe forces atheists
[and all people who think deeply of the ultimate questions of our existence]
to choose between a multiverse containing an inconceivably large number of universes,
and a Designer of our physical universe.
By "fine tuning" is meant the incredibly small tolerance of the fundamental constants for the existence of life,
and even more so for intelligent life. You can read about it in the superb and quite readable book, _Just Six Numbers_,
by Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal of England.
That fine tuning argument impresses only people who don't understand
probability. They ask, "What is the probability of a universe that
could support us?" and get a very small probability, but the relevant
question is really, "What is the probability of a universe that could
support us, given that we are here in the universe to ask the
question?", and the answer to that is 1.
beyond the understanding of supposedly-intelligent people.
I think there are some caveats here.
Generally speaking, I agree. Technically, there are some issues.
If one admits some scenario whereby some oddball exceptional
thing kicks off our universe, that scenario cuts into being a
part of the probability of 1 and those that invoke this oddball
scenario have a foot in the door. Of course, we still have no
useful parameters with which to bound the likelihood of the
oddball scenario(s). I don't know how to admit or exclude
such oddball scenarios other than by fiat.
.
The problem is presuming that the probability of 1 excludes
scenarios that would be perceived as supernatural influence.
.
As much as it pains me, I have to give a nod to Ron Okimoto
that invocations of oddball scenarios for specific stages of
events that lead to us here and now seemingly require a
succession of additional oddball scenarios in a confluence
of special pleading that is exceptionally dubious. I'm going
to be nasty and say that Ron is spectacularly inept at
clearly elucidating this point, even though it is at root
behind much of what he argues. And at root he is on target.
If he could lose the jargon about perps and rubes he could
be dramatically more effective. Call me bad names if it helps.
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 7:05:18 PM UTC-4, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:theory, because it makes the least assumptions, so it has low risk of errors. Then also the DNA sytem, and the human mind, have the same universal mathematical ordering.
Another dead water discussion.
There would be, if your fantasy below were taken seriously.
Abner, to whom you are replying, at least seems to be teachable, and is able to pose
intelligible questions and challenges; you give us nothing to grab onto below.
Creatio ex nihilo. Efficient steps of mathematical structures in respect to zero, with rewriting. Which provides a maximally efficient ordering which in all probablity, is the same as the ordering of the universe. The efficient theory is the deffault
expressive of the spirit.Efficiency is how things work. The superposition does not even collapse autonomously, it is just left undecided without some kind of interaction.
Life is therefore built into the mainline of the universe, because the DNA system has the same fundamental ordering as the universe.
As before, the theory of everything should be easily attainable with the computing power of an ordinary pc. That when you order things based on zero, then the main laws of the universe, and constants, would become quite apparent in that ordering.Even Jonathan, with his belief that chaos theory would give us the solution to the enmity
between Israelis and Palestinians, seemed sober in comparison to you.
Probably "communication" is the highest explanatory concept, to describe things with. Because creationism shows that the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion. Which is communication. Objects, such as planets, are
Op dinsdag 29 augustus 2023 om 23:55:19 UTC+2 schreef Abner:And I posted a reply to him a few minutes ago. It was a pleasure that you are unable to provide.
Adieu,
Peter Nyikos
Peter wrote:
The "fine tuning" of the fundamental constants of our universe forces atheistsI'm not so sure about that - it has the odor of a false dilemma to me; but the idea
[and all people who think deeply of the ultimate questions of our existence]
to choose between a multiverse containing an inconceivably large number of universes,
and a Designer of our physical universe.
of an infinite or very large number of universes has some interesting possibilities to it.
Have you read "Before the Big Bang" by Laura Mersini-Houghton? It argues for a
merger of quantum mechanics and Big Bang theory in a way that leads to the conclusion
that our type of universe, while not the only type of universe that could come into
existence, would be a highly probable type of universe. They then looked for ways
that the idea could be tested - leaving possible marks on our universe as a result of
quantum interference before the universe had expanded very far - and tried to test
the idea. They got some interesting results from the testing as well ... a lot of the
features their ideas predict are seen in our universe.
I'm not a devotee of the idea of infinite universes, but I found her ideas (and those of
her colleagues) a lot more interesting than the "every different possibility leads to a
whole new universe" version of infinite universes.
By "fine tuning" is meant the incredibly small tolerance of the fundamental constantsNow that argument I find to be rather specious. We have enough trouble determining
for the existence of life, and even more so for intelligent life.
exactly what is needed for life to occur in our universe under our physical rules.
Figuring out the probability of life occurring under alternate physical rules strikes me
as stretching far beyond even our current level of knowledge. I've seen a number of
analyses of the probability of Earth-like life occurring under alternate physical rules,
and I generally find those to be a bit beyond what we can say (given that we can't
really even calculate it under our rules, doing it under alternate rules strikes me as
beyond our abilities). But calculating the probabilities of *any* form of life under
*any* rules? I've seen a lot of hand-waving, where some people end up deciding
that it is basically impossible, some people end up deciding that it is basically inevitable,
and anywhere in between, depending on which arbitrary assumptions were chosen.
And they usually seem to choose the assumptions that lead to the results they want
to fall out at the end of the calculation ... IMO such calculations are ideology, not
really math or science, and will remain so until we know a lot more about how
universes come into being than we currently know (which is perilously close to
nothing IMO).
At this point I would say "We don't know yet" is by far a better answer than the
results of any calculation done by any mathematician. If you can get any results you want out of the calculation just by adjusting the numbers, the
calculations are worthless. This particular question is far, far more difficult
than solving the odds of abiogenesis on Earth, and we are far from even being able to solve that much simpler case.
If you think we can do such calculations, please calculate the odds of life occurring
in a universe which comes out with four spacial dimensions. Not "life as we know
it", but anything that could reasonably be thought of as life. Please state your
assumptions and show your work. If you don't want to waste the time on it, just think how useful proving the odds would be for coming up with a really neat article for a mathematics journal. You don't have to show it to me ...
this is really more for your to try for yourself. How would you even set it up?
Until people can really do this sort of thing and not get arbitrary answers,
I will continue to stick with "We don't know yet" as my answer on this question.
The people who do not even accept the fact that decision is a fundamental reality of physics, creationism, pretending to have any idea about the way things work in the universe.
Why don't you do science without mathematics, seeing as that you don't really believe mathematics can accurately model the universe?number. It is a universe, a unity, because it is tied up with zero, and constants obviously have a mainline place in that ordering in respect to zero. You lack common sense.
This kind of nonsense where universal constants are abitrary numbers chosen from the number line. It is not understanding that mathematics starts with the symbol zero, and all is derived from zero. A universal constant is never going to be an arbitrary
Op woensdag 30 augustus 2023 om 01:55:19 UTC+2 schreef peter2...@gmail.com:deffault theory, because it makes the least assumptions, so it has low risk of errors. Then also the DNA sytem, and the human mind, have the same universal mathematical ordering.
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 7:05:18 PM UTC-4, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
Another dead water discussion.
There would be, if your fantasy below were taken seriously.
Abner, to whom you are replying, at least seems to be teachable, and is able to pose
intelligible questions and challenges; you give us nothing to grab onto below.
Creatio ex nihilo. Efficient steps of mathematical structures in respect to zero, with rewriting. Which provides a maximally efficient ordering which in all probablity, is the same as the ordering of the universe. The efficient theory is the
expressive of the spirit.Efficiency is how things work. The superposition does not even collapse autonomously, it is just left undecided without some kind of interaction.
Life is therefore built into the mainline of the universe, because the DNA system has the same fundamental ordering as the universe.
As before, the theory of everything should be easily attainable with the computing power of an ordinary pc. That when you order things based on zero, then the main laws of the universe, and constants, would become quite apparent in that ordering.Even Jonathan, with his belief that chaos theory would give us the solution to the enmity
between Israelis and Palestinians, seemed sober in comparison to you.
Probably "communication" is the highest explanatory concept, to describe things with. Because creationism shows that the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion. Which is communication. Objects, such as planets, are
Op dinsdag 29 augustus 2023 om 23:55:19 UTC+2 schreef Abner:And I posted a reply to him a few minutes ago. It was a pleasure that you are unable to provide.
Adieu,
Peter Nyikos
Peter wrote:
The "fine tuning" of the fundamental constants of our universe forces atheistsI'm not so sure about that - it has the odor of a false dilemma to me; but the idea
[and all people who think deeply of the ultimate questions of our existence]
to choose between a multiverse containing an inconceivably large number of universes,
and a Designer of our physical universe.
of an infinite or very large number of universes has some interesting possibilities to it.
Have you read "Before the Big Bang" by Laura Mersini-Houghton? It argues for a
merger of quantum mechanics and Big Bang theory in a way that leads to the conclusion
that our type of universe, while not the only type of universe that could come into
existence, would be a highly probable type of universe. They then looked for ways
that the idea could be tested - leaving possible marks on our universe as a result of
quantum interference before the universe had expanded very far - and tried to test
the idea. They got some interesting results from the testing as well ... a lot of the
features their ideas predict are seen in our universe.
I'm not a devotee of the idea of infinite universes, but I found her ideas (and those of
her colleagues) a lot more interesting than the "every different possibility leads to a
whole new universe" version of infinite universes.
By "fine tuning" is meant the incredibly small tolerance of the fundamental constantsNow that argument I find to be rather specious. We have enough trouble determining
for the existence of life, and even more so for intelligent life.
exactly what is needed for life to occur in our universe under our physical rules.
Figuring out the probability of life occurring under alternate physical rules strikes me
as stretching far beyond even our current level of knowledge. I've seen a number of
analyses of the probability of Earth-like life occurring under alternate physical rules,
and I generally find those to be a bit beyond what we can say (given that we can't
really even calculate it under our rules, doing it under alternate rules strikes me as
beyond our abilities). But calculating the probabilities of *any* form of life under
*any* rules? I've seen a lot of hand-waving, where some people end up deciding
that it is basically impossible, some people end up deciding that it is basically inevitable,
and anywhere in between, depending on which arbitrary assumptions were chosen.
And they usually seem to choose the assumptions that lead to the results they want
to fall out at the end of the calculation ... IMO such calculations are ideology, not
really math or science, and will remain so until we know a lot more about how
universes come into being than we currently know (which is perilously close to
nothing IMO).
At this point I would say "We don't know yet" is by far a better answer than the
results of any calculation done by any mathematician. If you can get any
results you want out of the calculation just by adjusting the numbers, the
calculations are worthless. This particular question is far, far more difficult
than solving the odds of abiogenesis on Earth, and we are far from even
being able to solve that much simpler case.
If you think we can do such calculations, please calculate the odds of life occurring
in a universe which comes out with four spacial dimensions. Not "life as we know
it", but anything that could reasonably be thought of as life. Please state your
assumptions and show your work. If you don't want to waste the time on it, just think how useful proving the odds would be for coming up with a
really neat article for a mathematics journal. You don't have to show it to me ...
this is really more for your to try for yourself. How would you even set it up?
Until people can really do this sort of thing and not get arbitrary answers,
I will continue to stick with "We don't know yet" as my answer on this question.
On Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 16:40:20 UTC+3, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:arbitrary number. It is a universe, a unity, because it is tied up with zero, and constants obviously have a mainline place in that ordering in respect to zero. You lack common sense.
The people who do not even accept the fact that decision is a fundamental reality of physics, creationism, pretending to have any idea about the way things work in the universe.
I have every time I happen to read any of your posts Chez Watt moment.
What "decision is a fundamental reality of physics" means? Is it
equivalent of:
"Resolution reached is a Russellian monism of natural science of
matter."
Why don't you do science without mathematics, seeing as that you don't really believe mathematics can accurately model the universe?
This kind of nonsense where universal constants are abitrary numbers chosen from the number line. It is not understanding that mathematics starts with the symbol zero, and all is derived from zero. A universal constant is never going to be an
deffault theory, because it makes the least assumptions, so it has low risk of errors. Then also the DNA sytem, and the human mind, have the same universal mathematical ordering.Op woensdag 30 augustus 2023 om 01:55:19 UTC+2 schreef peter2...@gmail.com:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 7:05:18 PM UTC-4, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
Another dead water discussion.
There would be, if your fantasy below were taken seriously.
Abner, to whom you are replying, at least seems to be teachable, and is able to pose
intelligible questions and challenges; you give us nothing to grab onto below.
Creatio ex nihilo. Efficient steps of mathematical structures in respect to zero, with rewriting. Which provides a maximally efficient ordering which in all probablity, is the same as the ordering of the universe. The efficient theory is the
expressive of the spirit.Efficiency is how things work. The superposition does not even collapse autonomously, it is just left undecided without some kind of interaction.
Life is therefore built into the mainline of the universe, because the DNA system has the same fundamental ordering as the universe.
As before, the theory of everything should be easily attainable with the computing power of an ordinary pc. That when you order things based on zero, then the main laws of the universe, and constants, would become quite apparent in that ordering.Even Jonathan, with his belief that chaos theory would give us the solution to the enmity
between Israelis and Palestinians, seemed sober in comparison to you.
Probably "communication" is the highest explanatory concept, to describe things with. Because creationism shows that the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion. Which is communication. Objects, such as planets, are
Op dinsdag 29 augustus 2023 om 23:55:19 UTC+2 schreef Abner:And I posted a reply to him a few minutes ago. It was a pleasure that you are unable to provide.
Adieu,
Peter Nyikos
Peter wrote:
The "fine tuning" of the fundamental constants of our universe forces atheistsI'm not so sure about that - it has the odor of a false dilemma to me; but the idea
[and all people who think deeply of the ultimate questions of our existence]
to choose between a multiverse containing an inconceivably large number of universes,
and a Designer of our physical universe.
of an infinite or very large number of universes has some interesting possibilities to it.
Have you read "Before the Big Bang" by Laura Mersini-Houghton? It argues for a
merger of quantum mechanics and Big Bang theory in a way that leads to the conclusion
that our type of universe, while not the only type of universe that could come into
existence, would be a highly probable type of universe. They then looked for ways
that the idea could be tested - leaving possible marks on our universe as a result of
quantum interference before the universe had expanded very far - and tried to test
the idea. They got some interesting results from the testing as well ... a lot of the
features their ideas predict are seen in our universe.
I'm not a devotee of the idea of infinite universes, but I found her ideas (and those of
her colleagues) a lot more interesting than the "every different possibility leads to a
whole new universe" version of infinite universes.
By "fine tuning" is meant the incredibly small tolerance of the fundamental constantsNow that argument I find to be rather specious. We have enough trouble determining
for the existence of life, and even more so for intelligent life.
exactly what is needed for life to occur in our universe under our physical rules.
Figuring out the probability of life occurring under alternate physical rules strikes me
as stretching far beyond even our current level of knowledge. I've seen a number of
analyses of the probability of Earth-like life occurring under alternate physical rules,
and I generally find those to be a bit beyond what we can say (given that we can't
really even calculate it under our rules, doing it under alternate rules strikes me as
beyond our abilities). But calculating the probabilities of *any* form of life under
*any* rules? I've seen a lot of hand-waving, where some people end up deciding
that it is basically impossible, some people end up deciding that it is basically inevitable,
and anywhere in between, depending on which arbitrary assumptions were chosen.
And they usually seem to choose the assumptions that lead to the results they want
to fall out at the end of the calculation ... IMO such calculations are ideology, not
really math or science, and will remain so until we know a lot more about how
universes come into being than we currently know (which is perilously close to
nothing IMO).
At this point I would say "We don't know yet" is by far a better answer than the
results of any calculation done by any mathematician. If you can get any
results you want out of the calculation just by adjusting the numbers, the
calculations are worthless. This particular question is far, far more difficult
than solving the odds of abiogenesis on Earth, and we are far from even
being able to solve that much simpler case.
If you think we can do such calculations, please calculate the odds of life occurring
in a universe which comes out with four spacial dimensions. Not "life as we know
it", but anything that could reasonably be thought of as life. Please state your
assumptions and show your work. If you don't want to waste the time on
it, just think how useful proving the odds would be for coming up with a
really neat article for a mathematics journal. You don't have to show it to me ...
this is really more for your to try for yourself. How would you even set it up?
Until people can really do this sort of thing and not get arbitrary answers,
I will continue to stick with "We don't know yet" as my answer on this question.
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 20:20:53 +0000, *Hemidactylus*You see this is a perfect example of your problem here. I said I go on
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 10:47:33 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer DaggettI let my frustrations get the best of me and go on the occasional f-bomb >>> tirade but I do have a damper switch. Find yours.
<j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 1:15:17?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 09:27:38 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett.
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 11:10:18?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 09:04:06 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> >>>>>>>> wrote:It isn't the first time. It almost certainly won't be the last.
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 00:34:03 -0700 (PDT), the following"If it's on the Internet is must be correct."
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 7:50:16?AM UTC+1, jillery wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 18:59:54 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:And that's exactly how it was meant ("You saw it on the
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 15:22:07 -0700 (PDT), the following >>>>>>>>>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by BurkhardSo when person X participates, it's due to a virtuous if perhaps >>>>>>>>>>> pathological need to teach, and when person Y participates, it's due
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 7:00:16?PM UTC+1, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> .No! Please say it ain't so!
- Pathological need to teach
- spotted someone being wrong on the internet
- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC
to a mindless reaction to someone being wrong on the internet. Yet >>>>>>>>>>> another case of not what is said but who says it.
But in both cases it was me who said it?
So I read Bob's reply as a humorous: "what, something false on the Internet?
Incredible! Please tell me it ain't so, and that everything on the >>>>>>>>>> webs is truth itself"
Internet? Well, then, it *must* be correct!"); I'm glad at
least *you* understood.
and
"Someone is wrong on the Internet."
are contradictory claims, and so not the same thing.
More to the point, you regularly criticize others for reacting to >>>>>>>> someone being wrong on the Internet, even as you regularly react to >>>>>>>> someone being wrong on the Internet. All of which make your comments >>>>>>>> above a self-parody.
Let's review. Burkhard answer "why do you post here?" with
- Pathological need to teach
- spotted someone being wrong on the internet
- continue the tradition of my people, corrupting the youth since 399 BC
It's that mix of sincere, smart, and funny that some of us like. >>>>>>> Let me completely ruin it.
The first is self-awareness but borders on
pomposity which makes a fella feel uncomfortable. The 'pathological' >>>>>>> takes the edge off. The second line of course references a classic >>>>>>> comic drawing, someone is calling you to join then in bed but you say >>>>>>> you can't because someone is wrong on the internet. This is full on >>>>>>> self-deprecation, laughing at oneself and their reasons for spewing >>>>>>> forth on usenet. Then it's followed by a semi-oblique reference to >>>>>>> Socrates, and his ultimate fate. It's a 7 layer cake in just 3 lines, >>>>>>> and in that it adds frosting on top about enjoying inside jokes even >>>>>>> if few get them but appreciating that some few readers might.
That was the set-up.
Bob responds to show some appreciation. No idea if he saw it in >>>>>>> the layers I saw it, or if Burkhard intended all the layering I perceive,
but he appreciated at least some of the humor. Liking humor, he >>>>>>> gave a bit of positive re-enforcement. He does that, even if it's just >>>>>>> to groan at especially bad puns when he doesn't even have a bad >>>>>>> pun to toss back.
Then, we get your response. You uncorked something that seems
like bottled up frustration, only not clear when it gets bottled up. >>>>>> Here's a deal; you let me worry about bottling up my frustrations, and >>>>>> I'll let you worry about bottling up yours.
Apparently the "someone's wrong on the internet" is a trigger line >>>>>>> as you feel it's been unfairly directed at you at times in criticism. >>>>>>>
Frankly, I think we should all have that comic printed out and taped >>>>>>> next to our monitors. If I were more creative, I'd build a tool that would
have it pop up on screen every time someone clicks to send a post. >>>>>>> It would fill you screen, pause for 3 seconds --- which is actually a >>>>>>> very long time --- and then put up an "Are you sure???" overlay. >>>>>>>
It would be customizable so people could add in a few more layers >>>>>>> of "Are you sure?" with messages like "is the asshole worth it?", >>>>>>> "does anybody else care?", "does anyone whose opinion you value >>>>>>> not already know?", "he'll probably enjoy it", and for myself in particular,
"you're not as funny as you imagine." noli turbare circulos meos.
Your comments above are you reacting to me being wrong on the.
Interact, even as you criticize me for reacting to Bob for being wrong >>>>>> on the Internet. What would be great would be if there was a device >>>>>> that detected when you post comments like yours, and before you hit >>>>>> "send", would put up a mirror in front of your face.
Funny thing, I did point the mirror to myself, including myself in the >>>>> broad criticism of all talk.origins posters who run the risk of taking >>>>> themselves too seriously. Was that not explicit enough? Essentially
nothing in what I wrote there was targeted specifically towards you
beyond the recounting of how we got there, but then I followed with >>>>> "frankly, I think we should all ...". The words "we" and "all" seemed >>>>> significant to me. Apparently, my writing skills have failed me again. >>>>
Funny thing, I recall reading you explicitly and baselessly
criticizing me:
*****************************************
Then, we get your response. You uncorked something that seems
like bottled up frustration, only not clear when it gets bottled up.
*****************************************
Apparently, your writing skills correlates with your convenient
amnesia.
I know you know you can't cite where I post f-bombs, or anything of
the kind. So your comments above are just more of your baseless
allusions that you post when you feel like exercising your inner
troll.
f-bomb tirades. You interpreted that as me saying you go on f-bomb tirades.
And you go on to talk about baseless allusions. Maybe step back from the >keyboard and go find a hobby. I’d suggest a cruise but COVID seems on the >upswing. You will perhaps misinterpret that as me suggesting you get COVID >because reasons not of my making.
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 02:28:17 -0400, jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>Ought implies can…"I had the right to remain silent... but I didn't have >the ability."
wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 22:53:57 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 6:25:17?PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote: >>>>>I could go the jillery route and perceive a slight where you are using that
There’s plenty of the outside world (brute facts or Randroid
“metaphysically given”) that cannot be changed. What is most pliable is how
one chooses to deal with that world, though parts of ones psychic makeup
are pretty much set in stone (or stone age) or second nature forces of >>>>>> habit. To the degree one can, one might change their ways of dealing with
the outwardly unchangeable as the latter won’t budge. I kinda lost myself
here (you too?), but will close with Kant’s dictum that ought implies can.
https://br.ifunny.co/picture/had-the-right-to-remain-silent-but-i-didn-thave-tRw7LfFu9
Ron White joke as a veiled means of saying I should shut up. Or I could >>>> apply the rule to interpret in the best light and realize the joke aligns >>>> well with Kant’s dictum. I opt for the latter. Plus I lack the stamina to
turn this into a neverending subthread about my bruised ego. I do
appreciate me some Blue Collar comedy, but am more a fan of Bill Engvall. >>>
Even allowing for argument's sake that's not how the phrase was
originally used in this specific thread, in fact it is how the phrase
is typically used in T.O., to gaslight other posters' concerns as
petty and unworthy of discussion. Another phrase similarly used in
T.O. is "killfiles are your friend".
Hemidactylus' comments raise the question; if the phrase is so
innocent, why do he and other posters twist their knickers over
someone being wrong on the Internet.
What phrase are you talking about? I cited Kant. Daggett cited Ron White.
You made this exchange oddly about you.
Cue Carly Simon: “You walked into the party like you were walking onto a >yacht
Your hat strategically dipped below one eye…”
What is your major malfunction?
He said he does occasionally...
"I let my frustrations get the best of me and go on the
occasional f-bomb tirade"
...not that you ever did.
On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 08:35:12 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
He said he does occasionally...
"I let my frustrations get the best of me and go on the
occasional f-bomb tirade"
...not that you ever did.
I never said that he said...
Either way, it's an irrelevant analogy and a pointless allusion.
On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 10:11:24 +0000, *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 02:28:17 -0400, jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>Ought implies can…"I had the right to remain silent... but I didn't have >> the ability."
wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 22:53:57 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 6:25:17?PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote: >>>>>>I could go the jillery route and perceive a slight where you are using that
There’s plenty of the outside world (brute facts or Randroid
“metaphysically given”) that cannot be changed. What is most pliable is how
one chooses to deal with that world, though parts of ones psychic makeup
are pretty much set in stone (or stone age) or second nature forces of >>>>>>> habit. To the degree one can, one might change their ways of dealing with
the outwardly unchangeable as the latter won’t budge. I kinda lost myself
here (you too?), but will close with Kant’s dictum that ought implies can.
https://br.ifunny.co/picture/had-the-right-to-remain-silent-but-i-didn-thave-tRw7LfFu9
Ron White joke as a veiled means of saying I should shut up. Or I could >>>>> apply the rule to interpret in the best light and realize the joke aligns >>>>> well with Kant’s dictum. I opt for the latter. Plus I lack the stamina to
turn this into a neverending subthread about my bruised ego. I do
appreciate me some Blue Collar comedy, but am more a fan of Bill Engvall. >>>>
Even allowing for argument's sake that's not how the phrase was
originally used in this specific thread, in fact it is how the phrase
is typically used in T.O., to gaslight other posters' concerns as
petty and unworthy of discussion. Another phrase similarly used in
T.O. is "killfiles are your friend".
Hemidactylus' comments raise the question; if the phrase is so
innocent, why do he and other posters twist their knickers over
someone being wrong on the Internet.
Can implies choice, while inability implies compulsion. Did someone
have a gun to your head and force you to post to this thread?
What phrase are you talking about? I cited Kant. Daggett cited Ron White.
You made this exchange oddly about you.
Cue Carly Simon: “You walked into the party like you were walking onto a >> yacht
Your hat strategically dipped below one eye…”
What is your major malfunction?
To the contrary, you, *Hemidactylus*, explicitly referred to a comment
by me, jillery. To refresh your convenient amnesia:
"I could go the jillery route and perceive a slight where you are
using that Ron White joke as a veiled means of saying I should shut
up."
The above refers to your previous comments in this thread. A
reasonable conclusion is you're continuing your theme to complain
about me. Apparently, your major malfunction here is to exercise your
inner troll and blame me for it.
On 8/28/23 10:41 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 12:45:18 AM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 21:12:45 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
On 8/28/23 6:40 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:It still boggles that this elementary point seems to be
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 3:05:16?AM UTC-4, 嘱 Tiib wrote:
On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 21:00:16 UTC+3, MarkE wrote:
.Because evidence of existence of whatever supernatural has always
interested me.
Mainly because by my understanding the life of our grandchildren
will apparently become
quite crappy and they might need extra aid. Unfortunately nothing
comes up ever.
It exists nonetheless; keep reading.
I have read scriptures of various religions, but these seem
indistinguishable from
man-written fairy tales. Also requirement to believe without
questioning is impossible
to fulfill in world where big part of phone calls and mails one
receives is scam.
Various televangelists and psychics claiming having paranormal
abilities and contact
with supernatural have been shown to be charlatans and stage
magicians.
Scientists like James Tour or Michael Behe promise to find
evidence of something
supernatural but then point only at gaps in naturalist explanations. >>>>>> The "evidence" like interesting properties of water or unclear
origins of petroleum
are not indication of supernatural activities, just our ignorance.
But if something comes up I'm sure it will be discussed here.
It has been, but it is easy to miss the few posts that really
address it here.
Here is something that condenses a lot of what I've written here
over the years:
The "fine tuning" of the fundamental constants of our universe
forces atheists
[and all people who think deeply of the ultimate questions of our
existence]
to choose between a multiverse containing an inconceivably large
number of universes,
and a Designer of our physical universe.
By "fine tuning" is meant the incredibly small tolerance of the
fundamental constants for the existence of life,
and even more so for intelligent life. You can read about it in the
superb and quite readable book, _Just Six Numbers_,
by Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal of England.
That fine tuning argument impresses only people who don't understand
probability. They ask, "What is the probability of a universe that
could support us?" and get a very small probability, but the relevant
question is really, "What is the probability of a universe that could
support us, given that we are here in the universe to ask the
question?", and the answer to that is 1.
beyond the understanding of supposedly-intelligent people.
I think there are some caveats here.
Generally speaking, I agree. Technically, there are some issues.
If one admits some scenario whereby some oddball exceptional
thing kicks off our universe, that scenario cuts into being a
part of the probability of 1 and those that invoke this oddball
scenario have a foot in the door. Of course, we still have no
useful parameters with which to bound the likelihood of the
oddball scenario(s). I don't know how to admit or exclude
such oddball scenarios other than by fiat.
.
The problem is presuming that the probability of 1 excludes
scenarios that would be perceived as supernatural influence.
.
As much as it pains me, I have to give a nod to Ron Okimoto
that invocations of oddball scenarios for specific stages of
events that lead to us here and now seemingly require a
succession of additional oddball scenarios in a confluence
of special pleading that is exceptionally dubious. I'm going
to be nasty and say that Ron is spectacularly inept at
clearly elucidating this point, even though it is at root
behind much of what he argues. And at root he is on target.
If he could lose the jargon about perps and rubes he could
be dramatically more effective. Call me bad names if it helps.
I don't know whether the problem is you or me or both, but I don't understand.
But in trying to figure your meaning, I have come to revise my
conclusion. The probability that a universe came into being with the ability to support intelligent life, given that the universe supports intelligent life, is NOT exactly 1, because there is the possibility
that we are living in a universe which is NOT (naturally) capable of supporting life, but supernatural forces allow us to exist anyway.
However, that conclusion is rather the opposite of what the fine-tuning argument is attempting to say.
No clue about decision, and no clue about the entire subjective part of reality, incuding human emotion and personal character. The dumbest in history.
Op woensdag 30 augustus 2023 om 16:30:20 UTC+2 schreef Öö Tiib:arbitrary number. It is a universe, a unity, because it is tied up with zero, and constants obviously have a mainline place in that ordering in respect to zero. You lack common sense.
On Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 16:40:20 UTC+3, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
The people who do not even accept the fact that decision is a fundamental reality of physics, creationism, pretending to have any idea about the way things work in the universe.
I have every time I happen to read any of your posts Chez Watt moment. What "decision is a fundamental reality of physics" means? Is it equivalent of:
"Resolution reached is a Russellian monism of natural science of
matter."
Why don't you do science without mathematics, seeing as that you don't really believe mathematics can accurately model the universe?
This kind of nonsense where universal constants are abitrary numbers chosen from the number line. It is not understanding that mathematics starts with the symbol zero, and all is derived from zero. A universal constant is never going to be an
deffault theory, because it makes the least assumptions, so it has low risk of errors. Then also the DNA sytem, and the human mind, have the same universal mathematical ordering.Op woensdag 30 augustus 2023 om 01:55:19 UTC+2 schreef peter2...@gmail.com:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 7:05:18 PM UTC-4, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
Another dead water discussion.
There would be, if your fantasy below were taken seriously.
Abner, to whom you are replying, at least seems to be teachable, and is able to pose
intelligible questions and challenges; you give us nothing to grab onto below.
Creatio ex nihilo. Efficient steps of mathematical structures in respect to zero, with rewriting. Which provides a maximally efficient ordering which in all probablity, is the same as the ordering of the universe. The efficient theory is the
ordering.Efficiency is how things work. The superposition does not even collapse autonomously, it is just left undecided without some kind of interaction.
Life is therefore built into the mainline of the universe, because the DNA system has the same fundamental ordering as the universe.
As before, the theory of everything should be easily attainable with the computing power of an ordinary pc. That when you order things based on zero, then the main laws of the universe, and constants, would become quite apparent in that
expressive of the spirit.Even Jonathan, with his belief that chaos theory would give us the solution to the enmity
between Israelis and Palestinians, seemed sober in comparison to you.
Probably "communication" is the highest explanatory concept, to describe things with. Because creationism shows that the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion. Which is communication. Objects, such as planets, are
Op dinsdag 29 augustus 2023 om 23:55:19 UTC+2 schreef Abner:And I posted a reply to him a few minutes ago. It was a pleasure that you are unable to provide.
Adieu,
Peter Nyikos
Peter wrote:
The "fine tuning" of the fundamental constants of our universe forces atheistsI'm not so sure about that - it has the odor of a false dilemma to me; but the idea
[and all people who think deeply of the ultimate questions of our existence]
to choose between a multiverse containing an inconceivably large number of universes,
and a Designer of our physical universe.
of an infinite or very large number of universes has some interesting possibilities to it.
Have you read "Before the Big Bang" by Laura Mersini-Houghton? It argues for a
merger of quantum mechanics and Big Bang theory in a way that leads to the conclusion
that our type of universe, while not the only type of universe that could come into
existence, would be a highly probable type of universe. They then looked for ways
that the idea could be tested - leaving possible marks on our universe as a result of
quantum interference before the universe had expanded very far - and tried to test
the idea. They got some interesting results from the testing as well ... a lot of the
features their ideas predict are seen in our universe.
I'm not a devotee of the idea of infinite universes, but I found her ideas (and those of
her colleagues) a lot more interesting than the "every different possibility leads to a
whole new universe" version of infinite universes.
By "fine tuning" is meant the incredibly small tolerance of the fundamental constantsNow that argument I find to be rather specious. We have enough trouble determining
for the existence of life, and even more so for intelligent life.
exactly what is needed for life to occur in our universe under our physical rules.
Figuring out the probability of life occurring under alternate physical rules strikes me
as stretching far beyond even our current level of knowledge. I've seen a number of
analyses of the probability of Earth-like life occurring under alternate physical rules,
and I generally find those to be a bit beyond what we can say (given that we can't
really even calculate it under our rules, doing it under alternate rules strikes me as
beyond our abilities). But calculating the probabilities of *any* form of life under
*any* rules? I've seen a lot of hand-waving, where some people end up deciding
that it is basically impossible, some people end up deciding that it is basically inevitable,
and anywhere in between, depending on which arbitrary assumptions were chosen.
And they usually seem to choose the assumptions that lead to the results they want
to fall out at the end of the calculation ... IMO such calculations are ideology, not
really math or science, and will remain so until we know a lot more about how
universes come into being than we currently know (which is perilously close to
nothing IMO).
At this point I would say "We don't know yet" is by far a better answer than the
results of any calculation done by any mathematician. If you can get any
results you want out of the calculation just by adjusting the numbers, the
calculations are worthless. This particular question is far, far more difficult
than solving the odds of abiogenesis on Earth, and we are far from even
being able to solve that much simpler case.
If you think we can do such calculations, please calculate the odds of life occurring
in a universe which comes out with four spacial dimensions. Not "life as we know
it", but anything that could reasonably be thought of as life. Please state your
assumptions and show your work. If you don't want to waste the time on
it, just think how useful proving the odds would be for coming up with a
really neat article for a mathematics journal. You don't have to show it to me ...
this is really more for your to try for yourself. How would you even set it up?
Until people can really do this sort of thing and not get arbitrary answers,
I will continue to stick with "We don't know yet" as my answer on this question.
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 10:11:24 +0000, *Hemidactylus*Yeah you rightly pointed to a dumbass reply by me *Hemidactylus*. Sorry. I
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 02:28:17 -0400, jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>Ought implies can…"I had the right to remain silent... but I didn't have >>> the ability."
wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 22:53:57 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 6:25:17?PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote: >>>>>>>I could go the jillery route and perceive a slight where you are using that
There’s plenty of the outside world (brute facts or Randroid >>>>>>>> “metaphysically given”) that cannot be changed. What is most pliable is how
one chooses to deal with that world, though parts of ones psychic makeup
are pretty much set in stone (or stone age) or second nature forces of
habit. To the degree one can, one might change their ways of dealing with
the outwardly unchangeable as the latter won’t budge. I kinda lost myself
here (you too?), but will close with Kant’s dictum that ought implies can.
https://br.ifunny.co/picture/had-the-right-to-remain-silent-but-i-didn-thave-tRw7LfFu9
Ron White joke as a veiled means of saying I should shut up. Or I could >>>>>> apply the rule to interpret in the best light and realize the joke aligns
well with Kant’s dictum. I opt for the latter. Plus I lack the stamina to
turn this into a neverending subthread about my bruised ego. I do
appreciate me some Blue Collar comedy, but am more a fan of Bill Engvall.
Even allowing for argument's sake that's not how the phrase was
originally used in this specific thread, in fact it is how the phrase >>>>> is typically used in T.O., to gaslight other posters' concerns as
petty and unworthy of discussion. Another phrase similarly used in
T.O. is "killfiles are your friend".
Hemidactylus' comments raise the question; if the phrase is so
innocent, why do he and other posters twist their knickers over
someone being wrong on the Internet.
Can implies choice, while inability implies compulsion. Did someone
have a gun to your head and force you to post to this thread?
What phrase are you talking about? I cited Kant. Daggett cited Ron White. >>> You made this exchange oddly about you.
Cue Carly Simon: “You walked into the party like you were walking onto a >>> yacht
Your hat strategically dipped below one eye…”
What is your major malfunction?
To the contrary, you, *Hemidactylus*, explicitly referred to a comment
by me, jillery. To refresh your convenient amnesia:
"I could go the jillery route and perceive a slight where you are
using that Ron White joke as a veiled means of saying I should shut
up."
The above refers to your previous comments in this thread. A
reasonable conclusion is you're continuing your theme to complain
about me. Apparently, your major malfunction here is to exercise your
inner troll and blame me for it.
am imperfect in my interpretation or parsing skills. Ask Peter.
I do think you take slights too seriously, but when not on an interpersonal >focus have valuable stuff to offer here. I’m sorry for being a bonehead >above.
On Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 23:45:20 UTC+3, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
No clue about decision, and no clue about the entire subjective part of reality, incuding human emotion and personal character. The dumbest in history.
I asked if "Resolution reached is a Russellian monism of
natural science of matter." is correct interpretation of your "fact" or not. You can't say, so you sprout insults.
You are capable to post only Chez Watts and insults. How it feels?
arbitrary number. It is a universe, a unity, because it is tied up with zero, and constants obviously have a mainline place in that ordering in respect to zero. You lack common sense.Op woensdag 30 augustus 2023 om 16:30:20 UTC+2 schreef Öö Tiib:
On Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 16:40:20 UTC+3, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
The people who do not even accept the fact that decision is a fundamental reality of physics, creationism, pretending to have any idea about the way things work in the universe.
I have every time I happen to read any of your posts Chez Watt moment. What "decision is a fundamental reality of physics" means? Is it equivalent of:
"Resolution reached is a Russellian monism of natural science of matter."
Why don't you do science without mathematics, seeing as that you don't really believe mathematics can accurately model the universe?
This kind of nonsense where universal constants are abitrary numbers chosen from the number line. It is not understanding that mathematics starts with the symbol zero, and all is derived from zero. A universal constant is never going to be an
deffault theory, because it makes the least assumptions, so it has low risk of errors. Then also the DNA sytem, and the human mind, have the same universal mathematical ordering.Op woensdag 30 augustus 2023 om 01:55:19 UTC+2 schreef peter2...@gmail.com:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 7:05:18 PM UTC-4, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
Another dead water discussion.
There would be, if your fantasy below were taken seriously.
Abner, to whom you are replying, at least seems to be teachable, and is able to pose
intelligible questions and challenges; you give us nothing to grab onto below.
Creatio ex nihilo. Efficient steps of mathematical structures in respect to zero, with rewriting. Which provides a maximally efficient ordering which in all probablity, is the same as the ordering of the universe. The efficient theory is the
ordering.Efficiency is how things work. The superposition does not even collapse autonomously, it is just left undecided without some kind of interaction.
Life is therefore built into the mainline of the universe, because the DNA system has the same fundamental ordering as the universe.
As before, the theory of everything should be easily attainable with the computing power of an ordinary pc. That when you order things based on zero, then the main laws of the universe, and constants, would become quite apparent in that
expressive of the spirit.Even Jonathan, with his belief that chaos theory would give us the solution to the enmity
between Israelis and Palestinians, seemed sober in comparison to you.
Probably "communication" is the highest explanatory concept, to describe things with. Because creationism shows that the spirit chooses, and the spirit is identified with a chosen opinion. Which is communication. Objects, such as planets, are
Op dinsdag 29 augustus 2023 om 23:55:19 UTC+2 schreef Abner:And I posted a reply to him a few minutes ago. It was a pleasure that you are unable to provide.
Adieu,
Peter Nyikos
Peter wrote:
The "fine tuning" of the fundamental constants of our universe forces atheistsI'm not so sure about that - it has the odor of a false dilemma to me; but the idea
[and all people who think deeply of the ultimate questions of our existence]
to choose between a multiverse containing an inconceivably large number of universes,
and a Designer of our physical universe.
of an infinite or very large number of universes has some interesting possibilities to it.
Have you read "Before the Big Bang" by Laura Mersini-Houghton? It argues for a
merger of quantum mechanics and Big Bang theory in a way that leads to the conclusion
that our type of universe, while not the only type of universe that could come into
existence, would be a highly probable type of universe. They then looked for ways
that the idea could be tested - leaving possible marks on our universe as a result of
quantum interference before the universe had expanded very far - and tried to test
the idea. They got some interesting results from the testing as well ... a lot of the
features their ideas predict are seen in our universe.
I'm not a devotee of the idea of infinite universes, but I found her ideas (and those of
her colleagues) a lot more interesting than the "every different possibility leads to a
whole new universe" version of infinite universes.
By "fine tuning" is meant the incredibly small tolerance of the fundamental constantsNow that argument I find to be rather specious. We have enough trouble determining
for the existence of life, and even more so for intelligent life.
exactly what is needed for life to occur in our universe under our physical rules.
Figuring out the probability of life occurring under alternate physical rules strikes me
as stretching far beyond even our current level of knowledge. I've seen a number of
analyses of the probability of Earth-like life occurring under alternate physical rules,
and I generally find those to be a bit beyond what we can say (given that we can't
really even calculate it under our rules, doing it under alternate rules strikes me as
beyond our abilities). But calculating the probabilities of *any* form of life under
*any* rules? I've seen a lot of hand-waving, where some people end up deciding
that it is basically impossible, some people end up deciding that it is basically inevitable,
and anywhere in between, depending on which arbitrary assumptions were chosen.
And they usually seem to choose the assumptions that lead to the results they want
to fall out at the end of the calculation ... IMO such calculations are ideology, not
really math or science, and will remain so until we know a lot more about how
universes come into being than we currently know (which is perilously close to
nothing IMO).
At this point I would say "We don't know yet" is by far a better answer than the
results of any calculation done by any mathematician. If you can get any
results you want out of the calculation just by adjusting the numbers, the
calculations are worthless. This particular question is far, far more difficult
than solving the odds of abiogenesis on Earth, and we are far from even
being able to solve that much simpler case.
If you think we can do such calculations, please calculate the odds of life occurring
in a universe which comes out with four spacial dimensions. Not "life as we know
it", but anything that could reasonably be thought of as life. Please state your
assumptions and show your work. If you don't want to waste the time on
it, just think how useful proving the odds would be for coming up with a
really neat article for a mathematics journal. You don't have to show it to me ...
this is really more for your to try for yourself. How would you even set it up?
Until people can really do this sort of thing and not get arbitrary answers,
I will continue to stick with "We don't know yet" as my answer on this question.
Another dead water discussion.
IM(extremely)H(umble)O, should a universe come into existence then,
based on our knowledge of how universes come into existence, the
probability that it has exactly the same "universal constants" as our universe is conclusively somewhere between 0 and 1. Inclusive of the 1
but not of the 0.
Nando wrote:
Another dead water discussion.
Actually, it seems pretty active. But here's an on topic question for you:
Why do you participate here?
On 31/08/2023 03:44, DB Cates wrote:
IM(extremely)H(umble)O, should a universe come into existence then,
based on our knowledge of how universes come into existence, the
probability that it has exactly the same "universal constants" as our
universe is conclusively somewhere between 0 and 1. Inclusive of the 1
but not of the 0.
It seems to me that unless the possible values of all the "universal constants" are finitely enumerable the probability of getting exactly
the same values is zero. For comparison if a real number between 0 and 1
is picked at random the probability of picking any particular number is
zero - when infinite sets are involved events of probability zero can
occur.
Your statement would apply getting the same constants to within, say 1
part in a million.
On 31/08/2023 03:44, DB Cates wrote:
IM(extremely)H(umble)O, should a universe come into existence then,
based on our knowledge of how universes come into existence, the
probability that it has exactly the same "universal constants" as our
universe is conclusively somewhere between 0 and 1. Inclusive of the 1
but not of the 0.
It seems to me that unless the possible values of all the "universal constants" are finitely enumerable the probability of getting exactly
the same values is zero. For comparison if a real number between 0 and 1
is picked at random the probability of picking any particular number is
zero - when infinite sets are involved events of probability zero can
occur.
Your statement would apply getting the same constants to within, say 1
part in a million.
Nando wrote:
Another dead water discussion.Actually, it seems pretty active. But here's an on topic question for you:
Why do you participate here?
He doesn't participate; he proclaims and proselytizes.
It just should immediately "click" in the mind, that obviously this is required understanding.
So I am just here questioning the stupidity of people, their belief that they can get by
without basic understanding of fact and opinion.
Nando wrote:
It just should immediately "click" in the mind, that obviously this is required understanding.Just out of curiosity, have that ever happened?
So I am just here questioning the stupidity of people, their belief that they can get byTrying to convince everyone else in the world that they are stupid for not agreeing with you
without basic understanding of fact and opinion.
seems a very odd way to go through life, but if that's the way you want to spend it ...
Thanks for answering.
Honesty requires to call people a moron, for not comprehending fact and opinion. You couldn't do better.If your choice to call people a moron is forced by honesty about the fact that they are indeed a moron, then it is not a free, subjective choice.
Some on the creationist group agree.
Op vrijdag 1 september 2023 om 22:20:22 UTC+2 schreef Abner:
Nando wrote:
It just should immediately "click" in the mind, that obviously this is required understanding.Just out of curiosity, have that ever happened?
So I am just here questioning the stupidity of people, their belief that they can get byTrying to convince everyone else in the world that they are stupid for not agreeing with you
without basic understanding of fact and opinion.
seems a very odd way to go through life, but if that's the way you want to spend it ...
Thanks for answering.
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 4:55:22 PM UTC-4, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
Honesty requires to call people a moron, for not comprehending fact and opinion. You couldn't do better.If your choice to call people a moron is forced by honesty about the fact that they are indeed a moron, then it is not a free, subjective choice.
Some on the creationist group agree.
Op vrijdag 1 september 2023 om 22:20:22 UTC+2 schreef Abner:
Nando wrote:
It just should immediately "click" in the mind, that obviously this is required understanding.Just out of curiosity, have that ever happened?
So I am just here questioning the stupidity of people, their belief that they can get byTrying to convince everyone else in the world that they are stupid for not agreeing with you
without basic understanding of fact and opinion.
seems a very odd way to go through life, but if that's the way you want to spend it ...
Thanks for answering.
There is no fact that anyone is a moron, moron. And that you can't figure freedom , with a moral imperative, means you don't understand anything. I mean it is the truth, that you do't understand the first thing about subjective issues. That is thehonest truth.
Op vrijdag 1 september 2023 om 23:00:22 UTC+2 schreef broger...@gmail.com:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 4:55:22 PM UTC-4, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
Honesty requires to call people a moron, for not comprehending fact and opinion. You couldn't do better.If your choice to call people a moron is forced by honesty about the fact that they are indeed a moron, then it is not a free, subjective choice.
Some on the creationist group agree.
Op vrijdag 1 september 2023 om 22:20:22 UTC+2 schreef Abner:
Nando wrote:
It just should immediately "click" in the mind, that obviously this is required understanding.Just out of curiosity, have that ever happened?
So I am just here questioning the stupidity of people, their belief that they can get byTrying to convince everyone else in the world that they are stupid for not agreeing with you
without basic understanding of fact and opinion.
seems a very odd way to go through life, but if that's the way you want to spend it ...
Thanks for answering.
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:55:22 PM UTC-4, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:honest truth.
There is no fact that anyone is a moron, moron. And that you can't figure freedom , with a moral imperative, means you don't understand anything. I mean it is the truth, that you do't understand the first thing about subjective issues. That is the
When you say it is the honest truth, do you mean that it is a fact?
Op vrijdag 1 september 2023 om 23:00:22 UTC+2 schreef broger...@gmail.com:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 4:55:22 PM UTC-4, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
Honesty requires to call people a moron, for not comprehending fact and opinion. You couldn't do better.If your choice to call people a moron is forced by honesty about the fact that they are indeed a moron, then it is not a free, subjective choice.
Some on the creationist group agree.
Op vrijdag 1 september 2023 om 22:20:22 UTC+2 schreef Abner:
Nando wrote:
It just should immediately "click" in the mind, that obviously this is required understanding.Just out of curiosity, have that ever happened?
So I am just here questioning the stupidity of people, their belief that they can get byTrying to convince everyone else in the world that they are stupid for not agreeing with you
without basic understanding of fact and opinion.
seems a very odd way to go through life, but if that's the way you want to spend it ...
Thanks for answering.
Bob Casanova wrote:
He doesn't participate; he proclaims and proselytizes.
I didn't say it was a high-quality way of participating, but he does
on very rare occasions say something on-topic. Now if only he
learned that convincing someone of something requires starting
from mutually agreed upon axioms rather than just declaring
yourself to be correct, he might start participating on a regular basis.
Some on the creationist group agree.
On 31/08/2023 03:44, DB Cates wrote:
IM(extremely)H(umble)O, should a universe come into existence then,
based on our knowledge of how universes come into existence, the probability that it has exactly the same "universal constants" as our universe is conclusively somewhere between 0 and 1. Inclusive of the 1
but not of the 0.
It seems to me that unless the possible values of all the "universal constants" are finitely enumerable the probability of getting exactly
the same values is zero.
For comparison if a real number between 0 and 1
is picked at random the probability of picking any particular number is
zero - when infinite sets are involved events of probability zero can occur.
Your statement would apply getting the same constants to within, say 1
part in a million.
On 8/29/23 5:59 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 12:15:19 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 8/28/23 6:40 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 3:05:16 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
Because evidence of existence of whatever supernatural has always interested me.
Mainly because by my understanding the life of our grandchildren will apparently become
quite crappy and they might need extra aid. Unfortunately nothing comes up ever.
It exists nonetheless; keep reading.
I have read scriptures of various religions, but these seem indistinguishable from
man-written fairy tales. Also requirement to believe without questioning is impossible
to fulfill in world where big part of phone calls and mails one receives is scam.
Various televangelists and psychics claiming having paranormal abilities and contact
with supernatural have been shown to be charlatans and stage magicians. >>>> Scientists like James Tour or Michael Behe promise to find evidence of something
supernatural but then point only at gaps in naturalist explanations.
The "evidence" like interesting properties of water or unclear origins of petroleum
are not indication of supernatural activities, just our ignorance.
But if something comes up I'm sure it will be discussed here.
It has been, but it is easy to miss the few posts that really address it here.
Here is something that condenses a lot of what I've written here over the years:
The "fine tuning" of the fundamental constants of our universe forces atheists
[and all people who think deeply of the ultimate questions of our existence]
to choose between a multiverse containing an inconceivably large number of universes,
and a Designer of our physical universe.
By "fine tuning" is meant the incredibly small tolerance of the fundamental constants for the existence of life,
and even more so for intelligent life. You can read about it in the superb and quite readable book, _Just Six Numbers_,
by Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal of England.
That fine tuning argument impresses only people who don't understand
probability.
I understand it, and have arguments that involve extending probabilities to the infinite plane or whatever, that the sophomoric naysayers who try to flesh out your little sentence don't have any clue about.
All they can say is that the probability theory of which *they* know
makes it impossible to justify the fine tuning argument.
They ask, "What is the probability of a universe that
could support us?
That use of "us" is idiotic and bespeaks a literalist reading
of Genesis 1.
Correction: it goes beyond it by being ignorant of C.S. Lewis's
Perelandra trilogy, which talks at great length about four species
of intelligent creatures, three on Mars and one on Venus. .
Why are *you* trying to sound like an idiot?
I presume you were wise
enough to suspect that I used "us" to refer to more than "Peter and I".
Why, then, if you are able to understand it as more encompassing than
that, are you unable to suspect that it could be even more encompassing
than *your* assumption of a literalist reading of Genesis?
" and get a very small probability, but the relevant
question is really, "What is the probability of a universe that could
support us, given that we are here in the universe to ask the
question?", and the answer to that is 1.
That is a denial of the very existence of probability theory,
because it implicitly gives any statement about actual data
-- past, present and future -- a probability of either 1 or 0.
Balderdash. The probability of something having happened, given that it happened, is always going to be 1. Probabilities of other things
(including the probability of something having happened, given that we
don't know whether it has happened) are still perfectly free to have
other values.
On 2023-08-31 2:33 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
On 31/08/2023 03:44, DB Cates wrote:
IM(extremely)H(umble)O, should a universe come into existence then,
based on our knowledge of how universes come into existence, the
probability that it has exactly the same "universal constants" as our
universe is conclusively somewhere between 0 and 1. Inclusive of the 1
but not of the 0.
It seems to me that unless the possible values of all the "universal constants" are finitely enumerable the probability of getting exactly
the same values is zero. For comparison if a real number between 0 and 1 is picked at random the probability of picking any particular number is zero - when infinite sets are involved events of probability zero can occur.
Your statement would apply getting the same constants to within, say 1 part in a million.
Additional followup.
It has to do with the statement in your first sentence.
"unless the possible values of all the "universal constants" are
finitely enumerable"
As far as we *know* there is exactly one possible value for each of
those constants. All else is unevidenced speculation.
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 11:10:19 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 8/29/23 5:59 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 12:15:19 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 8/28/23 6:40 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 3:05:16 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
Because evidence of existence of whatever supernatural has always interested me.
Mainly because by my understanding the life of our grandchildren will apparently become
quite crappy and they might need extra aid. Unfortunately nothing comes up ever.
It exists nonetheless; keep reading.
I have read scriptures of various religions, but these seem indistinguishable from
man-written fairy tales. Also requirement to believe without questioning is impossible
to fulfill in world where big part of phone calls and mails one receives is scam.
Various televangelists and psychics claiming having paranormal abilities and contact
with supernatural have been shown to be charlatans and stage magicians. >>>>>> Scientists like James Tour or Michael Behe promise to find evidence of something
supernatural but then point only at gaps in naturalist explanations.
Michael Behe makes no such promises. [Sorry, I overlooked this mistake earlier.]
The "evidence" like interesting properties of water or unclear origins of petroleum
are not indication of supernatural activities, just our ignorance.
But if something comes up I'm sure it will be discussed here.
It has been, but it is easy to miss the few posts that really address it here.
Here is something that condenses a lot of what I've written here over the years:
The "fine tuning" of the fundamental constants of our universe forces atheists
[and all people who think deeply of the ultimate questions of our existence]
to choose between a multiverse containing an inconceivably large number of universes,
and a Designer of our physical universe.
By "fine tuning" is meant the incredibly small tolerance of the fundamental constants for the existence of life,
and even more so for intelligent life. You can read about it in the superb and quite readable book, _Just Six Numbers_,
by Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal of England.
That fine tuning argument impresses only people who don't understand
probability.
I understand it, and have arguments that involve extending probabilities >>> to the infinite plane or whatever, that the sophomoric naysayers who try >>> to flesh out your little sentence don't have any clue about.
All they can say is that the probability theory of which *they* know
makes it impossible to justify the fine tuning argument.
Funny, you didn't take me up on this, Mark.
They ask, "What is the probability of a universe that
could support us?
That use of "us" is idiotic and bespeaks a literalist reading
of Genesis 1.
Correction: it goes beyond it by being ignorant of C.S. Lewis's
Perelandra trilogy, which talks at great length about four species
of intelligent creatures, three on Mars and one on Venus. .
Mark, I've tried hard to let bygones be bygones, so why are
you asking me the following loaded question??
Why are *you* trying to sound like an idiot?
Might you be worried that your fans could think you've gone soft on me,
and think less highly of you on account of that? That would explain this question, which is of the same genre as the notorious "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
I presume you were wise
enough to suspect that I used "us" to refer to more than "Peter and I".
The context of "They ask..." rules out any possibility of ONLY referring
to "Peter and I," so why do you bring up this possibility at all?
*I* presumed that you were alluding to sneers at creationists who
think that the universe was created for the benefit of us human beings.
Some of the constants have a lot less tolerance than that for the existence of life.
To get beyond that inconvenient fact for atheists who shy away from multiverses,
we would have to talk about "life as we cannot even imagine it,
based on matter whose properties and basic constituents we cannot imagine." [And that would make probability estimates impossible.]
On 9/4/23 8:53 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 11:10:19 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 8/29/23 5:59 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 12:15:19 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>> On 8/28/23 6:40 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
The "fine tuning" of the fundamental constants of our universe forces atheists
[and all people who think deeply of the ultimate questions of our existence]
to choose between a multiverse containing an inconceivably large number of universes,
and a Designer of our physical universe.
By "fine tuning" is meant the incredibly small tolerance of the fundamental constants for the existence of life,
and even more so for intelligent life. You can read about it in the superb and quite readable book, _Just Six Numbers_,
by Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal of England.
That fine tuning argument impresses only people who don't understand >>>> probability.
I understand it, and have arguments that involve extending probabilities >>> to the infinite plane or whatever, that the sophomoric naysayers who try >>> to flesh out your little sentence don't have any clue about.
All they can say is that the probability theory of which *they* know
makes it impossible to justify the fine tuning argument.
Funny, you didn't take me up on this, Mark.
They ask, "What is the probability of a universe that
could support us?
That use of "us" is idiotic and bespeaks a literalist reading
of Genesis 1.
Correction: it goes beyond it by being ignorant of C.S. Lewis's
Perelandra trilogy, which talks at great length about four species
of intelligent creatures, three on Mars and one on Venus. .
Mark, I've tried hard to let bygones be bygones, so why are
you asking me the following loaded question??
Why are *you* trying to sound like an idiot?
It's you who did the loading, by referring to your own assumption as
idiotic (in your sentence beginning "That use of 'us' ...").
Might you be worried that your fans could think you've gone soft on me, and think less highly of you on account of that? That would explain this question, which is of the same genre as the notorious "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
I presume you were wise
enough to suspect that I used "us" to refer to more than "Peter and I".
The context of "They ask..." rules out any possibility of ONLY referring to "Peter and I," so why do you bring up this possibility at all?
*I* presumed that you were alluding to sneers at creationists who
think that the universe was created for the benefit of us human beings.
But *why* did you assume that?
As you noted yourself, that assumption
is idiotic. The impression you left me with is that you regard me
thinking like an idiot as my default state.
Was that, in fact, your
thinking?
[snip parts with no bearing on this issue]
Why, then, if you are able to understand it as more encompassing than
that, are you unable to suspect that it could be even more encompassing
than *your* assumption of a literalist reading of Genesis?
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 11:15:19 PM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:example, I would not have read all the literature about long term experimental evolution in E. coli if it weren't for DrDrDrDr Kleinman's bringing it up (and drawing incorrect conclusions from it) and you, and others, have gotten me interested in reading
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 8:30:19 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 7:00:18 AM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 3:05:15 PM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
My reasons for participating in t.o. include those Bill Rogers describes below.
However, my main impetus towards learning in many areas of science comes from anti-ID claims
AND from just plain scientific discussions AND from helping ID sympathizers
get better at understanding all aspects of ID.
I rate all these things as high or higher than the things Bill Rogers writes about below.
Because (1) there are some people here who write interesting and informative posts and (2) in the process of responding to creationist and ID claims I sometimes get pushed to read up on areas of biology that I do not know much about - for
NOTE TO ANYONE READING THIS:
Just think of how much more Bill Rogers could have been
"pushed to read up on areas of biology that [he did] not know much about"
if he hadn't stopped reading my posts three or more years ago.
In that time interval, MarkE kept enduring unending frustration as Bill Rogers kept
"reading the latest stuff on origin of life" and then flaming MarkE for not having read it himself.
The frustration came from MarkE wanting Bill Rogers to discuss something far beyond
"the latest stuff," which barely follows primitive earth conditions up to where the first
nucleotides [like the four (4) RNA nucleotides] had been produced.
By the way, Mark, I don't recall you writing anything that specific, but you
certainly were hoping for at least as many steps as could lead to the first "Holy Grail."
MarkE was trying to get Bill Rogers interested in the steps from that point to
several "Holy Grails" leading to life as we know it.
Thanks Peter for your acknowledgement of this--it is somewhat therapeutic :) All the same, Bill has been mostly engaging, knowledgeable, and insightful in his responses.As long as you engage him with both eyes open, so to speak,
I cannot fault you for saying that.
Bill: You have provoked me to look into Deamer's work again. No, I haven't purchased Assembling Life (though I did download the kindle sample), but I have found a few things to discuss is a new thread. I know, the suspense must be unbearable...I think he can be very patient -- after all, it's been months since you last showed up here.
In the meantime, I recommend that you also take a close look at what I wrote below.
That will help you to keep your eyes wide open.
The first "Holy Grail" involves an efficient RNA ribozyme polymerase.
This is the technical term for an enzyme that is NOT a protein enzyme such as the one on which "life as we know it"
is heavily dependent. Rather, it is a strand of RNA which can take *any* strand of RNA,
in a bath rich in the 4 RNA nucleotides, and produce the complementary strand.
The first "Holy Grail" is a step by step way of producing this kind of enzyme
under primitive earth conditions.
We are so far from this that we haven't the foggiest idea what an RNA ribozyme polymerase
could possibly look like. We do know plenty about RNA *protein* enzyme polymerases,
because some viruses have them. [If it weren't for those viruses, we would be totally
in the dark about what *these* enzymes could possibly look like.]
If you, the reader [this includes both participants and lurkers],
have read this far, and would like to know what the five later "Holy Grails" are
that I have envisioned, let me know.
Did *you* read this far, Mark? Aren't you curious about them?
"The first "Holy Grail" involves an efficient RNA ribozyme polymerase." You're assuming an RNA world (as opposed to metabolism first, messy world, compartment first, once-got-astonishingly-lucky world). But why not - like democracy, the RNA world is the worst form of OoL model, except for all the others.
I'm curious, please share them all, but I suggest you don't bury them in threads like this, but post each separately as Holy Grail #1...N.
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 7:00:19 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:example, I would not have read all the literature about long term experimental evolution in E. coli if it weren't for DrDrDrDr Kleinman's bringing it up (and drawing incorrect conclusions from it) and you, and others, have gotten me interested in reading
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 11:15:19 PM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 8:30:19 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 7:00:18 AM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 3:05:15 PM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
My reasons for participating in t.o. include those Bill Rogers describes below.
However, my main impetus towards learning in many areas of science comes from anti-ID claims
AND from just plain scientific discussions AND from helping ID sympathizers
get better at understanding all aspects of ID.
I rate all these things as high or higher than the things Bill Rogers writes about below.
Because (1) there are some people here who write interesting and informative posts and (2) in the process of responding to creationist and ID claims I sometimes get pushed to read up on areas of biology that I do not know much about - for
NOTE TO ANYONE READING THIS:
Just think of how much more Bill Rogers could have been
"pushed to read up on areas of biology that [he did] not know much about"
if he hadn't stopped reading my posts three or more years ago.
In that time interval, MarkE kept enduring unending frustration as Bill Rogers kept
"reading the latest stuff on origin of life" and then flaming MarkE for not having read it himself.
The frustration came from MarkE wanting Bill Rogers to discuss something far beyond
"the latest stuff," which barely follows primitive earth conditions up to where the first
nucleotides [like the four (4) RNA nucleotides] had been produced.
By the way, Mark, I don't recall you writing anything that specific, but you
certainly were hoping for at least as many steps as could lead to the first "Holy Grail."
MarkE was trying to get Bill Rogers interested in the steps from that point to
several "Holy Grails" leading to life as we know it.
Thanks Peter for your acknowledgement of this--it is somewhat therapeutic :) All the same, Bill has been mostly engaging, knowledgeable, and insightful in his responses.As long as you engage him with both eyes open, so to speak,
I cannot fault you for saying that.
Bill: You have provoked me to look into Deamer's work again. No, I haven't purchased Assembling Life (though I did download the kindle sample), but I have found a few things to discuss is a new thread. I know, the suspense must be unbearable...I think he can be very patient -- after all, it's been months since you last showed up here.
In the meantime, I recommend that you also take a close look at what I wrote below.
That will help you to keep your eyes wide open.
The first "Holy Grail" involves an efficient RNA ribozyme polymerase.
This is the technical term for an enzyme that is NOT a protein enzyme such as the one on which "life as we know it"
is heavily dependent. Rather, it is a strand of RNA which can take *any* strand of RNA,
in a bath rich in the 4 RNA nucleotides, and produce the complementary strand.
The first "Holy Grail" is a step by step way of producing this kind of enzyme
under primitive earth conditions.
We are so far from this that we haven't the foggiest idea what an RNA ribozyme polymerase
could possibly look like. We do know plenty about RNA *protein* enzyme polymerases,
because some viruses have them. [If it weren't for those viruses, we would be totally
in the dark about what *these* enzymes could possibly look like.]
If you, the reader [this includes both participants and lurkers], have read this far, and would like to know what the five later "Holy Grails" are
that I have envisioned, let me know.
Did *you* read this far, Mark? Aren't you curious about them?
"The first "Holy Grail" involves an efficient RNA ribozyme polymerase." You're assuming an RNA world (as opposed to metabolism first, messy world, compartment first, once-got-astonishingly-lucky world). But why not - like democracy, the RNA world is the worst form of OoL model, except for all the others.
I'm curious, please share them all, but I suggest you don't bury them in threads like this, but post each separately as Holy Grail #1...N.
I'll be posting about Holy Grail #1 in a thread I began a about half an hour ago,
"The Alchemy and Biochemistry of OOL" https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/uX-9hX7ZvHI/m/4sd2RcLyAAAJ
Your talk about the messiness of "RNA World" spurred me on to adopt a different, much more definite concept: "RNA-run World." This refers to
a phase in prebiotic evolution that was dominated by ribozymes
[enzymes made of RNA or closely related nucleotide polymers]
rather than the far better known protein enzymes, which are polypeptides.
This domination lasted until after the protein translation mechanism, complete with at least a primitive form of genetic code, was securely in place.
Getting up to that stage under simulated prebiotic conditions is the next to last
Holy Grail of OOL, and unless the usual bozos dilute the thread as badly
as they have done this one, I can get up to it already in that Alchemy/Biochemistry thread,
leaving only the Protein Takeover as the last Holy Grail.
Because of its Catch-22 nature, this one will require a new thread.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of So. Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
Noted. Ribosome origin ("Protein Takeover") is a profound catch-22:
"The origin of the translation system is, arguably, the central and the hardest
problem in the study of the origin of life, and one of the hardest in all evolutionary biology. The problem has a clear catch-22 aspect: high translation fidelity hardly can be achieved without a complex, highly evolved set of RNAs and proteins but an elaborate protein machinery
could not evolve without an accurate translation system." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1894784/
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7:25:25 AM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:example, I would not have read all the literature about long term experimental evolution in E. coli if it weren't for DrDrDrDr Kleinman's bringing it up (and drawing incorrect conclusions from it) and you, and others, have gotten me interested in reading
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 7:00:19 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 11:15:19 PM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 8:30:19 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 7:00:18 AM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 3:05:15 PM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
My reasons for participating in t.o. include those Bill Rogers describes below.
However, my main impetus towards learning in many areas of science comes from anti-ID claims
AND from just plain scientific discussions AND from helping ID sympathizers
get better at understanding all aspects of ID.
I rate all these things as high or higher than the things Bill Rogers writes about below.
Because (1) there are some people here who write interesting and informative posts and (2) in the process of responding to creationist and ID claims I sometimes get pushed to read up on areas of biology that I do not know much about - for
NOTE TO ANYONE READING THIS:
Just think of how much more Bill Rogers could have been
"pushed to read up on areas of biology that [he did] not know much about"
if he hadn't stopped reading my posts three or more years ago.
In that time interval, MarkE kept enduring unending frustration as Bill Rogers kept
"reading the latest stuff on origin of life" and then flaming MarkE for not having read it himself.
The frustration came from MarkE wanting Bill Rogers to discuss something far beyond
"the latest stuff," which barely follows primitive earth conditions up to where the first
nucleotides [like the four (4) RNA nucleotides] had been produced.
By the way, Mark, I don't recall you writing anything that specific, but you
certainly were hoping for at least as many steps as could lead to the first "Holy Grail."
MarkE was trying to get Bill Rogers interested in the steps from that point to
several "Holy Grails" leading to life as we know it.
Thanks Peter for your acknowledgement of this--it is somewhat therapeutic :) All the same, Bill has been mostly engaging, knowledgeable, and insightful in his responses.As long as you engage him with both eyes open, so to speak,
I cannot fault you for saying that.
Bill: You have provoked me to look into Deamer's work again. No, I haven't purchased Assembling Life (though I did download the kindle sample), but I have found a few things to discuss is a new thread. I know, the suspense must be unbearable...I think he can be very patient -- after all, it's been months since you last showed up here.
In the meantime, I recommend that you also take a close look at what I wrote below.
That will help you to keep your eyes wide open.
The first "Holy Grail" involves an efficient RNA ribozyme polymerase.
This is the technical term for an enzyme that is NOT a protein enzyme such as the one on which "life as we know it"
is heavily dependent. Rather, it is a strand of RNA which can take *any* strand of RNA,
in a bath rich in the 4 RNA nucleotides, and produce the complementary strand.
The first "Holy Grail" is a step by step way of producing this kind of enzyme
under primitive earth conditions.
We are so far from this that we haven't the foggiest idea what an RNA ribozyme polymerase
could possibly look like. We do know plenty about RNA *protein* enzyme polymerases,
because some viruses have them. [If it weren't for those viruses, we would be totally
in the dark about what *these* enzymes could possibly look like.]
can be achieved without a complex, highly evolved set of RNAs and proteins but an elaborate protein machinery could not evolve without an accurate translation system."If you, the reader [this includes both participants and lurkers], have read this far, and would like to know what the five later "Holy Grails" are
that I have envisioned, let me know.
Did *you* read this far, Mark? Aren't you curious about them?
"The first "Holy Grail" involves an efficient RNA ribozyme polymerase." You're assuming an RNA world (as opposed to metabolism first, messy world, compartment first, once-got-astonishingly-lucky world). But why not - like democracy, the RNA world is the worst form of OoL model, except for all the others.
I'm curious, please share them all, but I suggest you don't bury them in threads like this, but post each separately as Holy Grail #1...N.
I'll be posting about Holy Grail #1 in a thread I began a about half an hour ago,
"The Alchemy and Biochemistry of OOL" https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/uX-9hX7ZvHI/m/4sd2RcLyAAAJ
Your talk about the messiness of "RNA World" spurred me on to adopt a different, much more definite concept: "RNA-run World." This refers to
a phase in prebiotic evolution that was dominated by ribozymes
[enzymes made of RNA or closely related nucleotide polymers]
rather than the far better known protein enzymes, which are polypeptides.
This domination lasted until after the protein translation mechanism, complete with at least a primitive form of genetic code, was securely in place.
Getting up to that stage under simulated prebiotic conditions is the next to lastNoted. Ribosome origin ("Protein Takeover") is a profound catch-22:
Holy Grail of OOL, and unless the usual bozos dilute the thread as badly as they have done this one, I can get up to it already in that Alchemy/Biochemistry thread,
leaving only the Protein Takeover as the last Holy Grail.
"The origin of the translation system is, arguably, the central and the hardest problem in the study of the origin of life, and one of the hardest in all evolutionary biology. The problem has a clear catch-22 aspect: high translation fidelity hardly
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1894784/
Because of its Catch-22 nature, this one will require a new thread.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of So. Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 8:45:34?AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:example, I would not have read all the literature about long term experimental evolution in E. coli if it weren't for DrDrDrDr Kleinman's bringing it up (and drawing incorrect conclusions from it) and you, and others, have gotten me interested in reading
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7:25:25?AM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 7:00:19?PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 11:15:19?PM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 8:30:19?AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 7:00:18?AM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 3:05:15?PM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
My reasons for participating in t.o. include those Bill Rogers describes below.
However, my main impetus towards learning in many areas of science comes from anti-ID claims
AND from just plain scientific discussions AND from helping ID sympathizers
get better at understanding all aspects of ID.
I rate all these things as high or higher than the things Bill Rogers writes about below.
Because (1) there are some people here who write interesting and informative posts and (2) in the process of responding to creationist and ID claims I sometimes get pushed to read up on areas of biology that I do not know much about - for
can be achieved without a complex, highly evolved set of RNAs and proteins but an elaborate protein machinery could not evolve without an accurate translation system."Noted. Ribosome origin ("Protein Takeover") is a profound catch-22:By the way, Mark, I don't recall you writing anything that specific, but you
NOTE TO ANYONE READING THIS:
Just think of how much more Bill Rogers could have been
"pushed to read up on areas of biology that [he did] not know much about"
if he hadn't stopped reading my posts three or more years ago.
In that time interval, MarkE kept enduring unending frustration as Bill Rogers kept
"reading the latest stuff on origin of life" and then flaming MarkE for not having read it himself.
The frustration came from MarkE wanting Bill Rogers to discuss something far beyond
"the latest stuff," which barely follows primitive earth conditions up to where the first
nucleotides [like the four (4) RNA nucleotides] had been produced. >> >
certainly were hoping for at least as many steps as could lead to the first "Holy Grail."
As long as you engage him with both eyes open, so to speak,MarkE was trying to get Bill Rogers interested in the steps from that point to
several "Holy Grails" leading to life as we know it.
Thanks Peter for your acknowledgement of this--it is somewhat therapeutic :) All the same, Bill has been mostly engaging, knowledgeable, and insightful in his responses.
I cannot fault you for saying that.
I think he can be very patient -- after all, it's been months since you last showed up here.
Bill: You have provoked me to look into Deamer's work again. No, I haven't purchased Assembling Life (though I did download the kindle sample), but I have found a few things to discuss is a new thread. I know, the suspense must be unbearable...
In the meantime, I recommend that you also take a close look at what I wrote below.
That will help you to keep your eyes wide open.
The first "Holy Grail" involves an efficient RNA ribozyme polymerase.
This is the technical term for an enzyme that is NOT a protein enzyme such as the one on which "life as we know it"
is heavily dependent. Rather, it is a strand of RNA which can take *any* strand of RNA,
in a bath rich in the 4 RNA nucleotides, and produce the complementary strand.
The first "Holy Grail" is a step by step way of producing this kind of enzyme
under primitive earth conditions.
We are so far from this that we haven't the foggiest idea what an RNA ribozyme polymerase
could possibly look like. We do know plenty about RNA *protein* enzyme polymerases,
because some viruses have them. [If it weren't for those viruses, we would be totally
in the dark about what *these* enzymes could possibly look like.] >> > > > > >
If you, the reader [this includes both participants and lurkers], >> > > > > > have read this far, and would like to know what the five later "Holy Grails" are
that I have envisioned, let me know.
Did *you* read this far, Mark? Aren't you curious about them?
"The first "Holy Grail" involves an efficient RNA ribozyme polymerase." >> > > You're assuming an RNA world (as opposed to metabolism first, messy world, compartment first, once-got-astonishingly-lucky world). But why not - like democracy, the RNA world is the worst form of OoL model, except for all the others.
I'm curious, please share them all, but I suggest you don't bury them in threads like this, but post each separately as Holy Grail #1...N.
I'll be posting about Holy Grail #1 in a thread I began a about half an hour ago,
"The Alchemy and Biochemistry of OOL"
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/uX-9hX7ZvHI/m/4sd2RcLyAAAJ
Your talk about the messiness of "RNA World" spurred me on to adopt a
different, much more definite concept: "RNA-run World." This refers to
a phase in prebiotic evolution that was dominated by ribozymes
[enzymes made of RNA or closely related nucleotide polymers]
rather than the far better known protein enzymes, which are polypeptides. >> >
This domination lasted until after the protein translation mechanism,
complete with at least a primitive form of genetic code, was securely in place.
Getting up to that stage under simulated prebiotic conditions is the next to last
Holy Grail of OOL, and unless the usual bozos dilute the thread as badly >> > as they have done this one, I can get up to it already in that Alchemy/Biochemistry thread,
leaving only the Protein Takeover as the last Holy Grail.
"The origin of the translation system is, arguably, the central and the hardest problem in the study of the origin of life, and one of the hardest in all evolutionary biology. The problem has a clear catch-22 aspect: high translation fidelity hardly
be achieved without a complex, highly evolved set of RNAs and proteins but an elaborate protein machinery could not evolve without an accurate translation system. The origin of the genetic code and whether it evolved on the basis of a stereochemicalhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1894784/
The full abstract
"The origin of the translation system is, arguably, the central and the hardest problem in the study of the origin of life, and one of the hardest in all evolutionary biology. The problem has a clear catch-22 aspect: high translation fidelity hardly can
develop conceptual models for the origins of the translation system and the genetic code."advantageous steps along the path from the RNA world to the modern-type translation system. This being said, there seem to be several underlying principles that are likely to stand regardless of further developments. We briefly recapitulate these:
And from the conclusion...
The models presented here were deliberately constructed at the level of considerable detail -at the risk of getting many, perhaps, most aspects wrong in order to provide a proof of principle, i.e., to illustrate a plausible sequence of selectively
"1. Evolution having no foresight, selection for translation per se is not feasible.proposed starting point, i.e., stimulation of ribozymes by amino acids and peptides seems to be a strong, almost, logically required, candidate for this role (see also [145]).
Translation must have evolved as a by-product of selection for some other function, i.e., via the exaptation route.
2. Given that the essence of translation is the intimate link between RNA and proteins, it seems most likely that, in some form, this connection existed from the very beginning of the evolutionary path from the RNA World to translation. Thus, the
3. Synthesis of peptides directly on an RNA template is stereochemically unfeasible. Hence adaptors must have been part of the primordial translation system from the start. Accordingly, from the very onset of translation, adaptors have been key to theestablishment of the genetic code. These ancestral adaptors, although, in all likelihood, smaller and simpler than modern tRNAs, must have been endowed with catalytic capacities lacking in the latter, i.e., they would have to catalyze specific self-
4. The primordial translation system was dominated by RNA although peptides might facilitate its functioning. However, the fidelity of this primordial, (nearly) RNA-only translation system must have been comparable to that of modern translation systems,considering that extensive protein evolution took place prior to the diversification of the proteins that are essential for the modern translation."
This paper is more than 15 years old, so not the latest news on evolution of translation, but the paper hardly represents a throwing up of one's hands in despair, as might have been suggested by the quotation of just the first two sentences of theabstract.
Quote mining is a wondrous thing...
--Because of its Catch-22 nature, this one will require a new thread.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of So. Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 11:20:34?AM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:for example, I would not have read all the literature about long term experimental evolution in E. coli if it weren't for DrDrDrDr Kleinman's bringing it up (and drawing incorrect conclusions from it) and you, and others, have gotten me interested in
On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 06:21:06 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com>:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 8:45:34?AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7:25:25?AM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 7:00:19?PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 11:15:19?PM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 8:30:19?AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 7:00:18?AM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 3:05:15?PM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
My reasons for participating in t.o. include those Bill Rogers describes below.
However, my main impetus towards learning in many areas of science comes from anti-ID claims
AND from just plain scientific discussions AND from helping ID sympathizers
get better at understanding all aspects of ID.
I rate all these things as high or higher than the things Bill Rogers writes about below.
Because (1) there are some people here who write interesting and informative posts and (2) in the process of responding to creationist and ID claims I sometimes get pushed to read up on areas of biology that I do not know much about -
unbearable...
NOTE TO ANYONE READING THIS:
Just think of how much more Bill Rogers could have been
"pushed to read up on areas of biology that [he did] not know much about"
if he hadn't stopped reading my posts three or more years ago. >> >> > > > > >
In that time interval, MarkE kept enduring unending frustration as Bill Rogers kept
"reading the latest stuff on origin of life" and then flaming MarkE for not having read it himself.
The frustration came from MarkE wanting Bill Rogers to discuss something far beyond
"the latest stuff," which barely follows primitive earth conditions up to where the first
nucleotides [like the four (4) RNA nucleotides] had been produced.
By the way, Mark, I don't recall you writing anything that specific, but you
certainly were hoping for at least as many steps as could lead to the first "Holy Grail."
As long as you engage him with both eyes open, so to speak,MarkE was trying to get Bill Rogers interested in the steps from that point to
several "Holy Grails" leading to life as we know it.
Thanks Peter for your acknowledgement of this--it is somewhat therapeutic :) All the same, Bill has been mostly engaging, knowledgeable, and insightful in his responses.
I cannot fault you for saying that.
Bill: You have provoked me to look into Deamer's work again. No, I haven't purchased Assembling Life (though I did download the kindle sample), but I have found a few things to discuss is a new thread. I know, the suspense must be
hardly can be achieved without a complex, highly evolved set of RNAs and proteins but an elaborate protein machinery could not evolve without an accurate translation system."Noted. Ribosome origin ("Protein Takeover") is a profound catch-22:I think he can be very patient -- after all, it's been months since you last showed up here.
In the meantime, I recommend that you also take a close look at what I wrote below.
That will help you to keep your eyes wide open.
The first "Holy Grail" involves an efficient RNA ribozyme polymerase.
This is the technical term for an enzyme that is NOT a protein enzyme such as the one on which "life as we know it"
is heavily dependent. Rather, it is a strand of RNA which can take *any* strand of RNA,
in a bath rich in the 4 RNA nucleotides, and produce the complementary strand.
The first "Holy Grail" is a step by step way of producing this kind of enzyme
under primitive earth conditions.
We are so far from this that we haven't the foggiest idea what an RNA ribozyme polymerase
could possibly look like. We do know plenty about RNA *protein* enzyme polymerases,
because some viruses have them. [If it weren't for those viruses, we would be totally
in the dark about what *these* enzymes could possibly look like.]
If you, the reader [this includes both participants and lurkers],
have read this far, and would like to know what the five later "Holy Grails" are
that I have envisioned, let me know.
Did *you* read this far, Mark? Aren't you curious about them?
"The first "Holy Grail" involves an efficient RNA ribozyme polymerase."
You're assuming an RNA world (as opposed to metabolism first, messy world, compartment first, once-got-astonishingly-lucky world). But why not - like democracy, the RNA world is the worst form of OoL model, except for all the others.
I'm curious, please share them all, but I suggest you don't bury them in threads like this, but post each separately as Holy Grail #1...N.
I'll be posting about Holy Grail #1 in a thread I began a about half an hour ago,
"The Alchemy and Biochemistry of OOL"
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/uX-9hX7ZvHI/m/4sd2RcLyAAAJ >> >> >
Your talk about the messiness of "RNA World" spurred me on to adopt a >> >> > different, much more definite concept: "RNA-run World." This refers to >> >> > a phase in prebiotic evolution that was dominated by ribozymes
[enzymes made of RNA or closely related nucleotide polymers]
rather than the far better known protein enzymes, which are polypeptides.
This domination lasted until after the protein translation mechanism, >> >> > complete with at least a primitive form of genetic code, was securely in place.
Getting up to that stage under simulated prebiotic conditions is the next to last
Holy Grail of OOL, and unless the usual bozos dilute the thread as badly
as they have done this one, I can get up to it already in that Alchemy/Biochemistry thread,
leaving only the Protein Takeover as the last Holy Grail.
"The origin of the translation system is, arguably, the central and the hardest problem in the study of the origin of life, and one of the hardest in all evolutionary biology. The problem has a clear catch-22 aspect: high translation fidelity
can be achieved without a complex, highly evolved set of RNAs and proteins but an elaborate protein machinery could not evolve without an accurate translation system. The origin of the genetic code and whether it evolved on the basis of a stereochemicalhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1894784/
The full abstract
"The origin of the translation system is, arguably, the central and the hardest problem in the study of the origin of life, and one of the hardest in all evolutionary biology. The problem has a clear catch-22 aspect: high translation fidelity hardly
advantageous steps along the path from the RNA world to the modern-type translation system. This being said, there seem to be several underlying principles that are likely to stand regardless of further developments. We briefly recapitulate these:to
develop conceptual models for the origins of the translation system and the genetic code."
And from the conclusion...
The models presented here were deliberately constructed at the level of considerable detail -at the risk of getting many, perhaps, most aspects wrong in order to provide a proof of principle, i.e., to illustrate a plausible sequence of selectively
proposed starting point, i.e., stimulation of ribozymes by amino acids and peptides seems to be a strong, almost, logically required, candidate for this role (see also [145]).
"1. Evolution having no foresight, selection for translation per se is not feasible.
Translation must have evolved as a by-product of selection for some other function, i.e., via the exaptation route.
2. Given that the essence of translation is the intimate link between RNA and proteins, it seems most likely that, in some form, this connection existed from the very beginning of the evolutionary path from the RNA World to translation. Thus, the
the establishment of the genetic code. These ancestral adaptors, although, in all likelihood, smaller and simpler than modern tRNAs, must have been endowed with catalytic capacities lacking in the latter, i.e., they would have to catalyze specific self-
3. Synthesis of peptides directly on an RNA template is stereochemically unfeasible. Hence adaptors must have been part of the primordial translation system from the start. Accordingly, from the very onset of translation, adaptors have been key to
systems, considering that extensive protein evolution took place prior to the diversification of the proteins that are essential for the modern translation."
4. The primordial translation system was dominated by RNA although peptides might facilitate its functioning. However, the fidelity of this primordial, (nearly) RNA-only translation system must have been comparable to that of modern translation
abstract.
This paper is more than 15 years old, so not the latest news on evolution of translation, but the paper hardly represents a throwing up of one's hands in despair, as might have been suggested by the quotation of just the first two sentences of the
ignorance (even if, in fact, there's a fair bit known). Then, in the conclusions section, if he's a good scientist, he'll talk about all the potential limitations and problems with his experiment, and only later explain why those limitations are notQuote mining is a wondrous thing...
Yes it is. And it's so easy. Any scientist writing a paper is likely to start the introduction by saying what's not yet known in the field, and in order to promote the importance of his paper he's liable to lean pretty hard on the current state of
That does sound like technique I've seen numerous times,
--For some, it's literally the *only* thing.
Because of its Catch-22 nature, this one will require a new thread.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of So. Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 06:21:06 -0700 (PDT), the followingfor example, I would not have read all the literature about long term experimental evolution in E. coli if it weren't for DrDrDrDr Kleinman's bringing it up (and drawing incorrect conclusions from it) and you, and others, have gotten me interested in
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com>:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 8:45:34?AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7:25:25?AM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 7:00:19?PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 11:15:19?PM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 8:30:19?AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 7:00:18?AM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 3:05:15?PM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
My reasons for participating in t.o. include those Bill Rogers describes below.
However, my main impetus towards learning in many areas of science comes from anti-ID claims
AND from just plain scientific discussions AND from helping ID sympathizers
get better at understanding all aspects of ID.
I rate all these things as high or higher than the things Bill Rogers writes about below.
Because (1) there are some people here who write interesting and informative posts and (2) in the process of responding to creationist and ID claims I sometimes get pushed to read up on areas of biology that I do not know much about -
..
NOTE TO ANYONE READING THIS:
Just think of how much more Bill Rogers could have been
"pushed to read up on areas of biology that [he did] not know much about"
if he hadn't stopped reading my posts three or more years ago. >> > > > > >
In that time interval, MarkE kept enduring unending frustration as Bill Rogers kept
"reading the latest stuff on origin of life" and then flaming MarkE for not having read it himself.
The frustration came from MarkE wanting Bill Rogers to discuss something far beyond
"the latest stuff," which barely follows primitive earth conditions up to where the first
nucleotides [like the four (4) RNA nucleotides] had been produced.
By the way, Mark, I don't recall you writing anything that specific, but you
certainly were hoping for at least as many steps as could lead to the first "Holy Grail."
As long as you engage him with both eyes open, so to speak,MarkE was trying to get Bill Rogers interested in the steps from that point to
several "Holy Grails" leading to life as we know it.
Thanks Peter for your acknowledgement of this--it is somewhat therapeutic :) All the same, Bill has been mostly engaging, knowledgeable, and insightful in his responses.
I cannot fault you for saying that.
Bill: You have provoked me to look into Deamer's work again. No, I haven't purchased Assembling Life (though I did download the kindle sample), but I have found a few things to discuss is a new thread. I know, the suspense must be unbearable.
can be achieved without a complex, highly evolved set of RNAs and proteins but an elaborate protein machinery could not evolve without an accurate translation system."Noted. Ribosome origin ("Protein Takeover") is a profound catch-22:I think he can be very patient -- after all, it's been months since you last showed up here.
In the meantime, I recommend that you also take a close look at what I wrote below.
That will help you to keep your eyes wide open.
The first "Holy Grail" involves an efficient RNA ribozyme polymerase.
This is the technical term for an enzyme that is NOT a protein enzyme such as the one on which "life as we know it"
is heavily dependent. Rather, it is a strand of RNA which can take *any* strand of RNA,
in a bath rich in the 4 RNA nucleotides, and produce the complementary strand.
The first "Holy Grail" is a step by step way of producing this kind of enzyme
under primitive earth conditions.
We are so far from this that we haven't the foggiest idea what an RNA ribozyme polymerase
could possibly look like. We do know plenty about RNA *protein* enzyme polymerases,
because some viruses have them. [If it weren't for those viruses, we would be totally
in the dark about what *these* enzymes could possibly look like.]
If you, the reader [this includes both participants and lurkers],
have read this far, and would like to know what the five later "Holy Grails" are
that I have envisioned, let me know.
Did *you* read this far, Mark? Aren't you curious about them?
"The first "Holy Grail" involves an efficient RNA ribozyme polymerase."
You're assuming an RNA world (as opposed to metabolism first, messy world, compartment first, once-got-astonishingly-lucky world). But why not - like democracy, the RNA world is the worst form of OoL model, except for all the others.
I'm curious, please share them all, but I suggest you don't bury them in threads like this, but post each separately as Holy Grail #1...N.
I'll be posting about Holy Grail #1 in a thread I began a about half an hour ago,
"The Alchemy and Biochemistry of OOL"
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/uX-9hX7ZvHI/m/4sd2RcLyAAAJ >> >
Your talk about the messiness of "RNA World" spurred me on to adopt a >> > different, much more definite concept: "RNA-run World." This refers to >> > a phase in prebiotic evolution that was dominated by ribozymes
[enzymes made of RNA or closely related nucleotide polymers]
rather than the far better known protein enzymes, which are polypeptides.
This domination lasted until after the protein translation mechanism, >> > complete with at least a primitive form of genetic code, was securely in place.
Getting up to that stage under simulated prebiotic conditions is the next to last
Holy Grail of OOL, and unless the usual bozos dilute the thread as badly
as they have done this one, I can get up to it already in that Alchemy/Biochemistry thread,
leaving only the Protein Takeover as the last Holy Grail.
"The origin of the translation system is, arguably, the central and the hardest problem in the study of the origin of life, and one of the hardest in all evolutionary biology. The problem has a clear catch-22 aspect: high translation fidelity hardly
can be achieved without a complex, highly evolved set of RNAs and proteins but an elaborate protein machinery could not evolve without an accurate translation system. The origin of the genetic code and whether it evolved on the basis of a stereochemicalhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1894784/
The full abstract
"The origin of the translation system is, arguably, the central and the hardest problem in the study of the origin of life, and one of the hardest in all evolutionary biology. The problem has a clear catch-22 aspect: high translation fidelity hardly
toadvantageous steps along the path from the RNA world to the modern-type translation system. This being said, there seem to be several underlying principles that are likely to stand regardless of further developments. We briefly recapitulate these:
develop conceptual models for the origins of the translation system and the genetic code."
And from the conclusion...
The models presented here were deliberately constructed at the level of considerable detail -at the risk of getting many, perhaps, most aspects wrong – in order to provide a proof of principle, i.e., to illustrate a plausible sequence of selectively
proposed starting point, i.e., stimulation of ribozymes by amino acids and peptides seems to be a strong, almost, logically required, candidate for this role (see also [145])."1. Evolution having no foresight, selection for translation per se is not feasible.
Translation must have evolved as a by-product of selection for some other function, i.e., via the exaptation route.
2. Given that the essence of translation is the intimate link between RNA and proteins, it seems most likely that, in some form, this connection existed from the very beginning of the evolutionary path from the RNA World to translation. Thus, the
establishment of the genetic code. These ancestral adaptors, although, in all likelihood, smaller and simpler than modern tRNAs, must have been endowed with catalytic capacities lacking in the latter, i.e., they would have to catalyze specific self-3. Synthesis of peptides directly on an RNA template is stereochemically unfeasible. Hence adaptors must have been part of the primordial translation system from the start. Accordingly, from the very onset of translation, adaptors have been key to the
systems, considering that extensive protein evolution took place prior to the diversification of the proteins that are essential for the modern translation."4. The primordial translation system was dominated by RNA although peptides might facilitate its functioning. However, the fidelity of this primordial, (nearly) RNA-only translation system must have been comparable to that of modern translation
abstract.This paper is more than 15 years old, so not the latest news on evolution of translation, but the paper hardly represents a throwing up of one's hands in despair, as might have been suggested by the quotation of just the first two sentences of the
Quote mining is a wondrous thing...
For some, it's literally the *only* thing.
--Because of its Catch-22 nature, this one will require a new thread.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of So. Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7:25:25?AM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Noted. Ribosome origin ("Protein Takeover") is a profound catch-22:
"The origin of the translation system is, arguably, the central and the hardest problem in the study of the origin of life, and one of the hardest in all evolutionary biology. The problem has a clear catch-22 aspect: high translation fidelity hardly canbe achieved without a complex, highly evolved set of RNAs and proteins but an elaborate protein machinery could not evolve without an accurate translation system."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1894784/
Because of its Catch-22 nature, this one will require a new thread.
On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 05:42:43 -0700 (PDT), Mark <me22...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7:25:25?AM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
<massive snip>
Noted. Ribosome origin ("Protein Takeover") is a profound catch-22:Not a catch-22, profound or otherwise. Aside from the blatant
quotemine, a ribosome origin is no more a catch-22, profound or
otherwise, than is an egg origin. First life almost certainly didn't
rely on ribosomes, as "high fidelity" of protein translation was unnecessary. Ribosomes became necessary only after its evolution,
because non-ribosome systems had to complete with more-efficient
ribosome systems.
can be achieved without a complex, highly evolved set of RNAs and proteins but an elaborate protein machinery could not evolve without an accurate translation system.""The origin of the translation system is, arguably, the central and the hardest problem in the study of the origin of life, and one of the hardest in all evolutionary biology. The problem has a clear catch-22 aspect: high translation fidelity hardly
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1894784/
Since any Catch-22 nature is entirely imaginative, so too is a need
Because of its Catch-22 nature, this one will require a new thread.
for a new thread for it.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 6:45:35 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 05:42:43 -0700 (PDT), Mark <me22...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7:25:25?AM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
<massive snip>Boing boing boing.
Noted. Ribosome origin ("Protein Takeover") is a profound catch-22:Not a catch-22, profound or otherwise. Aside from the blatant
quotemine, a ribosome origin is no more a catch-22, profound or
otherwise, than is an egg origin. First life almost certainly didn't
rely on ribosomes, as "high fidelity" of protein translation was unnecessary. Ribosomes became necessary only after its evolution,
because non-ribosome systems had to complete with more-efficient
ribosome systems.
"The proposed scenario for the evolution of translation consists of the following steps: binding of amino acids to a ribozyme resulting in an enhancement of its catalytic activity; evolution of the amino-acid-stimulated
ribozyme into a peptide ligase (predecessor of the large ribosomal subunit) yielding, initially, a unique peptide activating the original ribozyme and, possibly,
other ribozymes in the ensemble; evolution of self-charging proto-tRNAs
that were selected, initially, for accumulation of amino acids, and subsequently,
for delivery of amino acids to the peptide ligase; joining of the peptide ligase
with a distinct RNA molecule (predecessor of the small ribosomal subunit) carrying a built-in template for more efficient, complementary binding of charged proto-tRNAs; evolution of the ability of the peptide ligase to assemble
peptides using exogenous RNAs as template for complementary binding of charged proteo-tRNAs, yielding peptides with the potential to activate different
ribozymes; evolution of the translocation function of the protoribosome leading to the production of increasingly longer peptides (the first proteins),
i.e., the origin of translation."
can be achieved without a complex, highly evolved set of RNAs and proteins but an elaborate protein machinery could not evolve without an accurate translation system.""The origin of the translation system is, arguably, the central and the hardest problem in the study of the origin of life, and one of the hardest in all evolutionary biology. The problem has a clear catch-22 aspect: high translation fidelity hardly
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1894784/
for a new thread for it.
Because of its Catch-22 nature, this one will require a new thread. Since any Catch-22 nature is entirely imaginative, so too is a need
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 3:05:36 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 6:45:35 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 05:42:43 -0700 (PDT), Mark <me22...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7:25:25?AM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
<massive snip>Boing boing boing.
Noted. Ribosome origin ("Protein Takeover") is a profound catch-22:Not a catch-22, profound or otherwise. Aside from the blatant
quotemine, a ribosome origin is no more a catch-22, profound or otherwise, than is an egg origin. First life almost certainly didn't rely on ribosomes, as "high fidelity" of protein translation was unnecessary. Ribosomes became necessary only after its evolution, because non-ribosome systems had to complete with more-efficient ribosome systems.
"The proposed scenario for the evolution of translation consists of the following steps: binding of amino acids to a ribozyme resulting in an enhancement of its catalytic activity; evolution of the amino-acid-stimulatedI have to wonder why that quote was selected, unless ...
ribozyme into a peptide ligase (predecessor of the large ribosomal subunit)
yielding, initially, a unique peptide activating the original ribozyme and, possibly,
other ribozymes in the ensemble; evolution of self-charging proto-tRNAs that were selected, initially, for accumulation of amino acids, and subsequently,
for delivery of amino acids to the peptide ligase; joining of the peptide ligase
with a distinct RNA molecule (predecessor of the small ribosomal subunit) carrying a built-in template for more efficient, complementary binding of charged proto-tRNAs; evolution of the ability of the peptide ligase to assemble
peptides using exogenous RNAs as template for complementary binding of charged proteo-tRNAs, yielding peptides with the potential to activate different
ribozymes; evolution of the translocation function of the protoribosome leading to the production of increasingly longer peptides (the first proteins),
i.e., the origin of translation."
Did someone read that and keep conflating ribosome and ribozyme?
That would be funnily in character.
hardly can be achieved without a complex, highly evolved set of RNAs and proteins but an elaborate protein machinery could not evolve without an accurate translation system.""The origin of the translation system is, arguably, the central and the hardest problem in the study of the origin of life, and one of the hardest in all evolutionary biology. The problem has a clear catch-22 aspect: high translation fidelity
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1894784/
for a new thread for it.
Because of its Catch-22 nature, this one will require a new thread. Since any Catch-22 nature is entirely imaginative, so too is a need
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 3:05:36?PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 6:45:35?PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 05:42:43 -0700 (PDT), Mark <me22...@gmail.com>Boing boing boing.
wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7:25:25?AM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
<massive snip>
Noted. Ribosome origin ("Protein Takeover") is a profound catch-22:Not a catch-22, profound or otherwise. Aside from the blatant
quotemine, a ribosome origin is no more a catch-22, profound or
otherwise, than is an egg origin. First life almost certainly didn't
rely on ribosomes, as "high fidelity" of protein translation was
unnecessary. Ribosomes became necessary only after its evolution,
because non-ribosome systems had to complete with more-efficient
ribosome systems.
"The proposed scenario for the evolution of translation consists of the
following steps: binding of amino acids to a ribozyme resulting in an
enhancement of its catalytic activity; evolution of the amino-acid-stimulated
ribozyme into a peptide ligase (predecessor of the large ribosomal subunit) >> yielding, initially, a unique peptide activating the original ribozyme and, possibly,
other ribozymes in the ensemble; evolution of self-charging proto-tRNAs
that were selected, initially, for accumulation of amino acids, and subsequently,
for delivery of amino acids to the peptide ligase; joining of the peptide ligase
with a distinct RNA molecule (predecessor of the small ribosomal subunit) >> carrying a built-in template for more efficient, complementary binding of >> charged proto-tRNAs; evolution of the ability of the peptide ligase to assemble
peptides using exogenous RNAs as template for complementary binding of
charged proteo-tRNAs, yielding peptides with the potential to activate different
ribozymes; evolution of the translocation function of the protoribosome
leading to the production of increasingly longer peptides (the first proteins),
i.e., the origin of translation."
I have to wonder why that quote was selected, unless ...
Did someone read that and keep conflating ribosome and ribozyme?
That would be funnily in character.
hardly can be achieved without a complex, highly evolved set of RNAs and proteins but an elaborate protein machinery could not evolve without an accurate translation system.""The origin of the translation system is, arguably, the central and the hardest problem in the study of the origin of life, and one of the hardest in all evolutionary biology. The problem has a clear catch-22 aspect: high translation fidelity
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1894784/Since any Catch-22 nature is entirely imaginative, so too is a need
Because of its Catch-22 nature, this one will require a new thread.
for a new thread for it.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 8:45:34 AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
Noted. Ribosome origin ("Protein Takeover") is a profound catch-22:
"The origin of the translation system is, arguably, the central and the hardestDid you read the paper or did you just get around to the quote mine?
problem in the study of the origin of life, and one of the hardest in all evolutionary biology. The problem has a clear catch-22 aspect: high translation fidelity hardly can be achieved without a complex, highly evolved set of RNAs and proteins but an elaborate protein machinery
could not evolve without an accurate translation system." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1894784/
You really should read it. It takes the above and blows it apart.
Essentially, it shows how primitive the thinking is that imagines a
catch-22 and then throws up its hands claiming near impossibility.
The foolishness presumes that there's no reason for any peptide synthesis short of being able to replicate something close to a modern ribosome with all of the support structure to charge tRNAs. It does so by presenting
one scheme where a far simpler bit of metabolism would be an improvement
to a prebiotic system --- and an improvement of the sort that would
produce a natural selection advantage thus allowing evolutionary
mechanisms to play a role in advancing and updating a precursor to
the endpoint fools imagine to be a catch-22.
For those who don't want to read the paper, the hypothesis is that small peptides can play a role with ribozymes expanding their catalytic repertoire.
(This contrasts with those married to an extreme view of an RNA world
that have misunderstood that all along.) The peptide cofactor idea of
course makes perfect sense if you know biochemistry, enzymes, and
catalysis. Small peptides also make sense in modifiers of RNA stability. They can also play a role in membrane function. This is true for small peptides with a limited selection of amino acids, but becomes greater
for peptides with a broader 'vocabulary' of amino acids. So there are potential paths for evolution of peptide synthesis from simpler systems
than ribosomal peptide synthesis.
Of course, I've noted that some seem to want to define OoL to preclude
any natural selection short of a replicating proto cell that includes the equivalent of modern ribosomes. That is of course just another way
to foolishly invent unnecessary catch-22s either by desire of a big
failure in imagination.
And towards the thread title, sometimes I like pointing out sloppy
quote mining that risks promoting misconceptions.
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 8:45:34 AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:example, I would not have read all the literature about long term experimental evolution in E. coli if it weren't for DrDrDrDr Kleinman's bringing it up (and drawing incorrect conclusions from it) and you, and others, have gotten me interested in reading
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7:25:25 AM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 7:00:19 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 11:15:19 PM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 8:30:19 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 7:00:18 AM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 3:05:15 PM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
My reasons for participating in t.o. include those Bill Rogers describes below.
However, my main impetus towards learning in many areas of science comes from anti-ID claims
AND from just plain scientific discussions AND from helping ID sympathizers
get better at understanding all aspects of ID.
I rate all these things as high or higher than the things Bill Rogers writes about below.
Because (1) there are some people here who write interesting and informative posts and (2) in the process of responding to creationist and ID claims I sometimes get pushed to read up on areas of biology that I do not know much about - for
NOTE TO ANYONE READING THIS:
Just think of how much more Bill Rogers could have been
"pushed to read up on areas of biology that [he did] not know much about"
if he hadn't stopped reading my posts three or more years ago.
In that time interval, MarkE kept enduring unending frustration as Bill Rogers kept
"reading the latest stuff on origin of life" and then flaming MarkE for not having read it himself.
The frustration came from MarkE wanting Bill Rogers to discuss something far beyond
"the latest stuff," which barely follows primitive earth conditions up to where the first
nucleotides [like the four (4) RNA nucleotides] had been produced.
By the way, Mark, I don't recall you writing anything that specific, but you
certainly were hoping for at least as many steps as could lead to the first "Holy Grail."
MarkE was trying to get Bill Rogers interested in the steps from that point to
several "Holy Grails" leading to life as we know it.
Thanks Peter for your acknowledgement of this--it is somewhat therapeutic :) All the same, Bill has been mostly engaging, knowledgeable, and insightful in his responses.As long as you engage him with both eyes open, so to speak,
I cannot fault you for saying that.
.Bill: You have provoked me to look into Deamer's work again. No, I haven't purchased Assembling Life (though I did download the kindle sample), but I have found a few things to discuss is a new thread. I know, the suspense must be unbearable..
I think he can be very patient -- after all, it's been months since you last showed up here.
In the meantime, I recommend that you also take a close look at what I wrote below.
That will help you to keep your eyes wide open.
The first "Holy Grail" involves an efficient RNA ribozyme polymerase.
This is the technical term for an enzyme that is NOT a protein enzyme such as the one on which "life as we know it"
is heavily dependent. Rather, it is a strand of RNA which can take *any* strand of RNA,
in a bath rich in the 4 RNA nucleotides, and produce the complementary strand.
The first "Holy Grail" is a step by step way of producing this kind of enzyme
under primitive earth conditions.
We are so far from this that we haven't the foggiest idea what an RNA ribozyme polymerase
could possibly look like. We do know plenty about RNA *protein* enzyme polymerases,
because some viruses have them. [If it weren't for those viruses, we would be totally
in the dark about what *these* enzymes could possibly look like.]
can be achieved without a complex, highly evolved set of RNAs and proteins but an elaborate protein machinery could not evolve without an accurate translation system."If you, the reader [this includes both participants and lurkers],
have read this far, and would like to know what the five later "Holy Grails" are
that I have envisioned, let me know.
Did *you* read this far, Mark? Aren't you curious about them?
"The first "Holy Grail" involves an efficient RNA ribozyme polymerase."
You're assuming an RNA world (as opposed to metabolism first, messy world, compartment first, once-got-astonishingly-lucky world). But why not - like democracy, the RNA world is the worst form of OoL model, except for all the others.
I'm curious, please share them all, but I suggest you don't bury them in threads like this, but post each separately as Holy Grail #1...N.
I'll be posting about Holy Grail #1 in a thread I began a about half an hour ago,
"The Alchemy and Biochemistry of OOL" https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/uX-9hX7ZvHI/m/4sd2RcLyAAAJ
Your talk about the messiness of "RNA World" spurred me on to adopt a different, much more definite concept: "RNA-run World." This refers to
a phase in prebiotic evolution that was dominated by ribozymes
[enzymes made of RNA or closely related nucleotide polymers]
rather than the far better known protein enzymes, which are polypeptides.
This domination lasted until after the protein translation mechanism, complete with at least a primitive form of genetic code, was securely in place.
Getting up to that stage under simulated prebiotic conditions is the next to lastNoted. Ribosome origin ("Protein Takeover") is a profound catch-22:
Holy Grail of OOL, and unless the usual bozos dilute the thread as badly as they have done this one, I can get up to it already in that Alchemy/Biochemistry thread,
leaving only the Protein Takeover as the last Holy Grail.
"The origin of the translation system is, arguably, the central and the hardest problem in the study of the origin of life, and one of the hardest in all evolutionary biology. The problem has a clear catch-22 aspect: high translation fidelity hardly
can be achieved without a complex, highly evolved set of RNAs and proteins but an elaborate protein machinery could not evolve without an accurate translation system. The origin of the genetic code and whether it evolved on the basis of a stereochemicalhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1894784/The full abstract
"The origin of the translation system is, arguably, the central and the hardest problem in the study of the origin of life, and one of the hardest in all evolutionary biology. The problem has a clear catch-22 aspect: high translation fidelity hardly
And from the conclusion...advantageous steps along the path from the RNA world to the modern-type translation system. This being said, there seem to be several underlying principles that are likely to stand regardless of further developments. We briefly recapitulate these:
The models presented here were deliberately constructed at the level of considerable detail -at the risk of getting many, perhaps, most aspects wrong – in order to provide a proof of principle, i.e., to illustrate a plausible sequence of selectively
"1. Evolution having no foresight, selection for translation per se is not feasible.proposed starting point, i.e., stimulation of ribozymes by amino acids and peptides seems to be a strong, almost, logically required, candidate for this role (see also [145]).
Translation must have evolved as a by-product of selection for some other function, i.e., via the exaptation route.
2. Given that the essence of translation is the intimate link between RNA and proteins, it seems most likely that, in some form, this connection existed from the very beginning of the evolutionary path from the RNA World to translation. Thus, the
3. Synthesis of peptides directly on an RNA template is stereochemically unfeasible. Hence adaptors must have been part of the primordial translation system from the start. Accordingly, from the very onset of translation, adaptors have been key to theestablishment of the genetic code. These ancestral adaptors, although, in all likelihood, smaller and simpler than modern tRNAs, must have been endowed with catalytic capacities lacking in the latter, i.e., they would have to catalyze specific self-
4. The primordial translation system was dominated by RNA although peptides might facilitate its functioning. However, the fidelity of this primordial, (nearly) RNA-only translation system must have been comparable to that of modern translation systems,considering that extensive protein evolution took place prior to the diversification of the proteins that are essential for the modern translation."
This paper is more than 15 years old, so not the latest news on evolution of translation, but the paper hardly represents a throwing up of one's hands in despair, as might have been suggested by the quotation of just the first two sentences of theabstract.
Because of its Catch-22 nature, this one will require a new thread. Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of So. Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 11:25:34 PM UTC+10, broger...@gmail.com wrote:for example, I would not have read all the literature about long term experimental evolution in E. coli if it weren't for DrDrDrDr Kleinman's bringing it up (and drawing incorrect conclusions from it) and you, and others, have gotten me interested in
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 8:45:34 AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7:25:25 AM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 7:00:19 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 11:15:19 PM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 8:30:19 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 7:00:18 AM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 3:05:15 PM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
My reasons for participating in t.o. include those Bill Rogers describes below.
However, my main impetus towards learning in many areas of science comes from anti-ID claims
AND from just plain scientific discussions AND from helping ID sympathizers
get better at understanding all aspects of ID.
I rate all these things as high or higher than the things Bill Rogers writes about below.
Because (1) there are some people here who write interesting and informative posts and (2) in the process of responding to creationist and ID claims I sometimes get pushed to read up on areas of biology that I do not know much about -
NOTE TO ANYONE READING THIS:
Just think of how much more Bill Rogers could have been "pushed to read up on areas of biology that [he did] not know much about"
if he hadn't stopped reading my posts three or more years ago.
In that time interval, MarkE kept enduring unending frustration as Bill Rogers kept
"reading the latest stuff on origin of life" and then flaming MarkE for not having read it himself.
The frustration came from MarkE wanting Bill Rogers to discuss something far beyond
"the latest stuff," which barely follows primitive earth conditions up to where the first
nucleotides [like the four (4) RNA nucleotides] had been produced.
By the way, Mark, I don't recall you writing anything that specific, but you
certainly were hoping for at least as many steps as could lead to the first "Holy Grail."
MarkE was trying to get Bill Rogers interested in the steps from that point to
several "Holy Grails" leading to life as we know it.
Thanks Peter for your acknowledgement of this--it is somewhat therapeutic :) All the same, Bill has been mostly engaging, knowledgeable, and insightful in his responses.As long as you engage him with both eyes open, so to speak,
I cannot fault you for saying that.
unbearable...Bill: You have provoked me to look into Deamer's work again. No, I haven't purchased Assembling Life (though I did download the kindle sample), but I have found a few things to discuss is a new thread. I know, the suspense must be
I think he can be very patient -- after all, it's been months since you last showed up here.
In the meantime, I recommend that you also take a close look at what I wrote below.
That will help you to keep your eyes wide open.
The first "Holy Grail" involves an efficient RNA ribozyme polymerase.
This is the technical term for an enzyme that is NOT a protein enzyme such as the one on which "life as we know it"
is heavily dependent. Rather, it is a strand of RNA which can take *any* strand of RNA,
in a bath rich in the 4 RNA nucleotides, and produce the complementary strand.
The first "Holy Grail" is a step by step way of producing this kind of enzyme
under primitive earth conditions.
We are so far from this that we haven't the foggiest idea what an RNA ribozyme polymerase
could possibly look like. We do know plenty about RNA *protein* enzyme polymerases,
because some viruses have them. [If it weren't for those viruses, we would be totally
in the dark about what *these* enzymes could possibly look like.]
hardly can be achieved without a complex, highly evolved set of RNAs and proteins but an elaborate protein machinery could not evolve without an accurate translation system."If you, the reader [this includes both participants and lurkers],
have read this far, and would like to know what the five later "Holy Grails" are
that I have envisioned, let me know.
Did *you* read this far, Mark? Aren't you curious about them?
"The first "Holy Grail" involves an efficient RNA ribozyme polymerase."
You're assuming an RNA world (as opposed to metabolism first, messy world, compartment first, once-got-astonishingly-lucky world). But why not - like democracy, the RNA world is the worst form of OoL model, except for all the others.
I'm curious, please share them all, but I suggest you don't bury them in threads like this, but post each separately as Holy Grail #1...N.
I'll be posting about Holy Grail #1 in a thread I began a about half an hour ago,
"The Alchemy and Biochemistry of OOL" https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/uX-9hX7ZvHI/m/4sd2RcLyAAAJ
Your talk about the messiness of "RNA World" spurred me on to adopt a different, much more definite concept: "RNA-run World." This refers to a phase in prebiotic evolution that was dominated by ribozymes [enzymes made of RNA or closely related nucleotide polymers]
rather than the far better known protein enzymes, which are polypeptides.
This domination lasted until after the protein translation mechanism, complete with at least a primitive form of genetic code, was securely in place.
Getting up to that stage under simulated prebiotic conditions is the next to lastNoted. Ribosome origin ("Protein Takeover") is a profound catch-22:
Holy Grail of OOL, and unless the usual bozos dilute the thread as badly
as they have done this one, I can get up to it already in that Alchemy/Biochemistry thread,
leaving only the Protein Takeover as the last Holy Grail.
"The origin of the translation system is, arguably, the central and the hardest problem in the study of the origin of life, and one of the hardest in all evolutionary biology. The problem has a clear catch-22 aspect: high translation fidelity
can be achieved without a complex, highly evolved set of RNAs and proteins but an elaborate protein machinery could not evolve without an accurate translation system. The origin of the genetic code and whether it evolved on the basis of a stereochemicalhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1894784/The full abstract
"The origin of the translation system is, arguably, the central and the hardest problem in the study of the origin of life, and one of the hardest in all evolutionary biology. The problem has a clear catch-22 aspect: high translation fidelity hardly
selectively advantageous steps along the path from the RNA world to the modern-type translation system. This being said, there seem to be several underlying principles that are likely to stand regardless of further developments. We briefly recapitulateAnd from the conclusion...
The models presented here were deliberately constructed at the level of considerable detail -at the risk of getting many, perhaps, most aspects wrong – in order to provide a proof of principle, i.e., to illustrate a plausible sequence of
proposed starting point, i.e., stimulation of ribozymes by amino acids and peptides seems to be a strong, almost, logically required, candidate for this role (see also [145])."1. Evolution having no foresight, selection for translation per se is not feasible.
Translation must have evolved as a by-product of selection for some other function, i.e., via the exaptation route.
2. Given that the essence of translation is the intimate link between RNA and proteins, it seems most likely that, in some form, this connection existed from the very beginning of the evolutionary path from the RNA World to translation. Thus, the
the establishment of the genetic code. These ancestral adaptors, although, in all likelihood, smaller and simpler than modern tRNAs, must have been endowed with catalytic capacities lacking in the latter, i.e., they would have to catalyze specific self-3. Synthesis of peptides directly on an RNA template is stereochemically unfeasible. Hence adaptors must have been part of the primordial translation system from the start. Accordingly, from the very onset of translation, adaptors have been key to
systems, considering that extensive protein evolution took place prior to the diversification of the proteins that are essential for the modern translation."4. The primordial translation system was dominated by RNA although peptides might facilitate its functioning. However, the fidelity of this primordial, (nearly) RNA-only translation system must have been comparable to that of modern translation
abstract.This paper is more than 15 years old, so not the latest news on evolution of translation, but the paper hardly represents a throwing up of one's hands in despair, as might have been suggested by the quotation of just the first two sentences of the
Fair enough - I did post this in haste, and only skimmed the paper. Two things though:
1. This problem of translation system origin inherently presents as a catch-22 (whether or not it is; that is a point of contention)
2. Note the paper's self-assessment: "The scenarios for the origin of the translation system and the genetic code outlined here are both sketchy and highly speculative."
Because of its Catch-22 nature, this one will require a new thread. Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of So. Carolina in Columbia http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 11:30:34 PM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:.
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 8:45:34 AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
Noted. Ribosome origin ("Protein Takeover") is a profound catch-22:
"The origin of the translation system is, arguably, the central and the hardestDid you read the paper or did you just get around to the quote mine?
problem in the study of the origin of life, and one of the hardest in all
evolutionary biology. The problem has a clear catch-22 aspect: high translation fidelity hardly can be achieved without a complex, highly evolved set of RNAs and proteins but an elaborate protein machinery could not evolve without an accurate translation system." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1894784/
You really should read it. It takes the above and blows it apart.
Essentially, it shows how primitive the thinking is that imagines a catch-22 and then throws up its hands claiming near impossibility.
The foolishness presumes that there's no reason for any peptide synthesis short of being able to replicate something close to a modern ribosome with all of the support structure to charge tRNAs. It does so by presenting
one scheme where a far simpler bit of metabolism would be an improvement to a prebiotic system --- and an improvement of the sort that would produce a natural selection advantage thus allowing evolutionary mechanisms to play a role in advancing and updating a precursor to
the endpoint fools imagine to be a catch-22.
For those who don't want to read the paper, the hypothesis is that small peptides can play a role with ribozymes expanding their catalytic repertoire.
(This contrasts with those married to an extreme view of an RNA world
that have misunderstood that all along.) The peptide cofactor idea of course makes perfect sense if you know biochemistry, enzymes, and catalysis. Small peptides also make sense in modifiers of RNA stability. They can also play a role in membrane function. This is true for small peptides with a limited selection of amino acids, but becomes greater
for peptides with a broader 'vocabulary' of amino acids. So there are potential paths for evolution of peptide synthesis from simpler systems than ribosomal peptide synthesis.
Of course, I've noted that some seem to want to define OoL to preclude
any natural selection short of a replicating proto cell that includes the equivalent of modern ribosomes. That is of course just another way
to foolishly invent unnecessary catch-22s either by desire of a big failure in imagination.
And towards the thread title, sometimes I like pointing out sloppy
quote mining that risks promoting misconceptions.
As per my response to Bill:
Fair enough - I did post this in haste, and only skimmed the paper. Two things though:
1. This problem of translation system origin inherently presents as a catch-22
(whether or not it is is a point of contention)
2. Note the paper's self-assessment: "The scenarios for the origin of the translation system and the genetic code outlined here are both sketchy
and highly speculative."
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 4:10:36 AM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 9:05:36 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 3:05:36 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 6:45:35 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 05:42:43 -0700 (PDT), Mark <me22...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7:25:25?AM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
<massive snip>Boing boing boing.
Noted. Ribosome origin ("Protein Takeover") is a profound catch-22: Not a catch-22, profound or otherwise. Aside from the blatant quotemine, a ribosome origin is no more a catch-22, profound or otherwise, than is an egg origin. First life almost certainly didn't rely on ribosomes, as "high fidelity" of protein translation was unnecessary. Ribosomes became necessary only after its evolution, because non-ribosome systems had to complete with more-efficient ribosome systems.
"The proposed scenario for the evolution of translation consists of theI have to wonder why that quote was selected, unless ...
following steps: binding of amino acids to a ribozyme resulting in an enhancement of its catalytic activity; evolution of the amino-acid-stimulated
ribozyme into a peptide ligase (predecessor of the large ribosomal subunit)
yielding, initially, a unique peptide activating the original ribozyme and, possibly,
other ribozymes in the ensemble; evolution of self-charging proto-tRNAs
that were selected, initially, for accumulation of amino acids, and subsequently,
for delivery of amino acids to the peptide ligase; joining of the peptide ligase
with a distinct RNA molecule (predecessor of the small ribosomal subunit)
carrying a built-in template for more efficient, complementary binding of
charged proto-tRNAs; evolution of the ability of the peptide ligase to assemble
peptides using exogenous RNAs as template for complementary binding of charged proteo-tRNAs, yielding peptides with the potential to activate different
ribozymes; evolution of the translocation function of the protoribosome
leading to the production of increasingly longer peptides (the first proteins),
i.e., the origin of translation."
At least your one one response wasn't as long as the abstract just so fantasy.Did someone read that and keep conflating ribosome and ribozyme?I hadn't thought of that, but I think you hit the nail on the head.
That would be funnily in character.
With your years of experience and advanced knowledge of all such things, however, maybe I can help you and the other bozo above in making more
fun of anyone who recognizes what Tour is saying, with:
ribosome is a ribozyme
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 9:05:36 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 3:05:36 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 6:45:35 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 05:42:43 -0700 (PDT), Mark <me22...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7:25:25?AM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
<massive snip>Boing boing boing.
Noted. Ribosome origin ("Protein Takeover") is a profound catch-22: Not a catch-22, profound or otherwise. Aside from the blatant quotemine, a ribosome origin is no more a catch-22, profound or otherwise, than is an egg origin. First life almost certainly didn't rely on ribosomes, as "high fidelity" of protein translation was unnecessary. Ribosomes became necessary only after its evolution, because non-ribosome systems had to complete with more-efficient ribosome systems.
"The proposed scenario for the evolution of translation consists of the following steps: binding of amino acids to a ribozyme resulting in an enhancement of its catalytic activity; evolution of the amino-acid-stimulatedI have to wonder why that quote was selected, unless ...
ribozyme into a peptide ligase (predecessor of the large ribosomal subunit)
yielding, initially, a unique peptide activating the original ribozyme and, possibly,
other ribozymes in the ensemble; evolution of self-charging proto-tRNAs that were selected, initially, for accumulation of amino acids, and subsequently,
for delivery of amino acids to the peptide ligase; joining of the peptide ligase
with a distinct RNA molecule (predecessor of the small ribosomal subunit)
carrying a built-in template for more efficient, complementary binding of
charged proto-tRNAs; evolution of the ability of the peptide ligase to assemble
peptides using exogenous RNAs as template for complementary binding of charged proteo-tRNAs, yielding peptides with the potential to activate different
ribozymes; evolution of the translocation function of the protoribosome leading to the production of increasingly longer peptides (the first proteins),
i.e., the origin of translation."
Did someone read that and keep conflating ribosome and ribozyme?I hadn't thought of that, but I think you hit the nail on the head.
That would be funnily in character.
hardly can be achieved without a complex, highly evolved set of RNAs and proteins but an elaborate protein machinery could not evolve without an accurate translation system.""The origin of the translation system is, arguably, the central and the hardest problem in the study of the origin of life, and one of the hardest in all evolutionary biology. The problem has a clear catch-22 aspect: high translation fidelity
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1894784/
Because of its Catch-22 nature, this one will require a new thread. Since any Catch-22 nature is entirely imaginative, so too is a need for a new thread for it.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 9:10:36 AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:for example, I would not have read all the literature about long term experimental evolution in E. coli if it weren't for DrDrDrDr Kleinman's bringing it up (and drawing incorrect conclusions from it) and you, and others, have gotten me interested in
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 11:25:34 PM UTC+10, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 8:45:34 AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7:25:25 AM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 7:00:19 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 11:15:19 PM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 8:30:19 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 7:00:18 AM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 3:05:15 PM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
My reasons for participating in t.o. include those Bill Rogers describes below.
However, my main impetus towards learning in many areas of science comes from anti-ID claims
AND from just plain scientific discussions AND from helping ID sympathizers
get better at understanding all aspects of ID.
I rate all these things as high or higher than the things Bill Rogers writes about below.
Because (1) there are some people here who write interesting and informative posts and (2) in the process of responding to creationist and ID claims I sometimes get pushed to read up on areas of biology that I do not know much about -
NOTE TO ANYONE READING THIS:
Just think of how much more Bill Rogers could have been "pushed to read up on areas of biology that [he did] not know much about"
if he hadn't stopped reading my posts three or more years ago.
In that time interval, MarkE kept enduring unending frustration as Bill Rogers kept
"reading the latest stuff on origin of life" and then flaming MarkE for not having read it himself.
The frustration came from MarkE wanting Bill Rogers to discuss something far beyond
"the latest stuff," which barely follows primitive earth conditions up to where the first
nucleotides [like the four (4) RNA nucleotides] had been produced.
By the way, Mark, I don't recall you writing anything that specific, but you
certainly were hoping for at least as many steps as could lead to the first "Holy Grail."
MarkE was trying to get Bill Rogers interested in the steps from that point to
several "Holy Grails" leading to life as we know it.
Thanks Peter for your acknowledgement of this--it is somewhat therapeutic :) All the same, Bill has been mostly engaging, knowledgeable, and insightful in his responses.As long as you engage him with both eyes open, so to speak,
I cannot fault you for saying that.
unbearable...Bill: You have provoked me to look into Deamer's work again. No, I haven't purchased Assembling Life (though I did download the kindle sample), but I have found a few things to discuss is a new thread. I know, the suspense must be
I think he can be very patient -- after all, it's been months since you last showed up here.
In the meantime, I recommend that you also take a close look at what I wrote below.
That will help you to keep your eyes wide open.
The first "Holy Grail" involves an efficient RNA ribozyme polymerase.
This is the technical term for an enzyme that is NOT a protein enzyme such as the one on which "life as we know it"
is heavily dependent. Rather, it is a strand of RNA which can take *any* strand of RNA,
in a bath rich in the 4 RNA nucleotides, and produce the complementary strand.
The first "Holy Grail" is a step by step way of producing this kind of enzyme
under primitive earth conditions.
We are so far from this that we haven't the foggiest idea what an RNA ribozyme polymerase
could possibly look like. We do know plenty about RNA *protein* enzyme polymerases,
because some viruses have them. [If it weren't for those viruses, we would be totally
in the dark about what *these* enzymes could possibly look like.]
hardly can be achieved without a complex, highly evolved set of RNAs and proteins but an elaborate protein machinery could not evolve without an accurate translation system."If you, the reader [this includes both participants and lurkers],
have read this far, and would like to know what the five later "Holy Grails" are
that I have envisioned, let me know.
Did *you* read this far, Mark? Aren't you curious about them?
"The first "Holy Grail" involves an efficient RNA ribozyme polymerase."
You're assuming an RNA world (as opposed to metabolism first, messy world, compartment first, once-got-astonishingly-lucky world). But why not - like democracy, the RNA world is the worst form of OoL model, except for all the others.
I'm curious, please share them all, but I suggest you don't bury them in threads like this, but post each separately as Holy Grail #1...N.
I'll be posting about Holy Grail #1 in a thread I began a about half an hour ago,
"The Alchemy and Biochemistry of OOL" https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/uX-9hX7ZvHI/m/4sd2RcLyAAAJ
Your talk about the messiness of "RNA World" spurred me on to adopt a
different, much more definite concept: "RNA-run World." This refers to
a phase in prebiotic evolution that was dominated by ribozymes [enzymes made of RNA or closely related nucleotide polymers]
rather than the far better known protein enzymes, which are polypeptides.
This domination lasted until after the protein translation mechanism,
complete with at least a primitive form of genetic code, was securely in place.
Getting up to that stage under simulated prebiotic conditions is the next to lastNoted. Ribosome origin ("Protein Takeover") is a profound catch-22:
Holy Grail of OOL, and unless the usual bozos dilute the thread as badly
as they have done this one, I can get up to it already in that Alchemy/Biochemistry thread,
leaving only the Protein Takeover as the last Holy Grail.
"The origin of the translation system is, arguably, the central and the hardest problem in the study of the origin of life, and one of the hardest in all evolutionary biology. The problem has a clear catch-22 aspect: high translation fidelity
hardly can be achieved without a complex, highly evolved set of RNAs and proteins but an elaborate protein machinery could not evolve without an accurate translation system. The origin of the genetic code and whether it evolved on the basis of ahttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1894784/The full abstract
"The origin of the translation system is, arguably, the central and the hardest problem in the study of the origin of life, and one of the hardest in all evolutionary biology. The problem has a clear catch-22 aspect: high translation fidelity
selectively advantageous steps along the path from the RNA world to the modern-type translation system. This being said, there seem to be several underlying principles that are likely to stand regardless of further developments. We briefly recapitulateAnd from the conclusion...
The models presented here were deliberately constructed at the level of considerable detail -at the risk of getting many, perhaps, most aspects wrong – in order to provide a proof of principle, i.e., to illustrate a plausible sequence of
proposed starting point, i.e., stimulation of ribozymes by amino acids and peptides seems to be a strong, almost, logically required, candidate for this role (see also [145])."1. Evolution having no foresight, selection for translation per se is not feasible.
Translation must have evolved as a by-product of selection for some other function, i.e., via the exaptation route.
2. Given that the essence of translation is the intimate link between RNA and proteins, it seems most likely that, in some form, this connection existed from the very beginning of the evolutionary path from the RNA World to translation. Thus, the
the establishment of the genetic code. These ancestral adaptors, although, in all likelihood, smaller and simpler than modern tRNAs, must have been endowed with catalytic capacities lacking in the latter, i.e., they would have to catalyze specific self-3. Synthesis of peptides directly on an RNA template is stereochemically unfeasible. Hence adaptors must have been part of the primordial translation system from the start. Accordingly, from the very onset of translation, adaptors have been key to
systems, considering that extensive protein evolution took place prior to the diversification of the proteins that are essential for the modern translation."4. The primordial translation system was dominated by RNA although peptides might facilitate its functioning. However, the fidelity of this primordial, (nearly) RNA-only translation system must have been comparable to that of modern translation
abstract.This paper is more than 15 years old, so not the latest news on evolution of translation, but the paper hardly represents a throwing up of one's hands in despair, as might have been suggested by the quotation of just the first two sentences of the
to provide a proof of principle, i.e., to illustrate a plausible sequence of selectively advantageous steps along the path from the RNA world to the modern-type translation system. This being said, there seem to be several underlying principles that areFair enough - I did post this in haste, and only skimmed the paper. Two things though:
1. This problem of translation system origin inherently presents as a catch-22 (whether or not it is; that is a point of contention)Now you've quote mined the "paper's self assessment." The context for that sentence is "The models presented here were deliberately constructed at the level of considerable detail -at the risk of getting many, perhaps, most aspects wrong – in order
2. Note the paper's self-assessment: "The scenarios for the origin of the translation system and the genetic code outlined here are both sketchy and highly speculative."
The ID argument is that there is no possible series of small, selectable steps that can lead from the RNA world to the modern translation system. The paper provides a scenario consisting of exactly that, a series of small, selectable steps that couldlead from the RNA world to the modern translation system. It is speculative in the sense that, of course, nobody knows if those were the particular steps that were followed.
Now if the ID argument wants to concede that, yes, there are certainly possible series of small selectable steps that can lead to the ribosome, BUT, we do not know what series of small steps actually occurred, then, great, no argument from me. Or ifthey want to try to mount a technical argument as to why one of the small steps in the scenario in the paper is physically impossible, then have at it.
This is a very common ID goalpost shift that runs like this.....
ID: There is no possible evolutionary pathway from A to B, therefore a designer was required.
Evolution: Here is a possible pathway from A to B.
ID: But you have not shown that that's really what happened. Just a just so story.
See the retreat? The first claim is that there is no possible pathway.
Because of its Catch-22 nature, this one will require a new thread. Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of So. Carolina in Columbia http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 4:10:36?AM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote:hardly can be achieved without a complex, highly evolved set of RNAs and proteins but an elaborate protein machinery could not evolve without an accurate translation system."
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 9:05:36?PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote: >> > On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 3:05:36?PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
I hadn't thought of that, but I think you hit the nail on the head.On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 6:45:35?PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:I have to wonder why that quote was selected, unless ...
On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 05:42:43 -0700 (PDT), Mark <me22...@gmail.com>Boing boing boing.
wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7:25:25?AM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
<massive snip>
Noted. Ribosome origin ("Protein Takeover") is a profound catch-22: >> > > > Not a catch-22, profound or otherwise. Aside from the blatantquotemine, a ribosome origin is no more a catch-22, profound or
otherwise, than is an egg origin. First life almost certainly didn't >> > > > rely on ribosomes, as "high fidelity" of protein translation was
unnecessary. Ribosomes became necessary only after its evolution,
because non-ribosome systems had to complete with more-efficient
ribosome systems.
"The proposed scenario for the evolution of translation consists of the >> > > following steps: binding of amino acids to a ribozyme resulting in an >> > > enhancement of its catalytic activity; evolution of the amino-acid-stimulated
ribozyme into a peptide ligase (predecessor of the large ribosomal subunit)
yielding, initially, a unique peptide activating the original ribozyme and, possibly,
other ribozymes in the ensemble; evolution of self-charging proto-tRNAs >> > > that were selected, initially, for accumulation of amino acids, and subsequently,
for delivery of amino acids to the peptide ligase; joining of the peptide ligase
with a distinct RNA molecule (predecessor of the small ribosomal subunit)
carrying a built-in template for more efficient, complementary binding of
charged proto-tRNAs; evolution of the ability of the peptide ligase to assemble
peptides using exogenous RNAs as template for complementary binding of >> > > charged proteo-tRNAs, yielding peptides with the potential to activate different
ribozymes; evolution of the translocation function of the protoribosome >> > > leading to the production of increasingly longer peptides (the first proteins),
i.e., the origin of translation."
Did someone read that and keep conflating ribosome and ribozyme?
That would be funnily in character.
At least your one one response wasn't as long as the abstract just so fantasy.
With your years of experience and advanced knowledge of all such things, however, maybe I can help you and the other bozo above in making more fun of anyone who recognizes what Tour is saying, with:
ribosome is a ribozyme
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=ribosome+is+a+ribozyme+#ip=1
"The origin of the translation system is, arguably, the central and the hardest problem in the study of the origin of life, and one of the hardest in all evolutionary biology. The problem has a clear catch-22 aspect: high translation fidelity
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1894784/Since any Catch-22 nature is entirely imaginative, so too is a need >> > > > for a new thread for it.
Because of its Catch-22 nature, this one will require a new thread.
Ribozymes are a class of molecules which are both a genetic material,
like DNA, and a biological catalyst, like protein enzymes. These are
the functions that provide a sufficient answer to "the origin of the translation system", at least for those who know what they're talking
about. Apparently your mileage varies.
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 8:35:37?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
Ribozymes are a class of molecules which are both a genetic material,
like DNA, and a biological catalyst, like protein enzymes. These are
the functions that provide a sufficient answer to "the origin of the
translation system", at least for those who know what they're talking
about. Apparently your mileage varies.
That's a puzzling claim respective to sufficiency. I do fancy that I know
a bit more than the average bear about RNA, catalysis, and the modern >biochemical translation system of ribosomes. I'm even familiar with
multiple speculative theories about how the extant system might have
evolved. But it isn't a trivial result of the fact that RNA exists, and that some
RNA polymers have catalytic activity. There's a great deal more that is
not trivially obvious.
There are clues that suggest the modern system evolved from simpler >precursors, but the pathway by which that happened remains a mystery.
Thus, I take exception to your assertion that the facts in your first sentence >represent the sufficiency you assert.
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 9:10:36 AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 11:30:34 PM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 8:45:34 AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
Noted. Ribosome origin ("Protein Takeover") is a profound catch-22:
"The origin of the translation system is, arguably, the central and the hardestDid you read the paper or did you just get around to the quote mine?
problem in the study of the origin of life, and one of the hardest in all
evolutionary biology. The problem has a clear catch-22 aspect: high translation fidelity hardly can be achieved without a complex, highly evolved set of RNAs and proteins but an elaborate protein machinery could not evolve without an accurate translation system." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1894784/
You really should read it. It takes the above and blows it apart.
Essentially, it shows how primitive the thinking is that imagines a catch-22 and then throws up its hands claiming near impossibility.
The foolishness presumes that there's no reason for any peptide synthesis
short of being able to replicate something close to a modern ribosome with
all of the support structure to charge tRNAs. It does so by presenting one scheme where a far simpler bit of metabolism would be an improvement to a prebiotic system --- and an improvement of the sort that would produce a natural selection advantage thus allowing evolutionary mechanisms to play a role in advancing and updating a precursor to
the endpoint fools imagine to be a catch-22.
For those who don't want to read the paper, the hypothesis is that small peptides can play a role with ribozymes expanding their catalytic repertoire.
(This contrasts with those married to an extreme view of an RNA world that have misunderstood that all along.) The peptide cofactor idea of course makes perfect sense if you know biochemistry, enzymes, and catalysis. Small peptides also make sense in modifiers of RNA stability. They can also play a role in membrane function. This is true for small peptides with a limited selection of amino acids, but becomes greater for peptides with a broader 'vocabulary' of amino acids. So there are potential paths for evolution of peptide synthesis from simpler systems than ribosomal peptide synthesis.
Of course, I've noted that some seem to want to define OoL to preclude any natural selection short of a replicating proto cell that includes the
equivalent of modern ribosomes. That is of course just another way
to foolishly invent unnecessary catch-22s either by desire of a big failure in imagination.
.And towards the thread title, sometimes I like pointing out sloppy
quote mining that risks promoting misconceptions.
As per my response to Bill:So you're admitting that you did a quote mine that misrepresented a reference?
Fair enough - I did post this in haste, and only skimmed the paper. Two things though:
1. This problem of translation system origin inherently presents as a catch-22
(whether or not it is is a point of contention)
2. Note the paper's self-assessment: "The scenarios for the origin of the translation system and the genetic code outlined here are both sketchy
and highly speculative."
And your excuse is that you were in a hurry?
Should we keep this exchange in mind for the future? And as per Bill's retort,
you're doing it again? Son, people can see you.
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 3:05:37 AM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:.
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 9:10:36 AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 11:30:34 PM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 8:45:34 AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
Noted. Ribosome origin ("Protein Takeover") is a profound catch-22:
"The origin of the translation system is, arguably, the central and the hardestDid you read the paper or did you just get around to the quote mine? You really should read it. It takes the above and blows it apart.
problem in the study of the origin of life, and one of the hardest in all
evolutionary biology. The problem has a clear catch-22 aspect: high translation fidelity hardly can be achieved without a complex, highly
evolved set of RNAs and proteins but an elaborate protein machinery could not evolve without an accurate translation system." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1894784/
Essentially, it shows how primitive the thinking is that imagines a catch-22 and then throws up its hands claiming near impossibility.
The foolishness presumes that there's no reason for any peptide synthesis
short of being able to replicate something close to a modern ribosome with
all of the support structure to charge tRNAs. It does so by presenting one scheme where a far simpler bit of metabolism would be an improvement
to a prebiotic system --- and an improvement of the sort that would produce a natural selection advantage thus allowing evolutionary mechanisms to play a role in advancing and updating a precursor to
the endpoint fools imagine to be a catch-22.
For those who don't want to read the paper, the hypothesis is that small
peptides can play a role with ribozymes expanding their catalytic repertoire.
(This contrasts with those married to an extreme view of an RNA world that have misunderstood that all along.) The peptide cofactor idea of course makes perfect sense if you know biochemistry, enzymes, and catalysis. Small peptides also make sense in modifiers of RNA stability.
They can also play a role in membrane function. This is true for small peptides with a limited selection of amino acids, but becomes greater for peptides with a broader 'vocabulary' of amino acids. So there are potential paths for evolution of peptide synthesis from simpler systems
than ribosomal peptide synthesis.
Of course, I've noted that some seem to want to define OoL to preclude any natural selection short of a replicating proto cell that includes the
equivalent of modern ribosomes. That is of course just another way
to foolishly invent unnecessary catch-22s either by desire of a big failure in imagination.
.And towards the thread title, sometimes I like pointing out sloppy quote mining that risks promoting misconceptions.
As per my response to Bill:So you're admitting that you did a quote mine that misrepresented a reference?
Fair enough - I did post this in haste, and only skimmed the paper. Two things though:
1. This problem of translation system origin inherently presents as a catch-22
(whether or not it is is a point of contention)
2. Note the paper's self-assessment: "The scenarios for the origin of the
translation system and the genetic code outlined here are both sketchy and highly speculative."
And your excuse is that you were in a hurry?
Should we keep this exchange in mind for the future? And as per Bill's retort,
you're doing it again? Son, people can see you.
To clarify, my purpose in citing the paper was to provide support for the claim that ribosome development presents a catch-22. This paper states.
this as a matter of fact.
The paper claims to "describe a stepwise model for the origin of
the translation system in the ancient RNA world such that each
step confers a distinct advantage onto an ensemble of co-evolving
genetic elements", but also acknowledges the scenarios "outlined
here are both sketchy and highly speculative".
Which is fine: initial approaches to such a problem necessarily will
involve speculation and sketchiness. But let's not pretend they are
anything more than that.
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 3:05:37 AM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 9:10:36 AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 11:30:34 PM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 8:45:34 AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
Noted. Ribosome origin ("Protein Takeover") is a profound catch-22:
"The origin of the translation system is, arguably, the central and the hardestDid you read the paper or did you just get around to the quote mine? You really should read it. It takes the above and blows it apart.
problem in the study of the origin of life, and one of the hardest in all
evolutionary biology. The problem has a clear catch-22 aspect: high translation fidelity hardly can be achieved without a complex, highly
evolved set of RNAs and proteins but an elaborate protein machinery could not evolve without an accurate translation system." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1894784/
Essentially, it shows how primitive the thinking is that imagines a catch-22 and then throws up its hands claiming near impossibility.
The foolishness presumes that there's no reason for any peptide synthesis
short of being able to replicate something close to a modern ribosome with
all of the support structure to charge tRNAs. It does so by presenting one scheme where a far simpler bit of metabolism would be an improvement
to a prebiotic system --- and an improvement of the sort that would produce a natural selection advantage thus allowing evolutionary mechanisms to play a role in advancing and updating a precursor to
the endpoint fools imagine to be a catch-22.
For those who don't want to read the paper, the hypothesis is that small
peptides can play a role with ribozymes expanding their catalytic repertoire.
(This contrasts with those married to an extreme view of an RNA world that have misunderstood that all along.) The peptide cofactor idea of course makes perfect sense if you know biochemistry, enzymes, and catalysis. Small peptides also make sense in modifiers of RNA stability.
They can also play a role in membrane function. This is true for small peptides with a limited selection of amino acids, but becomes greater for peptides with a broader 'vocabulary' of amino acids. So there are potential paths for evolution of peptide synthesis from simpler systems
than ribosomal peptide synthesis.
Of course, I've noted that some seem to want to define OoL to preclude any natural selection short of a replicating proto cell that includes the
equivalent of modern ribosomes. That is of course just another way
to foolishly invent unnecessary catch-22s either by desire of a big failure in imagination.
.And towards the thread title, sometimes I like pointing out sloppy quote mining that risks promoting misconceptions.
As per my response to Bill:So you're admitting that you did a quote mine that misrepresented a reference?
Fair enough - I did post this in haste, and only skimmed the paper. Two things though:
1. This problem of translation system origin inherently presents as a catch-22
(whether or not it is is a point of contention)
2. Note the paper's self-assessment: "The scenarios for the origin of the
translation system and the genetic code outlined here are both sketchy and highly speculative."
And your excuse is that you were in a hurry?
Should we keep this exchange in mind for the future? And as per Bill's retort,To clarify, my purpose in citing the paper was to provide support for the claim that ribosome development presents a catch-22. This paper states this as a matter of fact.
you're doing it again? Son, people can see you.
The paper claims to "describe a stepwise model for the origin of the translation system in the ancient RNA world such that each step confers a distinct advantage onto an ensemble of co-evolving genetic elements", but also acknowledges the scenarios "outlined here are both sketchy and highly speculative".
Which is fine: initial approaches to such a problem necessarily will involve speculation and sketchiness. But let's not pretend they are anything more than that.
On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 06:34:12 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:.
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 8:35:37?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
Ribozymes are a class of molecules which are both a genetic material,
like DNA, and a biological catalyst, like protein enzymes. These are
the functions that provide a sufficient answer to "the origin of the
translation system", at least for those who know what they're talking
about. Apparently your mileage varies.
That's a puzzling claim respective to sufficiency. I do fancy that I know >a bit more than the average bear about RNA, catalysis, and the modern >biochemical translation system of ribosomes. I'm even familiar with >multiple speculative theories about how the extant system might have >evolved. But it isn't a trivial result of the fact that RNA exists, and that some
RNA polymers have catalytic activity. There's a great deal more that is >not trivially obvious.
There are clues that suggest the modern system evolved from simpler >precursors, but the pathway by which that happened remains a mystery. >Thus, I take exception to your assertion that the facts in your first sentence
represent the sufficiency you assert.
My comment isn't about the details of the modern biological
translation system of ribosomes. To be sure, there is more involved
in that than the biochemical functions of ribozymes. Instead, my
comment does address the point previously raised, that the *origin* of
the translation system is a chicken-egg paradox and its complexity
requires invoking ID.
Once again, ribozymes almost certainly were sufficient for first life.
The complexity of the modern biological translation system provides
greater efficiency/reliability/functionality than ribozymes alone,
which explains why life using ribosomes replaced life using ribozymes
alone, and could have evolved stepwise from first life. This is the
sole point of my comment. Reading more into it than that, as your
comment does, is an unreasonable criticism.
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 10:25:37 PM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 3:05:37 AM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 9:10:36 AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 11:30:34 PM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 8:45:34 AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
Noted. Ribosome origin ("Protein Takeover") is a profound catch-22:
"The origin of the translation system is, arguably, the central and the hardestDid you read the paper or did you just get around to the quote mine? You really should read it. It takes the above and blows it apart.
problem in the study of the origin of life, and one of the hardest in all
evolutionary biology. The problem has a clear catch-22 aspect: high
translation fidelity hardly can be achieved without a complex, highly
evolved set of RNAs and proteins but an elaborate protein machinery
could not evolve without an accurate translation system." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1894784/
Essentially, it shows how primitive the thinking is that imagines a catch-22 and then throws up its hands claiming near impossibility.
The foolishness presumes that there's no reason for any peptide synthesis
short of being able to replicate something close to a modern ribosome with
all of the support structure to charge tRNAs. It does so by presenting
one scheme where a far simpler bit of metabolism would be an improvement
to a prebiotic system --- and an improvement of the sort that would produce a natural selection advantage thus allowing evolutionary mechanisms to play a role in advancing and updating a precursor to the endpoint fools imagine to be a catch-22.
For those who don't want to read the paper, the hypothesis is that small
peptides can play a role with ribozymes expanding their catalytic repertoire.
(This contrasts with those married to an extreme view of an RNA world
that have misunderstood that all along.) The peptide cofactor idea of
course makes perfect sense if you know biochemistry, enzymes, and catalysis. Small peptides also make sense in modifiers of RNA stability.
They can also play a role in membrane function. This is true for small
peptides with a limited selection of amino acids, but becomes greater
for peptides with a broader 'vocabulary' of amino acids. So there are
potential paths for evolution of peptide synthesis from simpler systems
than ribosomal peptide synthesis.
Of course, I've noted that some seem to want to define OoL to preclude
any natural selection short of a replicating proto cell that includes the
equivalent of modern ribosomes. That is of course just another way to foolishly invent unnecessary catch-22s either by desire of a big failure in imagination.
.And towards the thread title, sometimes I like pointing out sloppy quote mining that risks promoting misconceptions.
As per my response to Bill:So you're admitting that you did a quote mine that misrepresented a reference?
Fair enough - I did post this in haste, and only skimmed the paper. Two
things though:
1. This problem of translation system origin inherently presents as a catch-22
(whether or not it is is a point of contention)
2. Note the paper's self-assessment: "The scenarios for the origin of the
translation system and the genetic code outlined here are both sketchy and highly speculative."
And your excuse is that you were in a hurry?
.Should we keep this exchange in mind for the future? And as per Bill's retort,
you're doing it again? Son, people can see you.
To clarify, my purpose in citing the paper was to provide support for the claim that ribosome development presents a catch-22. This paper states this as a matter of fact..
No, it does not.
It states, in the part you quote mined, that it has a catch-22 aspect.
Read for comprehension.
The rest of the paper is about how to break the apparent catch-22.
It can seem like you can't build up the modern protein synthesis
system without a modern protein synthesis system if you don't
understand much about catalysis and biopolymers. It seems that
way if you look at it from that blinkered perspective. That's the aspect
it mentions in the introduction you quote mined. The aspect is how
things can seem, not how they are.
The paper claims to "describe a stepwise model for the origin ofAnd that breaks the apparent catch-22.
the translation system in the ancient RNA world such that each
step confers a distinct advantage onto an ensemble of co-evolving
genetic elements", but also acknowledges the scenarios "outlined
here are both sketchy and highly speculative".
Speculative is true, but that doesn't change the fact that the catch-22
is broken. That being THE pathway is speculative, breaking the
catch-22 is a fact.
Which is fine: initial approaches to such a problem necessarily will involve speculation and sketchiness. But let's not pretend they are anything more than that.Let's not pretend it's possible to have anything more than speculation.
It's absurd to pretend that it's possible to discover an exact pathway.
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 10:25:37 PM UTC-4, Mark wrote:it may be that you think you are simply applying a normal method of exegesis to scientific papers. That's maybe a more charitable interpretation than quote mining. But in the end, it's still quote mining - looking for a string of words that you like,
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 3:05:37 AM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 9:10:36 AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 11:30:34 PM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 8:45:34 AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
Noted. Ribosome origin ("Protein Takeover") is a profound catch-22:
"The origin of the translation system is, arguably, the central and the hardestDid you read the paper or did you just get around to the quote mine? You really should read it. It takes the above and blows it apart.
problem in the study of the origin of life, and one of the hardest in all
evolutionary biology. The problem has a clear catch-22 aspect: high
translation fidelity hardly can be achieved without a complex, highly
evolved set of RNAs and proteins but an elaborate protein machinery
could not evolve without an accurate translation system." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1894784/
Essentially, it shows how primitive the thinking is that imagines a catch-22 and then throws up its hands claiming near impossibility.
The foolishness presumes that there's no reason for any peptide synthesis
short of being able to replicate something close to a modern ribosome with
all of the support structure to charge tRNAs. It does so by presenting
one scheme where a far simpler bit of metabolism would be an improvement
to a prebiotic system --- and an improvement of the sort that would produce a natural selection advantage thus allowing evolutionary mechanisms to play a role in advancing and updating a precursor to the endpoint fools imagine to be a catch-22.
For those who don't want to read the paper, the hypothesis is that small
peptides can play a role with ribozymes expanding their catalytic repertoire.
(This contrasts with those married to an extreme view of an RNA world
that have misunderstood that all along.) The peptide cofactor idea of
course makes perfect sense if you know biochemistry, enzymes, and catalysis. Small peptides also make sense in modifiers of RNA stability.
They can also play a role in membrane function. This is true for small
peptides with a limited selection of amino acids, but becomes greater
for peptides with a broader 'vocabulary' of amino acids. So there are
potential paths for evolution of peptide synthesis from simpler systems
than ribosomal peptide synthesis.
Of course, I've noted that some seem to want to define OoL to preclude
any natural selection short of a replicating proto cell that includes the
equivalent of modern ribosomes. That is of course just another way to foolishly invent unnecessary catch-22s either by desire of a big failure in imagination.
.And towards the thread title, sometimes I like pointing out sloppy quote mining that risks promoting misconceptions.
As per my response to Bill:So you're admitting that you did a quote mine that misrepresented a reference?
Fair enough - I did post this in haste, and only skimmed the paper. Two
things though:
1. This problem of translation system origin inherently presents as a catch-22
(whether or not it is is a point of contention)
2. Note the paper's self-assessment: "The scenarios for the origin of the
translation system and the genetic code outlined here are both sketchy and highly speculative."
And your excuse is that you were in a hurry?
Looking for "proof texts" is a very poor way to read religious scripture. When you apply it to a scientific paper, it's simply absurd. Though I will admit that if you come from one of the evangelical traditions that is really into "proof texts," thenShould we keep this exchange in mind for the future? And as per Bill's retort,To clarify, my purpose in citing the paper was to provide support for the claim that ribosome development presents a catch-22. This paper states this as a matter of fact.
you're doing it again? Son, people can see you.
outlined here are both sketchy and highly speculative".The paper claims to "describe a stepwise model for the origin of the translation system in the ancient RNA world such that each step confers a distinct advantage onto an ensemble of co-evolving genetic elements", but also acknowledges the scenarios "
Which is fine: initial approaches to such a problem necessarily will involve speculation and sketchiness. But let's not pretend they are anything more than that.
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 8:00:39 PM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 10:25:37 PM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 3:05:37 AM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 9:10:36 AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 11:30:34 PM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 8:45:34 AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
Noted. Ribosome origin ("Protein Takeover") is a profound catch-22:
"The origin of the translation system is, arguably, the central and the hardestDid you read the paper or did you just get around to the quote mine?
problem in the study of the origin of life, and one of the hardest in all
evolutionary biology. The problem has a clear catch-22 aspect: high
translation fidelity hardly can be achieved without a complex, highly
evolved set of RNAs and proteins but an elaborate protein machinery
could not evolve without an accurate translation system." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1894784/
You really should read it. It takes the above and blows it apart.
Essentially, it shows how primitive the thinking is that imagines a
catch-22 and then throws up its hands claiming near impossibility.
The foolishness presumes that there's no reason for any peptide synthesis
short of being able to replicate something close to a modern ribosome with
all of the support structure to charge tRNAs. It does so by presenting
one scheme where a far simpler bit of metabolism would be an improvement
to a prebiotic system --- and an improvement of the sort that would
produce a natural selection advantage thus allowing evolutionary mechanisms to play a role in advancing and updating a precursor to the endpoint fools imagine to be a catch-22.
For those who don't want to read the paper, the hypothesis is that small
peptides can play a role with ribozymes expanding their catalytic repertoire.
(This contrasts with those married to an extreme view of an RNA world
that have misunderstood that all along.) The peptide cofactor idea of
course makes perfect sense if you know biochemistry, enzymes, and catalysis. Small peptides also make sense in modifiers of RNA stability.
They can also play a role in membrane function. This is true for small
peptides with a limited selection of amino acids, but becomes greater
for peptides with a broader 'vocabulary' of amino acids. So there are
potential paths for evolution of peptide synthesis from simpler systems
than ribosomal peptide synthesis.
Of course, I've noted that some seem to want to define OoL to preclude
any natural selection short of a replicating proto cell that includes the
equivalent of modern ribosomes. That is of course just another way to foolishly invent unnecessary catch-22s either by desire of a big
failure in imagination.
.And towards the thread title, sometimes I like pointing out sloppy quote mining that risks promoting misconceptions.
As per my response to Bill:So you're admitting that you did a quote mine that misrepresented a reference?
Fair enough - I did post this in haste, and only skimmed the paper. Two
things though:
1. This problem of translation system origin inherently presents as a catch-22
(whether or not it is is a point of contention)
2. Note the paper's self-assessment: "The scenarios for the origin of the
translation system and the genetic code outlined here are both sketchy
and highly speculative."
And your excuse is that you were in a hurry?
.Should we keep this exchange in mind for the future? And as per Bill's retort,
you're doing it again? Son, people can see you.
To clarify, my purpose in citing the paper was to provide support for the.
claim that ribosome development presents a catch-22. This paper states this as a matter of fact.
No, it does not.
It states, in the part you quote mined, that it has a catch-22 aspect.
Read for comprehension.
The rest of the paper is about how to break the apparent catch-22.
It can seem like you can't build up the modern protein synthesis
system without a modern protein synthesis system if you don't
understand much about catalysis and biopolymers. It seems that
way if you look at it from that blinkered perspective. That's the aspect it mentions in the introduction you quote mined. The aspect is how
things can seem, not how they are.
"The origin of the translation system is, arguably, the central and the hardest problem in the study of the origin of life, and one of the hardest in all evolutionary biology."
That is plainly intended as a statement of fact - regardless of the purpose and content of the rest of the paper.
The authors state that this is not only a hard problem (one of the hardest), it has an _inherent_ catch-22 element to it:capable of, initially, efficient amino acid binding, and subsequently, synthesis of increasingly versatile peptides."
"The problem has a clear catch-22 aspect: high translation fidelity hardly can be achieved without a complex, highly evolved set of RNAs and proteins but an elaborate protein machinery could not evolve without an accurate translation system."
They acknowledge this, and have a go at a possible solution: "We describe a stepwise model for the origin of the translation system in the ancient RNA world... Thus, the translation system might have evolved as the result of selection for ribozymes
At the same time, they acknowledge their hypothesis to be "sketchy and speculative" - which is consistent with and verifying of their opening premise being factual and not merely rhetorical, in effect saying, "this problem really is hard, and althoughwe have described a possible pathway, it would be obviously be an overreach to suggest that we have just cracked it"
Regardless of any possible solutions, either in this paper or elsewhere:catch-22 aspect"?
1. Do you disagree that the authors believe that "The origin of the translation system is, arguably, the central and the hardest problem in the study of the origin of life, and one of the hardest in all evolutionary biology", and a "problem has a clear
2. Do you disagree yourself that origin the of the translation system is a hard problem, with a catch-22 aspect?
The paper claims to "describe a stepwise model for the origin ofAnd that breaks the apparent catch-22.
the translation system in the ancient RNA world such that each
step confers a distinct advantage onto an ensemble of co-evolving genetic elements", but also acknowledges the scenarios "outlined
here are both sketchy and highly speculative".
Speculative is true, but that doesn't change the fact that the catch-22
is broken. That being THE pathway is speculative, breaking the
catch-22 is a fact.
Which is fine: initial approaches to such a problem necessarily will involve speculation and sketchiness. But let's not pretend they are anything more than that.Let's not pretend it's possible to have anything more than speculation. It's absurd to pretend that it's possible to discover an exact pathway.
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 9:10:36 AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:for example, I would not have read all the literature about long term experimental evolution in E. coli if it weren't for DrDrDrDr Kleinman's bringing it up (and drawing incorrect conclusions from it) and you, and others, have gotten me interested in
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 11:25:34 PM UTC+10, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 8:45:34 AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7:25:25 AM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 7:00:19 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 11:15:19 PM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 8:30:19 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 7:00:18 AM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 3:05:15 PM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
My reasons for participating in t.o. include those Bill Rogers describes below.
However, my main impetus towards learning in many areas of science comes from anti-ID claims
AND from just plain scientific discussions AND from helping ID sympathizers
get better at understanding all aspects of ID.
I rate all these things as high or higher than the things Bill Rogers writes about below.
Because (1) there are some people here who write interesting and informative posts and (2) in the process of responding to creationist and ID claims I sometimes get pushed to read up on areas of biology that I do not know much about -
NOTE TO ANYONE READING THIS:
Just think of how much more Bill Rogers could have been "pushed to read up on areas of biology that [he did] not know much about"
if he hadn't stopped reading my posts three or more years ago.
In that time interval, MarkE kept enduring unending frustration as Bill Rogers kept
"reading the latest stuff on origin of life" and then flaming MarkE for not having read it himself.
The frustration came from MarkE wanting Bill Rogers to discuss something far beyond
"the latest stuff," which barely follows primitive earth conditions up to where the first
nucleotides [like the four (4) RNA nucleotides] had been produced.
By the way, Mark, I don't recall you writing anything that specific, but you
certainly were hoping for at least as many steps as could lead to the first "Holy Grail."
MarkE was trying to get Bill Rogers interested in the steps from that point to
several "Holy Grails" leading to life as we know it.
Thanks Peter for your acknowledgement of this--it is somewhat therapeutic :) All the same, Bill has been mostly engaging, knowledgeable, and insightful in his responses.As long as you engage him with both eyes open, so to speak,
I cannot fault you for saying that.
unbearable...Bill: You have provoked me to look into Deamer's work again. No, I haven't purchased Assembling Life (though I did download the kindle sample), but I have found a few things to discuss is a new thread. I know, the suspense must be
I think he can be very patient -- after all, it's been months since you last showed up here.
In the meantime, I recommend that you also take a close look at what I wrote below.
That will help you to keep your eyes wide open.
The first "Holy Grail" involves an efficient RNA ribozyme polymerase.
This is the technical term for an enzyme that is NOT a protein enzyme such as the one on which "life as we know it"
is heavily dependent. Rather, it is a strand of RNA which can take *any* strand of RNA,
in a bath rich in the 4 RNA nucleotides, and produce the complementary strand.
The first "Holy Grail" is a step by step way of producing this kind of enzyme
under primitive earth conditions.
We are so far from this that we haven't the foggiest idea what an RNA ribozyme polymerase
could possibly look like. We do know plenty about RNA *protein* enzyme polymerases,
because some viruses have them. [If it weren't for those viruses, we would be totally
in the dark about what *these* enzymes could possibly look like.]
hardly can be achieved without a complex, highly evolved set of RNAs and proteins but an elaborate protein machinery could not evolve without an accurate translation system."If you, the reader [this includes both participants and lurkers],
have read this far, and would like to know what the five later "Holy Grails" are
that I have envisioned, let me know.
Did *you* read this far, Mark? Aren't you curious about them?
"The first "Holy Grail" involves an efficient RNA ribozyme polymerase."
You're assuming an RNA world (as opposed to metabolism first, messy world, compartment first, once-got-astonishingly-lucky world). But why not - like democracy, the RNA world is the worst form of OoL model, except for all the others.
I'm curious, please share them all, but I suggest you don't bury them in threads like this, but post each separately as Holy Grail #1...N.
I'll be posting about Holy Grail #1 in a thread I began a about half an hour ago,
"The Alchemy and Biochemistry of OOL" https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/uX-9hX7ZvHI/m/4sd2RcLyAAAJ
Your talk about the messiness of "RNA World" spurred me on to adopt a
different, much more definite concept: "RNA-run World." This refers to
a phase in prebiotic evolution that was dominated by ribozymes [enzymes made of RNA or closely related nucleotide polymers]
rather than the far better known protein enzymes, which are polypeptides.
This domination lasted until after the protein translation mechanism,
complete with at least a primitive form of genetic code, was securely in place.
Getting up to that stage under simulated prebiotic conditions is the next to lastNoted. Ribosome origin ("Protein Takeover") is a profound catch-22:
Holy Grail of OOL, and unless the usual bozos dilute the thread as badly
as they have done this one, I can get up to it already in that Alchemy/Biochemistry thread,
leaving only the Protein Takeover as the last Holy Grail.
"The origin of the translation system is, arguably, the central and the hardest problem in the study of the origin of life, and one of the hardest in all evolutionary biology. The problem has a clear catch-22 aspect: high translation fidelity
hardly can be achieved without a complex, highly evolved set of RNAs and proteins but an elaborate protein machinery could not evolve without an accurate translation system. The origin of the genetic code and whether it evolved on the basis of ahttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1894784/The full abstract
"The origin of the translation system is, arguably, the central and the hardest problem in the study of the origin of life, and one of the hardest in all evolutionary biology. The problem has a clear catch-22 aspect: high translation fidelity
selectively advantageous steps along the path from the RNA world to the modern-type translation system. This being said, there seem to be several underlying principles that are likely to stand regardless of further developments. We briefly recapitulateAnd from the conclusion...
The models presented here were deliberately constructed at the level of considerable detail -at the risk of getting many, perhaps, most aspects wrong – in order to provide a proof of principle, i.e., to illustrate a plausible sequence of
proposed starting point, i.e., stimulation of ribozymes by amino acids and peptides seems to be a strong, almost, logically required, candidate for this role (see also [145])."1. Evolution having no foresight, selection for translation per se is not feasible.
Translation must have evolved as a by-product of selection for some other function, i.e., via the exaptation route.
2. Given that the essence of translation is the intimate link between RNA and proteins, it seems most likely that, in some form, this connection existed from the very beginning of the evolutionary path from the RNA World to translation. Thus, the
the establishment of the genetic code. These ancestral adaptors, although, in all likelihood, smaller and simpler than modern tRNAs, must have been endowed with catalytic capacities lacking in the latter, i.e., they would have to catalyze specific self-3. Synthesis of peptides directly on an RNA template is stereochemically unfeasible. Hence adaptors must have been part of the primordial translation system from the start. Accordingly, from the very onset of translation, adaptors have been key to
systems, considering that extensive protein evolution took place prior to the diversification of the proteins that are essential for the modern translation."4. The primordial translation system was dominated by RNA although peptides might facilitate its functioning. However, the fidelity of this primordial, (nearly) RNA-only translation system must have been comparable to that of modern translation
abstract.This paper is more than 15 years old, so not the latest news on evolution of translation, but the paper hardly represents a throwing up of one's hands in despair, as might have been suggested by the quotation of just the first two sentences of the
to provide a proof of principle, i.e., to illustrate a plausible sequence of selectively advantageous steps along the path from the RNA world to the modern-type translation system. This being said, there seem to be several underlying principles that areFair enough - I did post this in haste, and only skimmed the paper. Two things though:
1. This problem of translation system origin inherently presents as a catch-22 (whether or not it is; that is a point of contention)Now you've quote mined the "paper's self assessment." The context for that sentence is "The models presented here were deliberately constructed at the level of considerable detail -at the risk of getting many, perhaps, most aspects wrong – in order
2. Note the paper's self-assessment: "The scenarios for the origin of the translation system and the genetic code outlined here are both sketchy and highly speculative."
The ID argument is that there is no possible series of small, selectable steps that can lead from the RNA world to the modern translation system. The paper provides a scenario consisting of exactly that, a series of small, selectable steps that couldlead from the RNA world to the modern translation system. It is speculative in the sense that, of course, nobody knows if those were the particular steps that were followed.
Now if the ID argument wants to concede that, yes, there are certainly possible series of small selectable steps that can lead to the ribosome, BUT, we do not know what series of small steps actually occurred, then, great, no argument from me. Or ifthey want to try to mount a technical argument as to why one of the small steps in the scenario in the paper is physically impossible, then have at it.
This is a very common ID goalpost shift that runs like this.....does not.
ID: There is no possible evolutionary pathway from A to B, therefore a designer was required.
Evolution: Here is a possible pathway from A to B.
ID: But you have not shown that that's really what happened. Just a just so story.
See the retreat? The first claim is that there is no possible pathway. The second retreats to the claim that we don't know if one possible pathway was the one that actually happened. The first claim would support a designer, perhaps. The second clearly
Because of its Catch-22 nature, this one will require a new thread. Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of So. Carolina in Columbia http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 11:55:36 PM UTC+10, broger...@gmail.com wrote:- for example, I would not have read all the literature about long term experimental evolution in E. coli if it weren't for DrDrDrDr Kleinman's bringing it up (and drawing incorrect conclusions from it) and you, and others, have gotten me interested in
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 9:10:36 AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 11:25:34 PM UTC+10, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 8:45:34 AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7:25:25 AM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 7:00:19 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 11:15:19 PM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 8:30:19 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 7:00:18 AM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 3:05:15 PM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
My reasons for participating in t.o. include those Bill Rogers describes below.
However, my main impetus towards learning in many areas of science comes from anti-ID claims
AND from just plain scientific discussions AND from helping ID sympathizers
get better at understanding all aspects of ID.
I rate all these things as high or higher than the things Bill Rogers writes about below.
Because (1) there are some people here who write interesting and informative posts and (2) in the process of responding to creationist and ID claims I sometimes get pushed to read up on areas of biology that I do not know much about
NOTE TO ANYONE READING THIS:
Just think of how much more Bill Rogers could have been "pushed to read up on areas of biology that [he did] not know much about"
if he hadn't stopped reading my posts three or more years ago.
In that time interval, MarkE kept enduring unending frustration as Bill Rogers kept
"reading the latest stuff on origin of life" and then flaming MarkE for not having read it himself.
The frustration came from MarkE wanting Bill Rogers to discuss something far beyond
"the latest stuff," which barely follows primitive earth conditions up to where the first
nucleotides [like the four (4) RNA nucleotides] had been produced.
By the way, Mark, I don't recall you writing anything that specific, but you
certainly were hoping for at least as many steps as could lead to the first "Holy Grail."
MarkE was trying to get Bill Rogers interested in the steps from that point to
several "Holy Grails" leading to life as we know it.
Thanks Peter for your acknowledgement of this--it is somewhat therapeutic :) All the same, Bill has been mostly engaging, knowledgeable, and insightful in his responses.As long as you engage him with both eyes open, so to speak,
I cannot fault you for saying that.
unbearable...Bill: You have provoked me to look into Deamer's work again. No, I haven't purchased Assembling Life (though I did download the kindle sample), but I have found a few things to discuss is a new thread. I know, the suspense must be
I think he can be very patient -- after all, it's been months since you last showed up here.
In the meantime, I recommend that you also take a close look at what I wrote below.
That will help you to keep your eyes wide open.
The first "Holy Grail" involves an efficient RNA ribozyme polymerase.
This is the technical term for an enzyme that is NOT a protein enzyme such as the one on which "life as we know it"
is heavily dependent. Rather, it is a strand of RNA which can take *any* strand of RNA,
in a bath rich in the 4 RNA nucleotides, and produce the complementary strand.
The first "Holy Grail" is a step by step way of producing this kind of enzyme
under primitive earth conditions.
We are so far from this that we haven't the foggiest idea what an RNA ribozyme polymerase
could possibly look like. We do know plenty about RNA *protein* enzyme polymerases,
because some viruses have them. [If it weren't for those viruses, we would be totally
in the dark about what *these* enzymes could possibly look like.]
hardly can be achieved without a complex, highly evolved set of RNAs and proteins but an elaborate protein machinery could not evolve without an accurate translation system."If you, the reader [this includes both participants and lurkers],
have read this far, and would like to know what the five later "Holy Grails" are
that I have envisioned, let me know.
Did *you* read this far, Mark? Aren't you curious about them?
"The first "Holy Grail" involves an efficient RNA ribozyme polymerase."
You're assuming an RNA world (as opposed to metabolism first, messy world, compartment first, once-got-astonishingly-lucky world). But why not - like democracy, the RNA world is the worst form of OoL model, except for all the others.
I'm curious, please share them all, but I suggest you don't bury them in threads like this, but post each separately as Holy Grail #1...N.
I'll be posting about Holy Grail #1 in a thread I began a about half an hour ago,
"The Alchemy and Biochemistry of OOL" https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/uX-9hX7ZvHI/m/4sd2RcLyAAAJ
Your talk about the messiness of "RNA World" spurred me on to adopt a
different, much more definite concept: "RNA-run World." This refers to
a phase in prebiotic evolution that was dominated by ribozymes [enzymes made of RNA or closely related nucleotide polymers] rather than the far better known protein enzymes, which are polypeptides.
This domination lasted until after the protein translation mechanism,
complete with at least a primitive form of genetic code, was securely in place.
Getting up to that stage under simulated prebiotic conditions is the next to lastNoted. Ribosome origin ("Protein Takeover") is a profound catch-22:
Holy Grail of OOL, and unless the usual bozos dilute the thread as badly
as they have done this one, I can get up to it already in that Alchemy/Biochemistry thread,
leaving only the Protein Takeover as the last Holy Grail.
"The origin of the translation system is, arguably, the central and the hardest problem in the study of the origin of life, and one of the hardest in all evolutionary biology. The problem has a clear catch-22 aspect: high translation fidelity
hardly can be achieved without a complex, highly evolved set of RNAs and proteins but an elaborate protein machinery could not evolve without an accurate translation system. The origin of the genetic code and whether it evolved on the basis of ahttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1894784/The full abstract
"The origin of the translation system is, arguably, the central and the hardest problem in the study of the origin of life, and one of the hardest in all evolutionary biology. The problem has a clear catch-22 aspect: high translation fidelity
selectively advantageous steps along the path from the RNA world to the modern-type translation system. This being said, there seem to be several underlying principles that are likely to stand regardless of further developments. We briefly recapitulateAnd from the conclusion...
The models presented here were deliberately constructed at the level of considerable detail -at the risk of getting many, perhaps, most aspects wrong – in order to provide a proof of principle, i.e., to illustrate a plausible sequence of
proposed starting point, i.e., stimulation of ribozymes by amino acids and peptides seems to be a strong, almost, logically required, candidate for this role (see also [145])."1. Evolution having no foresight, selection for translation per se is not feasible.
Translation must have evolved as a by-product of selection for some other function, i.e., via the exaptation route.
2. Given that the essence of translation is the intimate link between RNA and proteins, it seems most likely that, in some form, this connection existed from the very beginning of the evolutionary path from the RNA World to translation. Thus, the
to the establishment of the genetic code. These ancestral adaptors, although, in all likelihood, smaller and simpler than modern tRNAs, must have been endowed with catalytic capacities lacking in the latter, i.e., they would have to catalyze specific3. Synthesis of peptides directly on an RNA template is stereochemically unfeasible. Hence adaptors must have been part of the primordial translation system from the start. Accordingly, from the very onset of translation, adaptors have been key
systems, considering that extensive protein evolution took place prior to the diversification of the proteins that are essential for the modern translation."4. The primordial translation system was dominated by RNA although peptides might facilitate its functioning. However, the fidelity of this primordial, (nearly) RNA-only translation system must have been comparable to that of modern translation
the abstract.This paper is more than 15 years old, so not the latest news on evolution of translation, but the paper hardly represents a throwing up of one's hands in despair, as might have been suggested by the quotation of just the first two sentences of
to provide a proof of principle, i.e., to illustrate a plausible sequence of selectively advantageous steps along the path from the RNA world to the modern-type translation system. This being said, there seem to be several underlying principles that areFair enough - I did post this in haste, and only skimmed the paper. Two things though:
1. This problem of translation system origin inherently presents as a catch-22 (whether or not it is; that is a point of contention)Now you've quote mined the "paper's self assessment." The context for that sentence is "The models presented here were deliberately constructed at the level of considerable detail -at the risk of getting many, perhaps, most aspects wrong – in order
2. Note the paper's self-assessment: "The scenarios for the origin of the translation system and the genetic code outlined here are both sketchy and highly speculative."
lead from the RNA world to the modern translation system. It is speculative in the sense that, of course, nobody knows if those were the particular steps that were followed.The ID argument is that there is no possible series of small, selectable steps that can lead from the RNA world to the modern translation system. The paper provides a scenario consisting of exactly that, a series of small, selectable steps that could
they want to try to mount a technical argument as to why one of the small steps in the scenario in the paper is physically impossible, then have at it.Now if the ID argument wants to concede that, yes, there are certainly possible series of small selectable steps that can lead to the ribosome, BUT, we do not know what series of small steps actually occurred, then, great, no argument from me. Or if
clearly does not.This is a very common ID goalpost shift that runs like this.....
ID: There is no possible evolutionary pathway from A to B, therefore a designer was required.
Evolution: Here is a possible pathway from A to B.
ID: But you have not shown that that's really what happened. Just a just so story.
See the retreat? The first claim is that there is no possible pathway. The second retreats to the claim that we don't know if one possible pathway was the one that actually happened. The first claim would support a designer, perhaps. The second
Let me restate your claim of shifting goalposts correctly for the issue at hand:
ID: The evolutionary pathway for translation is a hard problem, even one of hardest, containing a genuine catch-22, and is therefore evidence for a designer if over time no plausible and experimentally verified solution can be found.
Evolution: Here is a possible pathway.
ID: Well, that's a preliminary outline of a possibility, but it is sketchy and speculative. But until you develop this into a detailed, stepwise, plausible and experimentally verified solution, it will rightly retain the status of "just so story".
Because of its Catch-22 nature, this one will require a new thread.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer-- University of So. Carolina in Columbia http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 11:25:38 AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:about - for example, I would not have read all the literature about long term experimental evolution in E. coli if it weren't for DrDrDrDr Kleinman's bringing it up (and drawing incorrect conclusions from it) and you, and others, have gotten me
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 11:55:36 PM UTC+10, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 9:10:36 AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 11:25:34 PM UTC+10, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 8:45:34 AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7:25:25 AM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 7:00:19 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 11:15:19 PM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 8:30:19 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 7:00:18 AM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 3:05:15 PM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
My reasons for participating in t.o. include those Bill Rogers describes below.
However, my main impetus towards learning in many areas of science comes from anti-ID claims
AND from just plain scientific discussions AND from helping ID sympathizers
get better at understanding all aspects of ID.
I rate all these things as high or higher than the things Bill Rogers writes about below.
Because (1) there are some people here who write interesting and informative posts and (2) in the process of responding to creationist and ID claims I sometimes get pushed to read up on areas of biology that I do not know much
NOTE TO ANYONE READING THIS:
Just think of how much more Bill Rogers could have been "pushed to read up on areas of biology that [he did] not know much about"
if he hadn't stopped reading my posts three or more years ago.
In that time interval, MarkE kept enduring unending frustration as Bill Rogers kept
"reading the latest stuff on origin of life" and then flaming MarkE for not having read it himself.
The frustration came from MarkE wanting Bill Rogers to discuss something far beyond
"the latest stuff," which barely follows primitive earth conditions up to where the first
nucleotides [like the four (4) RNA nucleotides] had been produced.
By the way, Mark, I don't recall you writing anything that specific, but you
certainly were hoping for at least as many steps as could lead to the first "Holy Grail."
MarkE was trying to get Bill Rogers interested in the steps from that point to
several "Holy Grails" leading to life as we know it.
Thanks Peter for your acknowledgement of this--it is somewhat therapeutic :) All the same, Bill has been mostly engaging, knowledgeable, and insightful in his responses.As long as you engage him with both eyes open, so to speak, I cannot fault you for saying that.
unbearable...Bill: You have provoked me to look into Deamer's work again. No, I haven't purchased Assembling Life (though I did download the kindle sample), but I have found a few things to discuss is a new thread. I know, the suspense must be
I think he can be very patient -- after all, it's been months since you last showed up here.
In the meantime, I recommend that you also take a close look at what I wrote below.
That will help you to keep your eyes wide open.
The first "Holy Grail" involves an efficient RNA ribozyme polymerase.
This is the technical term for an enzyme that is NOT a protein enzyme such as the one on which "life as we know it"
is heavily dependent. Rather, it is a strand of RNA which can take *any* strand of RNA,
in a bath rich in the 4 RNA nucleotides, and produce the complementary strand.
The first "Holy Grail" is a step by step way of producing this kind of enzyme
under primitive earth conditions.
We are so far from this that we haven't the foggiest idea what an RNA ribozyme polymerase
could possibly look like. We do know plenty about RNA *protein* enzyme polymerases,
because some viruses have them. [If it weren't for those viruses, we would be totally
in the dark about what *these* enzymes could possibly look like.]
hardly can be achieved without a complex, highly evolved set of RNAs and proteins but an elaborate protein machinery could not evolve without an accurate translation system."If you, the reader [this includes both participants and lurkers],
have read this far, and would like to know what the five later "Holy Grails" are
that I have envisioned, let me know.
Did *you* read this far, Mark? Aren't you curious about them?
"The first "Holy Grail" involves an efficient RNA ribozyme polymerase."
You're assuming an RNA world (as opposed to metabolism first, messy world, compartment first, once-got-astonishingly-lucky world). But why not - like democracy, the RNA world is the worst form of OoL model, except for all the others.
I'm curious, please share them all, but I suggest you don't bury them in threads like this, but post each separately as Holy Grail #1...N.
I'll be posting about Holy Grail #1 in a thread I began a about half an hour ago,
"The Alchemy and Biochemistry of OOL" https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/uX-9hX7ZvHI/m/4sd2RcLyAAAJ
Your talk about the messiness of "RNA World" spurred me on to adopt a
different, much more definite concept: "RNA-run World." This refers to
a phase in prebiotic evolution that was dominated by ribozymes [enzymes made of RNA or closely related nucleotide polymers] rather than the far better known protein enzymes, which are polypeptides.
This domination lasted until after the protein translation mechanism,
complete with at least a primitive form of genetic code, was securely in place.
Getting up to that stage under simulated prebiotic conditions is the next to lastNoted. Ribosome origin ("Protein Takeover") is a profound catch-22:
Holy Grail of OOL, and unless the usual bozos dilute the thread as badly
as they have done this one, I can get up to it already in that Alchemy/Biochemistry thread,
leaving only the Protein Takeover as the last Holy Grail.
"The origin of the translation system is, arguably, the central and the hardest problem in the study of the origin of life, and one of the hardest in all evolutionary biology. The problem has a clear catch-22 aspect: high translation fidelity
hardly can be achieved without a complex, highly evolved set of RNAs and proteins but an elaborate protein machinery could not evolve without an accurate translation system. The origin of the genetic code and whether it evolved on the basis of ahttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1894784/The full abstract
"The origin of the translation system is, arguably, the central and the hardest problem in the study of the origin of life, and one of the hardest in all evolutionary biology. The problem has a clear catch-22 aspect: high translation fidelity
selectively advantageous steps along the path from the RNA world to the modern-type translation system. This being said, there seem to be several underlying principles that are likely to stand regardless of further developments. We briefly recapitulateAnd from the conclusion...
The models presented here were deliberately constructed at the level of considerable detail -at the risk of getting many, perhaps, most aspects wrong – in order to provide a proof of principle, i.e., to illustrate a plausible sequence of
the proposed starting point, i.e., stimulation of ribozymes by amino acids and peptides seems to be a strong, almost, logically required, candidate for this role (see also [145])."1. Evolution having no foresight, selection for translation per se is not feasible.
Translation must have evolved as a by-product of selection for some other function, i.e., via the exaptation route.
2. Given that the essence of translation is the intimate link between RNA and proteins, it seems most likely that, in some form, this connection existed from the very beginning of the evolutionary path from the RNA World to translation. Thus,
to the establishment of the genetic code. These ancestral adaptors, although, in all likelihood, smaller and simpler than modern tRNAs, must have been endowed with catalytic capacities lacking in the latter, i.e., they would have to catalyze specific3. Synthesis of peptides directly on an RNA template is stereochemically unfeasible. Hence adaptors must have been part of the primordial translation system from the start. Accordingly, from the very onset of translation, adaptors have been key
systems, considering that extensive protein evolution took place prior to the diversification of the proteins that are essential for the modern translation."4. The primordial translation system was dominated by RNA although peptides might facilitate its functioning. However, the fidelity of this primordial, (nearly) RNA-only translation system must have been comparable to that of modern translation
the abstract.This paper is more than 15 years old, so not the latest news on evolution of translation, but the paper hardly represents a throwing up of one's hands in despair, as might have been suggested by the quotation of just the first two sentences of
order to provide a proof of principle, i.e., to illustrate a plausible sequence of selectively advantageous steps along the path from the RNA world to the modern-type translation system. This being said, there seem to be several underlying principlesFair enough - I did post this in haste, and only skimmed the paper. Two things though:
1. This problem of translation system origin inherently presents as a catch-22 (whether or not it is; that is a point of contention)Now you've quote mined the "paper's self assessment." The context for that sentence is "The models presented here were deliberately constructed at the level of considerable detail -at the risk of getting many, perhaps, most aspects wrong – in
2. Note the paper's self-assessment: "The scenarios for the origin of the translation system and the genetic code outlined here are both sketchy and highly speculative."
could lead from the RNA world to the modern translation system. It is speculative in the sense that, of course, nobody knows if those were the particular steps that were followed.The ID argument is that there is no possible series of small, selectable steps that can lead from the RNA world to the modern translation system. The paper provides a scenario consisting of exactly that, a series of small, selectable steps that
if they want to try to mount a technical argument as to why one of the small steps in the scenario in the paper is physically impossible, then have at it.Now if the ID argument wants to concede that, yes, there are certainly possible series of small selectable steps that can lead to the ribosome, BUT, we do not know what series of small steps actually occurred, then, great, no argument from me. Or
clearly does not.This is a very common ID goalpost shift that runs like this.....
ID: There is no possible evolutionary pathway from A to B, therefore a designer was required.
Evolution: Here is a possible pathway from A to B.
ID: But you have not shown that that's really what happened. Just a just so story.
See the retreat? The first claim is that there is no possible pathway. The second retreats to the claim that we don't know if one possible pathway was the one that actually happened. The first claim would support a designer, perhaps. The second
scientific problems can be solved given enough time and resources). INdeed there are all sorts of historical questions that cannot be answered regardless of how long one might try, and that's no reason to invoke the supernatural. Nobody will ever figureLet me restate your claim of shifting goalposts correctly for the issue at hand:
ID: The evolutionary pathway for translation is a hard problem, even one of hardest, containing a genuine catch-22, and is therefore evidence for a designer if over time no plausible and experimentally verified solution can be found.Nope, that will not work, because it assumes that failure to find an experimentally verified solution means there is none. There is no reason to make that assumption (although scientists everywhere will be flattered by your confidence that all
What you would need as evidence for a designer would be clear evidence that no possible pathway exists that does not violate physical laws. That's a tall order. And the paper we are talking about shows that there exists a possible pathway that does notviolate physical laws.
Evolution: Here is a possible pathway.
ID: Well, that's a preliminary outline of a possibility, but it is sketchy and speculative. But until you develop this into a detailed, stepwise, plausible and experimentally verified solution, it will rightly retain the status of "just so story".Evolution: As long as there is a detailed and physically possible "just so story" there is no need to hypothesize a supernatural designer.
Sure it's just a possible pathway, but it demonstrates that physically possible pathways exist.
Because of its Catch-22 nature, this one will require a new thread.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer-- University of So. Carolina in Columbia http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 1:55:38 AM UTC+10, broger...@gmail.com wrote:about - for example, I would not have read all the literature about long term experimental evolution in E. coli if it weren't for DrDrDrDr Kleinman's bringing it up (and drawing incorrect conclusions from it) and you, and others, have gotten me
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 11:25:38 AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 11:55:36 PM UTC+10, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 9:10:36 AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 11:25:34 PM UTC+10, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 8:45:34 AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7:25:25 AM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 7:00:19 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 11:15:19 PM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 8:30:19 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 7:00:18 AM UTC+10, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 3:05:15 PM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
My reasons for participating in t.o. include those Bill Rogers describes below.
However, my main impetus towards learning in many areas of science comes from anti-ID claims
AND from just plain scientific discussions AND from helping ID sympathizers
get better at understanding all aspects of ID.
I rate all these things as high or higher than the things Bill Rogers writes about below.
Because (1) there are some people here who write interesting and informative posts and (2) in the process of responding to creationist and ID claims I sometimes get pushed to read up on areas of biology that I do not know much
NOTE TO ANYONE READING THIS:
Just think of how much more Bill Rogers could have been
"pushed to read up on areas of biology that [he did] not know much about"
if he hadn't stopped reading my posts three or more years ago.
In that time interval, MarkE kept enduring unending frustration as Bill Rogers kept
"reading the latest stuff on origin of life" and then flaming MarkE for not having read it himself.
The frustration came from MarkE wanting Bill Rogers to discuss something far beyond
"the latest stuff," which barely follows primitive earth conditions up to where the first
nucleotides [like the four (4) RNA nucleotides] had been produced.
By the way, Mark, I don't recall you writing anything that specific, but you
certainly were hoping for at least as many steps as could lead to the first "Holy Grail."
MarkE was trying to get Bill Rogers interested in the steps from that point to
several "Holy Grails" leading to life as we know it.
Thanks Peter for your acknowledgement of this--it is somewhat therapeutic :) All the same, Bill has been mostly engaging, knowledgeable, and insightful in his responses.As long as you engage him with both eyes open, so to speak,
I cannot fault you for saying that.
unbearable...Bill: You have provoked me to look into Deamer's work again. No, I haven't purchased Assembling Life (though I did download the kindle sample), but I have found a few things to discuss is a new thread. I know, the suspense must be
I think he can be very patient -- after all, it's been months since you last showed up here.
In the meantime, I recommend that you also take a close look at what I wrote below.
That will help you to keep your eyes wide open.
The first "Holy Grail" involves an efficient RNA ribozyme polymerase.
This is the technical term for an enzyme that is NOT a protein enzyme such as the one on which "life as we know it"
is heavily dependent. Rather, it is a strand of RNA which can take *any* strand of RNA,
in a bath rich in the 4 RNA nucleotides, and produce the complementary strand.
The first "Holy Grail" is a step by step way of producing this kind of enzyme
under primitive earth conditions.
We are so far from this that we haven't the foggiest idea what an RNA ribozyme polymerase
could possibly look like. We do know plenty about RNA *protein* enzyme polymerases,
because some viruses have them. [If it weren't for those viruses, we would be totally
in the dark about what *these* enzymes could possibly look like.]
fidelity hardly can be achieved without a complex, highly evolved set of RNAs and proteins but an elaborate protein machinery could not evolve without an accurate translation system."If you, the reader [this includes both participants and lurkers],
have read this far, and would like to know what the five later "Holy Grails" are
that I have envisioned, let me know.
Did *you* read this far, Mark? Aren't you curious about them?
"The first "Holy Grail" involves an efficient RNA ribozyme polymerase."
You're assuming an RNA world (as opposed to metabolism first, messy world, compartment first, once-got-astonishingly-lucky world). But why not - like democracy, the RNA world is the worst form of OoL model, except for all the others.
I'm curious, please share them all, but I suggest you don't bury them in threads like this, but post each separately as Holy Grail #1...N.
I'll be posting about Holy Grail #1 in a thread I began a about half an hour ago,
"The Alchemy and Biochemistry of OOL" https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/uX-9hX7ZvHI/m/4sd2RcLyAAAJ
Your talk about the messiness of "RNA World" spurred me on to adopt a
different, much more definite concept: "RNA-run World." This refers to
a phase in prebiotic evolution that was dominated by ribozymes [enzymes made of RNA or closely related nucleotide polymers] rather than the far better known protein enzymes, which are polypeptides.
This domination lasted until after the protein translation mechanism,
complete with at least a primitive form of genetic code, was securely in place.
Getting up to that stage under simulated prebiotic conditions is the next to lastNoted. Ribosome origin ("Protein Takeover") is a profound catch-22:
Holy Grail of OOL, and unless the usual bozos dilute the thread as badly
as they have done this one, I can get up to it already in that Alchemy/Biochemistry thread,
leaving only the Protein Takeover as the last Holy Grail.
"The origin of the translation system is, arguably, the central and the hardest problem in the study of the origin of life, and one of the hardest in all evolutionary biology. The problem has a clear catch-22 aspect: high translation
hardly can be achieved without a complex, highly evolved set of RNAs and proteins but an elaborate protein machinery could not evolve without an accurate translation system. The origin of the genetic code and whether it evolved on the basis of ahttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1894784/The full abstract
"The origin of the translation system is, arguably, the central and the hardest problem in the study of the origin of life, and one of the hardest in all evolutionary biology. The problem has a clear catch-22 aspect: high translation fidelity
selectively advantageous steps along the path from the RNA world to the modern-type translation system. This being said, there seem to be several underlying principles that are likely to stand regardless of further developments. We briefly recapitulateAnd from the conclusion...
The models presented here were deliberately constructed at the level of considerable detail -at the risk of getting many, perhaps, most aspects wrong – in order to provide a proof of principle, i.e., to illustrate a plausible sequence of
the proposed starting point, i.e., stimulation of ribozymes by amino acids and peptides seems to be a strong, almost, logically required, candidate for this role (see also [145])."1. Evolution having no foresight, selection for translation per se is not feasible.
Translation must have evolved as a by-product of selection for some other function, i.e., via the exaptation route.
2. Given that the essence of translation is the intimate link between RNA and proteins, it seems most likely that, in some form, this connection existed from the very beginning of the evolutionary path from the RNA World to translation. Thus,
key to the establishment of the genetic code. These ancestral adaptors, although, in all likelihood, smaller and simpler than modern tRNAs, must have been endowed with catalytic capacities lacking in the latter, i.e., they would have to catalyze specific3. Synthesis of peptides directly on an RNA template is stereochemically unfeasible. Hence adaptors must have been part of the primordial translation system from the start. Accordingly, from the very onset of translation, adaptors have been
translation systems, considering that extensive protein evolution took place prior to the diversification of the proteins that are essential for the modern translation."4. The primordial translation system was dominated by RNA although peptides might facilitate its functioning. However, the fidelity of this primordial, (nearly) RNA-only translation system must have been comparable to that of modern
of the abstract.This paper is more than 15 years old, so not the latest news on evolution of translation, but the paper hardly represents a throwing up of one's hands in despair, as might have been suggested by the quotation of just the first two sentences
order to provide a proof of principle, i.e., to illustrate a plausible sequence of selectively advantageous steps along the path from the RNA world to the modern-type translation system. This being said, there seem to be several underlying principlesFair enough - I did post this in haste, and only skimmed the paper. Two things though:
1. This problem of translation system origin inherently presents as a catch-22 (whether or not it is; that is a point of contention)Now you've quote mined the "paper's self assessment." The context for that sentence is "The models presented here were deliberately constructed at the level of considerable detail -at the risk of getting many, perhaps, most aspects wrong – in
2. Note the paper's self-assessment: "The scenarios for the origin of the translation system and the genetic code outlined here are both sketchy and highly speculative."
could lead from the RNA world to the modern translation system. It is speculative in the sense that, of course, nobody knows if those were the particular steps that were followed.The ID argument is that there is no possible series of small, selectable steps that can lead from the RNA world to the modern translation system. The paper provides a scenario consisting of exactly that, a series of small, selectable steps that
if they want to try to mount a technical argument as to why one of the small steps in the scenario in the paper is physically impossible, then have at it.Now if the ID argument wants to concede that, yes, there are certainly possible series of small selectable steps that can lead to the ribosome, BUT, we do not know what series of small steps actually occurred, then, great, no argument from me. Or
clearly does not.This is a very common ID goalpost shift that runs like this.....
ID: There is no possible evolutionary pathway from A to B, therefore a designer was required.
Evolution: Here is a possible pathway from A to B.
ID: But you have not shown that that's really what happened. Just a just so story.
See the retreat? The first claim is that there is no possible pathway. The second retreats to the claim that we don't know if one possible pathway was the one that actually happened. The first claim would support a designer, perhaps. The second
scientific problems can be solved given enough time and resources). INdeed there are all sorts of historical questions that cannot be answered regardless of how long one might try, and that's no reason to invoke the supernatural. Nobody will ever figureLet me restate your claim of shifting goalposts correctly for the issue at hand:
ID: The evolutionary pathway for translation is a hard problem, even one of hardest, containing a genuine catch-22, and is therefore evidence for a designer if over time no plausible and experimentally verified solution can be found.Nope, that will not work, because it assumes that failure to find an experimentally verified solution means there is none. There is no reason to make that assumption (although scientists everywhere will be flattered by your confidence that all
Equating "Napoleon's secretary ate for breakfast on March 26th 1805": Disingenuous? Category error? Momentary lapse? Bill, I know you're better than this. (Your apology accepted in advance.)
Next: "Origin of life is a hard question because chemistry does not leave fossils..." Yes and no. Yes, "The origin of life is a central question in modern biology, and probably the hardest to study. This event took place four billion years ago, and ithappened at a molecular level – meaning little fossil evidence remains." No, it leaves "molecular fossils" - physical [2] or inferred [3].
And no again: Origin of life is a hard question because...it's a hard question.
Quote mine locations:
[1] https://theconversation.com/did-life-evolve-more-than-once-researchers-are-closing-in-on-an-answer-205678#:~:text=The%20origin%20of%20life%20is,primordial%20soups%20to%20outer%20space.
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3818074/
[3] https://news.yale.edu/2019/09/11/molecular-fossils-help-explain-key-evolutionary-event
not violate physical laws.What you would need as evidence for a designer would be clear evidence that no possible pathway exists that does not violate physical laws. That's a tall order. And the paper we are talking about shows that there exists a possible pathway that does
Evolution: Here is a possible pathway.
ID: Well, that's a preliminary outline of a possibility, but it is sketchy and speculative. But until you develop this into a detailed, stepwise, plausible and experimentally verified solution, it will rightly retain the status of "just so story".Evolution: As long as there is a detailed and physically possible "just so story" there is no need to hypothesize a supernatural designer.
Sure it's just a possible pathway, but it demonstrates that physically possible pathways exist.
Because of its Catch-22 nature, this one will require a new thread.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer-- University of So. Carolina in Columbia http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
The paper claims to "describe a stepwise model for the origin of the translation system in the ancient RNA world such that each step confers a distinct advantage onto an ensemble of co-evolving genetic elements", but also acknowledges the scenarios "outlined here are both sketchy and highly speculative".
Which is fine: initial approaches to such a problem necessarily will involve speculation and sketchiness. But let's not pretend they are anything more than that.
On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 19:21:46 -0700 (PDT), Mark <me22...@gmail.com>outlined here are both sketchy and highly speculative".
wrote:
<snip for focus>
The paper claims to "describe a stepwise model for the origin of the translation system in the ancient RNA world such that each step confers a distinct advantage onto an ensemble of co-evolving genetic elements", but also acknowledges the scenarios "
Which is fine: initial approaches to such a problem necessarily will involve speculation and sketchiness. But let's not pretend they are anything more than that.In what way does Intelligent Design involve less speculation and sketchiness?
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 9:20:40 PM UTC+10, Martin Harran wrote:outlined here are both sketchy and highly speculative".
On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 19:21:46 -0700 (PDT), Mark <me22...@gmail.com>
wrote:
<snip for focus>
The paper claims to "describe a stepwise model for the origin of the translation system in the ancient RNA world such that each step confers a distinct advantage onto an ensemble of co-evolving genetic elements", but also acknowledges the scenarios "
Exactly. Intelligent Design is not science and does not need to provide either details or positive evidence. It is simply the default explanation which must be true whenever there is not a satisfying scientific answer. Intelligent Design is definitely inDifferent categories.Which is fine: initial approaches to such a problem necessarily will involve speculation and sketchiness. But let's not pretend they are anything more than that.In what way does Intelligent Design involve less speculation and sketchiness?
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 9:20:40?PM UTC+10, Martin Harran wrote:outlined here are both sketchy and highly speculative".
On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 19:21:46 -0700 (PDT), Mark <me22...@gmail.com>
wrote:
<snip for focus>
The paper claims to "describe a stepwise model for the origin of the translation system in the ancient RNA world such that each step confers a distinct advantage onto an ensemble of co-evolving genetic elements", but also acknowledges the scenarios "
In what way does Intelligent Design involve less speculation and
Which is fine: initial approaches to such a problem necessarily will involve speculation and sketchiness. But let's not pretend they are anything more than that.
sketchiness?
Different categories.
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 1:55:38?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 06:34:12 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett.
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 8:35:37?AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
Ribozymes are a class of molecules which are both a genetic material,
like DNA, and a biological catalyst, like protein enzymes. These are
the functions that provide a sufficient answer to "the origin of the
translation system", at least for those who know what they're talking
about. Apparently your mileage varies.
That's a puzzling claim respective to sufficiency. I do fancy that I know >> >a bit more than the average bear about RNA, catalysis, and the modern
biochemical translation system of ribosomes. I'm even familiar with
multiple speculative theories about how the extant system might have
evolved. But it isn't a trivial result of the fact that RNA exists, and that some
RNA polymers have catalytic activity. There's a great deal more that is
not trivially obvious.
There are clues that suggest the modern system evolved from simpler
precursors, but the pathway by which that happened remains a mystery.
Thus, I take exception to your assertion that the facts in your first sentence
represent the sufficiency you assert.
My comment isn't about the details of the modern biological
translation system of ribosomes. To be sure, there is more involved
in that than the biochemical functions of ribozymes. Instead, my
comment does address the point previously raised, that the *origin* of
the translation system is a chicken-egg paradox and its complexity
requires invoking ID.
i do not understand. I was focused on the reference to sufficiency.
That seems to be significant. I tried to make that clear.
Once again, ribozymes almost certainly were sufficient for first life.
The complexity of the modern biological translation system provides
greater efficiency/reliability/functionality than ribozymes alone,
which explains why life using ribosomes replaced life using ribozymes
alone, and could have evolved stepwise from first life. This is the
sole point of my comment. Reading more into it than that, as your
comment does, is an unreasonable criticism.
The assertion that ribozymes "were sufficient for first life" is dubious.
The "RNA World" is an artifice. It really makes no sense.
As recently posted elsewhere, there are claims that the origins of the
extant protein translation system __seems__ to be a catch-22. If you
are foolish, it seems to require a modern protein translation system
to evolve itself. That's only true if one has a stifled imagination.
To evade that proposed paradox, a strict RNA World was proposed.
Again, it is an artifice. It is possible to construct pathways in a strict >RNA World that connect the dots to evolve the modern biochemistry.
But why should we restrict ourselves to the artifice of an RNA-only
suite of biochemistry? The RNA World is a thought experiment.
It isn't a plausible supposition.
Why would one exclude the role of polypeptides by fiat? Why?
There exist myriad schemes whereby polypeptide synthesis coevolves
with other aspects of early metabolism, including establishment of key >catalytic functionality. Ruling out the role of peptides in the name of
"RNA World" is fundamentally stupid.
I reject it. Please consider doing the same.
On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 05:48:12 -0700 (PDT), MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>outlined here are both sketchy and highly speculative".
wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 9:20:40?PM UTC+10, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 19:21:46 -0700 (PDT), Mark <me22...@gmail.com>
wrote:
<snip for focus>
The paper claims to "describe a stepwise model for the origin of the translation system in the ancient RNA world such that each step confers a distinct advantage onto an ensemble of co-evolving genetic elements", but also acknowledges the scenarios "
In what way does Intelligent Design involve less speculation and
Which is fine: initial approaches to such a problem necessarily will involve speculation and sketchiness. But let's not pretend they are anything more than that.
sketchiness?
Different categories.
Sorry, I haven't a clue what you mean by that. IWhat are these
different categories and how do theyt affect the degree of speculation
and sketchiness that is involved?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 00:25:03 |
| Calls: | 6,706 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 12,235 |
| Messages: | 5,349,756 |