David Deamer, an elder statesman of OoL I believe, concludes an article relating to OoL as follows:with the characteristic that small molecules could diffuse in through the membrane, but big molecules could not diffuse out. By converting small molecules into big molecules, you could concentrate the organic contents on the inside, so the cells would
“I will close with a quote from Freeman Dyson, a theoretical physicist at Princeton University who also enjoys thinking about the origin of life:
‘You had what I call the garbage bag model. The early cells were just little bags of some kind of cell membrane, which might have been oily or it might have been a metal oxide. And inside you had a more or less random collection of organic molecules,
https://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance
(Note: I’m not commenting on the content of the article itself.)
THE IRONYthe garbage bag model…little bags of some kind of cell membrane…inside you had a more or less random collection of organic molecules” (you get the idea).
A scientist from an unrelated field rattles off a just-so story on how life might have originated – and a leader in OoL quotes him approvingly.
A scientist accomplished in an overlapping field with highly relevant expertise (James Tour) launches a serious, sustained, specific, coherent critique of OoL research progress and claims -- and is dismissed as unqualified to comment.
THE COMPLETE IRONY
The analogy of “a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747” is dismissed as invalid.
The analogy of a tornado in a molecular junkyard is offered as a satisfactory summary of how life may have begun: “...cut in half, or shaken in half, by some rainstorm or environmental disturbance” (the tornado, in case you missed it), acting on “
To be clear, swollen bags of garbage divided, resealed, and injected with more garbage produce…only more garbage. AKA, garbage in, garbage out.
The claim that “these things could evolve without any kind of replication. It's a simple statistical inheritance...” is a masterclass in sleight-of-hand. Either that or belief in real magic.
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 7:50:20 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:molecules, with the characteristic that small molecules could diffuse in through the membrane, but big molecules could not diffuse out. By converting small molecules into big molecules, you could concentrate the organic contents on the inside, so the
David Deamer, an elder statesman of OoL I believe, concludes an article relating to OoL as follows:
“I will close with a quote from Freeman Dyson, a theoretical physicist at Princeton University who also enjoys thinking about the origin of life:
‘You had what I call the garbage bag model. The early cells were just little bags of some kind of cell membrane, which might have been oily or it might have been a metal oxide. And inside you had a more or less random collection of organic
principle. If you are interested in learning about the science in the field, you're stuck reading an actual book.https://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance
(Note: I’m not commenting on the content of the article itself.)Yes, I noticed that your comments actually ignore everything that Deamer wrote. And, indeed, this blog post is in no way a summary of current thought on OoL, simply an attempt to refute one of the ID movements arguments that OoL is impossible in
the garbage bag model…little bags of some kind of cell membrane…inside you had a more or less random collection of organic molecules” (you get the idea).THE IRONY
A scientist from an unrelated field rattles off a just-so story on how life might have originated – and a leader in OoL quotes him approvingly.
A scientist accomplished in an overlapping field with highly relevant expertise (James Tour) launches a serious, sustained, specific, coherent critique of OoL research progress and claims -- and is dismissed as unqualified to comment.
THE COMPLETE IRONY
The analogy of “a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747” is dismissed as invalid.
The analogy of a tornado in a molecular junkyard is offered as a satisfactory summary of how life may have begun: “...cut in half, or shaken in half, by some rainstorm or environmental disturbance” (the tornado, in case you missed it), acting on
of the earliest steps in a possible pathway towards life, not a summary of how life began.To be clear, swollen bags of garbage divided, resealed, and injected with more garbage produce…only more garbage. AKA, garbage in, garbage out.
The claim that “these things could evolve without any kind of replication. It's a simple statistical inheritance...” is a masterclass in sleight-of-hand. Either that or belief in real magic.Perhaps you missed the point of the Dyson quote. It is not offered as a "satisfactory summary of how life may have begun." It is offered as an explanation of how macromolecules could get concentrated within membranes. It is an informed guess about one
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 7:50:20 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:molecules, with the characteristic that small molecules could diffuse in through the membrane, but big molecules could not diffuse out. By converting small molecules into big molecules, you could concentrate the organic contents on the inside, so the
David Deamer, an elder statesman of OoL I believe, concludes an article relating to OoL as follows:
“I will close with a quote from Freeman Dyson, a theoretical physicist at Princeton University who also enjoys thinking about the origin of life:
‘You had what I call the garbage bag model. The early cells were just little bags of some kind of cell membrane, which might have been oily or it might have been a metal oxide. And inside you had a more or less random collection of organic
principle. If you are interested in learning about the science in the field, you're stuck reading an actual book.https://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance
(Note: I’m not commenting on the content of the article itself.)Yes, I noticed that your comments actually ignore everything that Deamer wrote. And, indeed, this blog post is in no way a summary of current thought on OoL, simply an attempt to refute one of the ID movements arguments that OoL is impossible in
the garbage bag model…little bags of some kind of cell membrane…inside you had a more or less random collection of organic molecules” (you get the idea).THE IRONY
A scientist from an unrelated field rattles off a just-so story on how life might have originated – and a leader in OoL quotes him approvingly.
A scientist accomplished in an overlapping field with highly relevant expertise (James Tour) launches a serious, sustained, specific, coherent critique of OoL research progress and claims -- and is dismissed as unqualified to comment.
THE COMPLETE IRONY
The analogy of “a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747” is dismissed as invalid.
The analogy of a tornado in a molecular junkyard is offered as a satisfactory summary of how life may have begun: “...cut in half, or shaken in half, by some rainstorm or environmental disturbance” (the tornado, in case you missed it), acting on
of the earliest steps in a possible pathway towards life, not a summary of how life began.To be clear, swollen bags of garbage divided, resealed, and injected with more garbage produce…only more garbage. AKA, garbage in, garbage out.
The claim that “these things could evolve without any kind of replication. It's a simple statistical inheritance...” is a masterclass in sleight-of-hand. Either that or belief in real magic.Perhaps you missed the point of the Dyson quote. It is not offered as a "satisfactory summary of how life may have begun." It is offered as an explanation of how macromolecules could get concentrated within membranes. It is an informed guess about one
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 10:05:20 PM UTC+10, broger...@gmail.com wrote:molecules, with the characteristic that small molecules could diffuse in through the membrane, but big molecules could not diffuse out. By converting small molecules into big molecules, you could concentrate the organic contents on the inside, so the
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 7:50:20 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
David Deamer, an elder statesman of OoL I believe, concludes an article relating to OoL as follows:
“I will close with a quote from Freeman Dyson, a theoretical physicist at Princeton University who also enjoys thinking about the origin of life:
‘You had what I call the garbage bag model. The early cells were just little bags of some kind of cell membrane, which might have been oily or it might have been a metal oxide. And inside you had a more or less random collection of organic
principle. If you are interested in learning about the science in the field, you're stuck reading an actual book.https://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance
(Note: I’m not commenting on the content of the article itself.)Yes, I noticed that your comments actually ignore everything that Deamer wrote. And, indeed, this blog post is in no way a summary of current thought on OoL, simply an attempt to refute one of the ID movements arguments that OoL is impossible in
on “the garbage bag model…little bags of some kind of cell membrane…inside you had a more or less random collection of organic molecules” (you get the idea).THE IRONY
A scientist from an unrelated field rattles off a just-so story on how life might have originated – and a leader in OoL quotes him approvingly.
A scientist accomplished in an overlapping field with highly relevant expertise (James Tour) launches a serious, sustained, specific, coherent critique of OoL research progress and claims -- and is dismissed as unqualified to comment.
THE COMPLETE IRONY
The analogy of “a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747” is dismissed as invalid.
The analogy of a tornado in a molecular junkyard is offered as a satisfactory summary of how life may have begun: “...cut in half, or shaken in half, by some rainstorm or environmental disturbance” (the tornado, in case you missed it), acting
one of the earliest steps in a possible pathway towards life, not a summary of how life began.To be clear, swollen bags of garbage divided, resealed, and injected with more garbage produce…only more garbage. AKA, garbage in, garbage out.
The claim that “these things could evolve without any kind of replication. It's a simple statistical inheritance...” is a masterclass in sleight-of-hand. Either that or belief in real magic.Perhaps you missed the point of the Dyson quote. It is not offered as a "satisfactory summary of how life may have begun." It is offered as an explanation of how macromolecules could get concentrated within membranes. It is an informed guess about
No. Rather, "how macromolecules could get concentrated within membranes" is offered as a satisfactory explanation of how life may have begun*.exclude such a possibility, and notwithstanding several and varied definitions thereof provided forthwith..."
* My lawyers advised me to further qualify this as, "_begun_, referring to an early, though not necessarily first, step, not to imply the immediate and subsequent appearance of _life_, in and of itself, though neither to implicitly nor expressly
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 10:05:20 PM UTC+10, broger...@gmail.com wrote:molecules, with the characteristic that small molecules could diffuse in through the membrane, but big molecules could not diffuse out. By converting small molecules into big molecules, you could concentrate the organic contents on the inside, so the
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 7:50:20 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
David Deamer, an elder statesman of OoL I believe, concludes an article relating to OoL as follows:
“I will close with a quote from Freeman Dyson, a theoretical physicist at Princeton University who also enjoys thinking about the origin of life:
‘You had what I call the garbage bag model. The early cells were just little bags of some kind of cell membrane, which might have been oily or it might have been a metal oxide. And inside you had a more or less random collection of organic
principle. If you are interested in learning about the science in the field, you're stuck reading an actual book.https://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance
(Note: I’m not commenting on the content of the article itself.)Yes, I noticed that your comments actually ignore everything that Deamer wrote. And, indeed, this blog post is in no way a summary of current thought on OoL, simply an attempt to refute one of the ID movements arguments that OoL is impossible in
It's entirely my prerogative to not address the body of Deamer's article -- I clearly have a separate, demonstrated purpose in referencing it. Suggesting that *not* addressing amounts to dishonesty or avoidance is a cheap attempt at casting aspersions.
And relax, I'll get to addressing Deamer's book in good time.
on “the garbage bag model…little bags of some kind of cell membrane…inside you had a more or less random collection of organic molecules” (you get the idea).THE IRONY
A scientist from an unrelated field rattles off a just-so story on how life might have originated – and a leader in OoL quotes him approvingly.
A scientist accomplished in an overlapping field with highly relevant expertise (James Tour) launches a serious, sustained, specific, coherent critique of OoL research progress and claims -- and is dismissed as unqualified to comment.
THE COMPLETE IRONY
The analogy of “a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747” is dismissed as invalid.
The analogy of a tornado in a molecular junkyard is offered as a satisfactory summary of how life may have begun: “...cut in half, or shaken in half, by some rainstorm or environmental disturbance” (the tornado, in case you missed it), acting
one of the earliest steps in a possible pathway towards life, not a summary of how life began.To be clear, swollen bags of garbage divided, resealed, and injected with more garbage produce…only more garbage. AKA, garbage in, garbage out.
The claim that “these things could evolve without any kind of replication. It's a simple statistical inheritance...” is a masterclass in sleight-of-hand. Either that or belief in real magic.Perhaps you missed the point of the Dyson quote. It is not offered as a "satisfactory summary of how life may have begun." It is offered as an explanation of how macromolecules could get concentrated within membranes. It is an informed guess about
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 7:50:20 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
David Deamer, an elder statesman of OoL I believe, concludes an article relating to OoL as follows:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 5:05:20 AM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 7:50:20 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
David Deamer, an elder statesman of OoL I believe, concludes an article relating to OoL as follows:
"Calculating The Odds That Life Could Begin By Chance"
By Dave Deamer | April 30th 2009 01:00 AM https://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance
Read it again. Start with the publication date 0ver 14 Years Ago.
On 8/30/23 4:49 AM, MarkE wrote:molecules, with the characteristic that small molecules could diffuse in through the membrane, but big molecules could not diffuse out. By converting small molecules into big molecules, you could concentrate the organic contents on the inside, so the
David Deamer, an elder statesman of OoL I believe, concludes an article relating to OoL as follows:
“I will close with a quote from Freeman Dyson, a theoretical physicist at Princeton University who also enjoys thinking about the origin of life:
‘You had what I call the garbage bag model. The early cells were just little bags of some kind of cell membrane, which might have been oily or it might have been a metal oxide. And inside you had a more or less random collection of organic
the garbage bag model…little bags of some kind of cell membrane…inside you had a more or less random collection of organic molecules” (you get the idea).https://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance
(Note: I’m not commenting on the content of the article itself.)
THE IRONY
A scientist from an unrelated field rattles off a just-so story on how life might have originated – and a leader in OoL quotes him approvingly.
A scientist accomplished in an overlapping field with highly relevant expertise (James Tour) launches a serious, sustained, specific, coherent critique of OoL research progress and claims -- and is dismissed as unqualified to comment.The two are not really comparable. Dyson was offering speculation on a single step which might be involved in the origins of life. His
knowledge of thermodynamics qualifies him in that area. Tour was not speaking about the origin of life at all, but about the *state of
research* in the origin of life. He has no experience in that area.
THE COMPLETE IRONY
The analogy of “a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747” is dismissed as invalid.
The analogy of a tornado in a molecular junkyard is offered as a satisfactory summary of how life may have begun: “...cut in half, or shaken in half, by some rainstorm or environmental disturbance” (the tornado, in case you missed it), acting on
To be clear, swollen bags of garbage divided, resealed, and injected with more garbage produce…only more garbage. AKA, garbage in, garbage out.
The claim that “these things could evolve without any kind of replication. It's a simple statistical inheritance...” is a masterclass in sleight-of-hand. Either that or belief in real magic.You really, REALLY need to learn the theory of evolution.
The problem with the tornado in a junkyard is not that messy occurrences such as that do not occur in evolution, but that they are not the *only* thing that occurs in evolution. Evolution also has inheritance and selection, or what you call magic.
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 8:30:20 AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:molecules, with the characteristic that small molecules could diffuse in through the membrane, but big molecules could not diffuse out. By converting small molecules into big molecules, you could concentrate the organic contents on the inside, so the
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 10:05:20 PM UTC+10, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 7:50:20 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
David Deamer, an elder statesman of OoL I believe, concludes an article relating to OoL as follows:
“I will close with a quote from Freeman Dyson, a theoretical physicist at Princeton University who also enjoys thinking about the origin of life:
‘You had what I call the garbage bag model. The early cells were just little bags of some kind of cell membrane, which might have been oily or it might have been a metal oxide. And inside you had a more or less random collection of organic
principle. If you are interested in learning about the science in the field, you're stuck reading an actual book.https://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance
(Note: I’m not commenting on the content of the article itself.)Yes, I noticed that your comments actually ignore everything that Deamer wrote. And, indeed, this blog post is in no way a summary of current thought on OoL, simply an attempt to refute one of the ID movements arguments that OoL is impossible in
on “the garbage bag model…little bags of some kind of cell membrane…inside you had a more or less random collection of organic molecules” (you get the idea).THE IRONY
A scientist from an unrelated field rattles off a just-so story on how life might have originated – and a leader in OoL quotes him approvingly.
A scientist accomplished in an overlapping field with highly relevant expertise (James Tour) launches a serious, sustained, specific, coherent critique of OoL research progress and claims -- and is dismissed as unqualified to comment.
THE COMPLETE IRONY
The analogy of “a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747” is dismissed as invalid.
The analogy of a tornado in a molecular junkyard is offered as a satisfactory summary of how life may have begun: “...cut in half, or shaken in half, by some rainstorm or environmental disturbance” (the tornado, in case you missed it), acting
one of the earliest steps in a possible pathway towards life, not a summary of how life began.To be clear, swollen bags of garbage divided, resealed, and injected with more garbage produce…only more garbage. AKA, garbage in, garbage out.
The claim that “these things could evolve without any kind of replication. It's a simple statistical inheritance...” is a masterclass in sleight-of-hand. Either that or belief in real magic.Perhaps you missed the point of the Dyson quote. It is not offered as a "satisfactory summary of how life may have begun." It is offered as an explanation of how macromolecules could get concentrated within membranes. It is an informed guess about
exclude such a possibility, and notwithstanding several and varied definitions thereof provided forthwith..."No. Rather, "how macromolecules could get concentrated within membranes" is offered as a satisfactory explanation of how life may have begun*.
* My lawyers advised me to further qualify this as, "_begun_, referring to an early, though not necessarily first, step, not to imply the immediate and subsequent appearance of _life_, in and of itself, though neither to implicitly nor expressly
Sure, explaining how macromolecules can get concentrated is an attempt to explain one, of many, necessary early steps. It also does suggest a way in which evolution can happen without replication, at least without accurate replication. To be explicit,these protoprotocells would reproduce better if they accumulated those monomers most likely to polymerize when concentrated. To be more explicit, the monomers equilibrate across the membrane, the polymers are two big to do so. The polymers, however,
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 10:50:20 PM UTC+10, broger...@gmail.com wrote:molecules, with the characteristic that small molecules could diffuse in through the membrane, but big molecules could not diffuse out. By converting small molecules into big molecules, you could concentrate the organic contents on the inside, so the
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 8:30:20 AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 10:05:20 PM UTC+10, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 7:50:20 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
David Deamer, an elder statesman of OoL I believe, concludes an article relating to OoL as follows:
“I will close with a quote from Freeman Dyson, a theoretical physicist at Princeton University who also enjoys thinking about the origin of life:
‘You had what I call the garbage bag model. The early cells were just little bags of some kind of cell membrane, which might have been oily or it might have been a metal oxide. And inside you had a more or less random collection of organic
principle. If you are interested in learning about the science in the field, you're stuck reading an actual book.https://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance
(Note: I’m not commenting on the content of the article itself.)Yes, I noticed that your comments actually ignore everything that Deamer wrote. And, indeed, this blog post is in no way a summary of current thought on OoL, simply an attempt to refute one of the ID movements arguments that OoL is impossible in
acting on “the garbage bag model…little bags of some kind of cell membrane…inside you had a more or less random collection of organic molecules” (you get the idea).THE IRONY
A scientist from an unrelated field rattles off a just-so story on how life might have originated – and a leader in OoL quotes him approvingly.
A scientist accomplished in an overlapping field with highly relevant expertise (James Tour) launches a serious, sustained, specific, coherent critique of OoL research progress and claims -- and is dismissed as unqualified to comment.
THE COMPLETE IRONY
The analogy of “a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747” is dismissed as invalid.
The analogy of a tornado in a molecular junkyard is offered as a satisfactory summary of how life may have begun: “...cut in half, or shaken in half, by some rainstorm or environmental disturbance” (the tornado, in case you missed it),
about one of the earliest steps in a possible pathway towards life, not a summary of how life began.To be clear, swollen bags of garbage divided, resealed, and injected with more garbage produce…only more garbage. AKA, garbage in, garbage out.
The claim that “these things could evolve without any kind of replication. It's a simple statistical inheritance...” is a masterclass in sleight-of-hand. Either that or belief in real magic.Perhaps you missed the point of the Dyson quote. It is not offered as a "satisfactory summary of how life may have begun." It is offered as an explanation of how macromolecules could get concentrated within membranes. It is an informed guess
exclude such a possibility, and notwithstanding several and varied definitions thereof provided forthwith..."No. Rather, "how macromolecules could get concentrated within membranes" is offered as a satisfactory explanation of how life may have begun*.
* My lawyers advised me to further qualify this as, "_begun_, referring to an early, though not necessarily first, step, not to imply the immediate and subsequent appearance of _life_, in and of itself, though neither to implicitly nor expressly
these protoprotocells would reproduce better if they accumulated those monomers most likely to polymerize when concentrated. To be more explicit, the monomers equilibrate across the membrane, the polymers are two big to do so. The polymers, however,Sure, explaining how macromolecules can get concentrated is an attempt to explain one, of many, necessary early steps. It also does suggest a way in which evolution can happen without replication, at least without accurate replication. To be explicit,
Random polymers are forming using racemic monomers, with cross-linkages, interfering products, etc: i.e., garbage. The result is the most successful tar concentrators consume available building blocks at an increasing rate.thermodynamics, bonding theory that describes the “space” accessible to sets of atoms, and structure theory requiring that replication systems occupy only tiny fractions of that space, suggest that it is impossible for any non-living chemical system
Steven Benner on the Asphalt Paradox (quoted in an EN article):
"An enormous amount of empirical data have established, as a rule, that organic systems, given energy and left to themselves, devolve to give uselessly complex mixtures, “asphalts”… Further, chemical theories, including the second law of
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/05/hello-professor-dave-james-tours-criticisms-of-ool-research-echo-those-of-other-experts/
On 8/30/2023 6:49 AM, MarkE wrote:molecules, with the characteristic that small molecules could diffuse in through the membrane, but big molecules could not diffuse out. By converting small molecules into big molecules, you could concentrate the organic contents on the inside, so the
David Deamer, an elder statesman of OoL I believe, concludes an article relating to OoL as follows:
“I will close with a quote from Freeman Dyson, a theoretical physicist at Princeton University who also enjoys thinking about the origin of life:
‘You had what I call the garbage bag model. The early cells were just little bags of some kind of cell membrane, which might have been oily or it might have been a metal oxide. And inside you had a more or less random collection of organic
the garbage bag model…little bags of some kind of cell membrane…inside you had a more or less random collection of organic molecules” (you get the idea).https://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance
(Note: I’m not commenting on the content of the article itself.)
THE IRONY
A scientist from an unrelated field rattles off a just-so story on how life might have originated – and a leader in OoL quotes him approvingly.
A scientist accomplished in an overlapping field with highly relevant expertise (James Tour) launches a serious, sustained, specific, coherent critique of OoL research progress and claims -- and is dismissed as unqualified to comment.
THE COMPLETE IRONY
The analogy of “a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747” is dismissed as invalid.
The analogy of a tornado in a molecular junkyard is offered as a satisfactory summary of how life may have begun: “...cut in half, or shaken in half, by some rainstorm or environmental disturbance” (the tornado, in case you missed it), acting on
To be clear, swollen bags of garbage divided, resealed, and injected with more garbage produce…only more garbage. AKA, garbage in, garbage out.
The claim that “these things could evolve without any kind of replication. It's a simple statistical inheritance...” is a masterclass in sleight-of-hand. Either that or belief in real magic.
The origin of life is one of the weakest of any scientific endeavor. Currently about the only thing that we can expect is to figure out the
most likely scenario of how life came to be, but everyone knows that, it would only be the most likely scenario, and that since it only seems to
have happened once, it could obviously have occurred in some less
probable manner. What you have to deal with is what is around the gap,
but you run from doing that. Life arose somehow, and that is what you
have to deal with. You can claim that your designer did it, but is that
the designer that you want to believe in? For the vast majority of anti-evolution biblical creationists the god responsible for the origin
of life on earth is not the Biblical god. End of story. Until that
changes the Top Six best evidences for IDiocy that killed IDiocy on TO
(the origin of life is #3 of the Top Six) just means that you and most
other bibilcal creationists are just out of luck. Science denial isn't
going to do you any good when it is what is around the gaps that you
really can't deal with.
Ron Okimoto
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 8:30:21 PM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
On 8/30/2023 6:49 AM, MarkE wrote:
David Deamer, an elder statesman of OoL I believe, concludes an article relating to OoL as follows:
“I will close with a quote from Freeman Dyson, a theoretical physicist at
Princeton University who also enjoys thinking about the origin of life:
‘You had what I call the garbage bag model. The early cells were just little bags of some kind of cell membrane, which might have been oily or it might have been a metal oxide. And inside you had a more or less random collection of organic molecules, with the characteristic that small molecules could diffuse in through the membrane, but big molecules could not diffuse out. By converting small molecules into big molecules, you could concentrate the organic contents on the inside, so the cells would become more concentrated and the chemistry would gradually become more efficient. So these things could evolve without any kind of replication. It's a simple statistical inheritance. When a cell became so big that it got cut in half, or shaken in half, by some rainstorm or environmental disturbance, it would then produce two cells which would be its daughters, which would inherit, more or less, but only statistically, the chemical machinery inside. Evolution could work under those conditions.’”
(Note: I’m not commenting on the content of the article itself.)
THE IRONY
A scientist from an unrelated field rattles off a just-so story on how life might have originated – and a leader in OoL quotes him approvingly.
A scientist accomplished in an overlapping field with highly relevant expertise (James Tour) launches a serious, sustained, specific, coherent critique of OoL research progress and claims -- and is dismissed as unqualified to comment.
THE COMPLETE IRONY
The analogy of “a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747” is dismissed as invalid.
The analogy of a tornado in a molecular junkyard is offered as a satisfactory summary of how life may have begun: “...cut in half, or shaken in half, by some rainstorm or environmental disturbance” (the tornado, in case you missed it), acting on “the garbage bag model…little
bags of some kind of cell membrane…inside you had a more or less random collection of organic molecules” (you get the idea).
To be clear, swollen bags of garbage divided, resealed, and injected with more garbage produce…only more garbage. AKA, garbage in, garbage out.
The claim that “these things could evolve without any kind of replication. It's a simple statistical inheritance...” is a masterclass in sleight-of-hand. Either that or belief in real magic.
The origin of life is one of the weakest of any scientific endeavor. Currently about the only thing that we can expect is to figure out the
most likely scenario of how life came to be, but everyone knows that, it would only be the most likely scenario, and that since it only seems to have happened once, it could obviously have occurred in some less
probable manner. What you have to deal with is what is around the gap,
but you run from doing that. Life arose somehow, and that is what you
have to deal with. You can claim that your designer did it, but is that
the designer that you want to believe in? For the vast majority of anti-evolution biblical creationists the god responsible for the origin
of life on earth is not the Biblical god. End of story. Until that
changes the Top Six best evidences for IDiocy that killed IDiocy on TO
(the origin of life is #3 of the Top Six) just means that you and most other bibilcal creationists are just out of luck. Science denial isn't going to do you any good when it is what is around the gaps that you
really can't deal with.
Ron Okimoto
"The origin of life is one of the weakest of any scientific endeavor."
In terms likelihood of arriving at an accepted theory? Yes, possibly.
But one of the strongest for questioning the adequacy of natural causes alone, because by definition it excludes natural selection. Which is the main point of my OP.
Mark wrote:
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 8:30:21 PM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
On 8/30/2023 6:49 AM, MarkE wrote:
David Deamer, an elder statesman of OoL I believe, concludes an article
relating to OoL as follows:
“I will close with a quote from Freeman Dyson, a theoretical physicist at
Princeton University who also enjoys thinking about the origin of life:
‘You had what I call the garbage bag model. The early cells were just
little bags of some kind of cell membrane, which might have been oily or
it might have been a metal oxide. And inside you had a more or less random collection of organic molecules, with the characteristic that small molecules could diffuse in through the membrane, but big molecules
could not diffuse out. By converting small molecules into big molecules,
you could concentrate the organic contents on the inside, so the cells would become more concentrated and the chemistry would gradually become
more efficient. So these things could evolve without any kind of replication. It's a simple statistical inheritance. When a cell became so
big that it got cut in half, or shaken in half, by some rainstorm or environmental disturbance, it would then produce two cells which would be
its daughters, which would inherit, more or less, but only statistically,
the chemical machinery inside. Evolution could work under those conditions.’”
https://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance
(Note: I’m not commenting on the content of the article itself.)
THE IRONY
A scientist from an unrelated field rattles off a just-so story on how life might have originated – and a leader in OoL quotes him approvingly.
A scientist accomplished in an overlapping field with highly relevant expertise (James Tour) launches a serious, sustained, specific, coherent
critique of OoL research progress and claims -- and is dismissed as unqualified to comment.
THE COMPLETE IRONY
The analogy of “a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a
Boeing 747” is dismissed as invalid.
The analogy of a tornado in a molecular junkyard is offered as a satisfactory summary of how life may have begun: “...cut in half, or shaken in half, by some rainstorm or environmental disturbance” (the tornado, in case you missed it), acting on “the garbage bag model…little
bags of some kind of cell membrane…inside you had a more or less random
collection of organic molecules” (you get the idea).
To be clear, swollen bags of garbage divided, resealed, and injected with
more garbage produce…only more garbage. AKA, garbage in, garbage out.
The claim that “these things could evolve without any kind of replication. It's a simple statistical inheritance...” is a masterclass
in sleight-of-hand. Either that or belief in real magic.
The origin of life is one of the weakest of any scientific endeavor. Currently about the only thing that we can expect is to figure out the most likely scenario of how life came to be, but everyone knows that, it would only be the most likely scenario, and that since it only seems to have happened once, it could obviously have occurred in some less probable manner. What you have to deal with is what is around the gap, but you run from doing that. Life arose somehow, and that is what you have to deal with. You can claim that your designer did it, but is that the designer that you want to believe in? For the vast majority of anti-evolution biblical creationists the god responsible for the origin of life on earth is not the Biblical god. End of story. Until that changes the Top Six best evidences for IDiocy that killed IDiocy on TO (the origin of life is #3 of the Top Six) just means that you and most other bibilcal creationists are just out of luck. Science denial isn't going to do you any good when it is what is around the gaps that you really can't deal with.
Ron Okimoto
"The origin of life is one of the weakest of any scientific endeavor."
In terms likelihood of arriving at an accepted theory? Yes, possibly.
But one of the strongest for questioning the adequacy of natural causes alone, because by definition it excludes natural selection. Which is the main
point of my OP.
----------------------------------
The search for the origin of life does exclude natural selection. It also excludes the germ theory of disease, the theory of gravity, and the
reason men can't stand to see women cry.
While the religious have been stuffing god into gaps for millenia,
many of those gaps have been eliminated, one by one, using science.
Yet many still remain.
Origin of life research merely highlights yet one more gap into which
to shoehorn god. There's nothing particularly special about that gap.
Scientists admit they don't know the answer but are studying it and creationists assert the problem is solved but present no evidence.
So, what else is new?
--
The Lord works in ways indistinguishable from the null hypothesis.
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 12:35:21 AM UTC+10, Dexter wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 8:30:21 PM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
On 8/30/2023 6:49 AM, MarkE wrote:
David Deamer, an elder statesman of OoL I believe, concludes an article
relating to OoL as follows:
“I will close with a quote from Freeman Dyson, a theoretical physicist at
Princeton University who also enjoys thinking about the origin of life:
‘You had what I call the garbage bag model. The early cells were just
little bags of some kind of cell membrane, which might have been oily or
it might have been a metal oxide. And inside you had a more or less random collection of organic molecules, with the characteristic that small molecules could diffuse in through the membrane, but big molecules
could not diffuse out. By converting small molecules into big molecules,
you could concentrate the organic contents on the inside, so the cells
would become more concentrated and the chemistry would gradually become
more efficient. So these things could evolve without any kind of replication. It's a simple statistical inheritance. When a cell became so
big that it got cut in half, or shaken in half, by some rainstorm or environmental disturbance, it would then produce two cells which would be
its daughters, which would inherit, more or less, but only statistically,
the chemical machinery inside. Evolution could work under those conditions.’”
https://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance
(Note: I’m not commenting on the content of the article itself.)
THE IRONY
A scientist from an unrelated field rattles off a just-so story on how
life might have originated – and a leader in OoL quotes him approvingly.
A scientist accomplished in an overlapping field with highly relevant
expertise (James Tour) launches a serious, sustained, specific, coherent
critique of OoL research progress and claims -- and is dismissed as unqualified to comment.
THE COMPLETE IRONY
The analogy of “a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a
Boeing 747” is dismissed as invalid.
The analogy of a tornado in a molecular junkyard is offered as a satisfactory summary of how life may have begun: “...cut in half, or
shaken in half, by some rainstorm or environmental disturbance” (the
tornado, in case you missed it), acting on “the garbage bag model…little
bags of some kind of cell membrane…inside you had a more or less random
collection of organic molecules” (you get the idea).
To be clear, swollen bags of garbage divided, resealed, and injected with
more garbage produce…only more garbage. AKA, garbage in, garbage out.
The claim that “these things could evolve without any kind of replication. It's a simple statistical inheritance...” is a masterclass
in sleight-of-hand. Either that or belief in real magic.
The origin of life is one of the weakest of any scientific endeavor. Currently about the only thing that we can expect is to figure out the most likely scenario of how life came to be, but everyone knows that, it
would only be the most likely scenario, and that since it only seems to
have happened once, it could obviously have occurred in some less probable manner. What you have to deal with is what is around the gap, but you run from doing that. Life arose somehow, and that is what you have to deal with. You can claim that your designer did it, but is that
the designer that you want to believe in? For the vast majority of anti-evolution biblical creationists the god responsible for the origin
of life on earth is not the Biblical god. End of story. Until that changes the Top Six best evidences for IDiocy that killed IDiocy on TO (the origin of life is #3 of the Top Six) just means that you and most other bibilcal creationists are just out of luck. Science denial isn't going to do you any good when it is what is around the gaps that you really can't deal with.
Ron Okimoto
"The origin of life is one of the weakest of any scientific endeavor."
In terms likelihood of arriving at an accepted theory? Yes, possibly.
But one of the strongest for questioning the adequacy of natural causes alone, because by definition it excludes natural selection. Which is the main
point of my OP.
----------------------------------
The search for the origin of life does exclude natural selection. It also excludes the germ theory of disease, the theory of gravity, and theMy point wasn't clear: the particular appeal with OoL is that removing NS from the equation takes out of the discussion the presumption that NS can do anything, will do anything, QED. (The question of the veracity of NS is a separate discussion).
reason men can't stand to see women cry.
less random collection of organic molecules”.While the religious have been stuffing god into gaps for millenia,
many of those gaps have been eliminated, one by one, using science.
Yet many still remain.
Origin of life research merely highlights yet one more gap into which
to shoehorn god. There's nothing particularly special about that gap.
Scientists admit they don't know the answer but are studying it and creationists assert the problem is solved but present no evidence.
So, what else is new?
The contention is this is not a case of the god-of-the-gaps, but growing research results (i.e. lack of) revealing a God-of-the-widening-gulf.
James Tour stumbled into this with sufficient related expertise to say, hang on a minute, you guys are blowing smoke. You could show that you're not also blowing smoke by addressing my argument:
Deamer endorses Dyson: “When a cell became so big that it got cut in half, or shaken in half, by some rainstorm or environmental disturbance” acting on “the garbage bag model…little bags of some kind of cell membrane…inside you had a more or
Swollen bags of garbage cut in two, resealed, and injected with more garbage produce…only more garbage. AKA, garbage in, garbage out. NS can't help you here, though nice try to appeal to NS-lite ("these things could evolve without any kind ofreplication. It's a simple statistical inheritance.")
Random polymers are forming using racemic monomers, producing cross-linkages, interfering products, etc: i.e., garbage. The result is the most successful tar concentrators consume available building blocks at an increasing rate.
Over to you.
On 8/30/23 3:42 PM, Mark wrote:molecules, with the characteristic that small molecules could diffuse in through the membrane, but big molecules could not diffuse out. By converting small molecules into big molecules, you could concentrate the organic contents on the inside, so the
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 1:20:22 AM UTC+10, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 8/30/23 4:49 AM, MarkE wrote:
David Deamer, an elder statesman of OoL I believe, concludes an article relating to OoL as follows:
“I will close with a quote from Freeman Dyson, a theoretical physicist at Princeton University who also enjoys thinking about the origin of life:
‘You had what I call the garbage bag model. The early cells were just little bags of some kind of cell membrane, which might have been oily or it might have been a metal oxide. And inside you had a more or less random collection of organic
on “the garbage bag model…little bags of some kind of cell membrane…inside you had a more or less random collection of organic molecules” (you get the idea).https://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chanceThe two are not really comparable. Dyson was offering speculation on a
(Note: I’m not commenting on the content of the article itself.)
THE IRONY
A scientist from an unrelated field rattles off a just-so story on how life might have originated – and a leader in OoL quotes him approvingly.
A scientist accomplished in an overlapping field with highly relevant expertise (James Tour) launches a serious, sustained, specific, coherent critique of OoL research progress and claims -- and is dismissed as unqualified to comment.
single step which might be involved in the origins of life. His
knowledge of thermodynamics qualifies him in that area. Tour was not
speaking about the origin of life at all, but about the *state of
research* in the origin of life. He has no experience in that area.
THE COMPLETE IRONY
The analogy of “a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747” is dismissed as invalid.
The analogy of a tornado in a molecular junkyard is offered as a satisfactory summary of how life may have begun: “...cut in half, or shaken in half, by some rainstorm or environmental disturbance” (the tornado, in case you missed it), acting
an increasing rate. A wave of the selection wand won't help here.You really, REALLY need to learn the theory of evolution.
To be clear, swollen bags of garbage divided, resealed, and injected with more garbage produce…only more garbage. AKA, garbage in, garbage out.
The claim that “these things could evolve without any kind of replication. It's a simple statistical inheritance...” is a masterclass in sleight-of-hand. Either that or belief in real magic.
The problem with the tornado in a junkyard is not that messy occurrences >> such as that do not occur in evolution, but that they are not the *only* >> thing that occurs in evolution. Evolution also has inheritance and
selection, or what you call magic.
Think about what's happening in this scenario. Random polymers are forming using racemic monomers, with cross-linkages, interfering products, etc: i.e., garbage. The result is the most successful tar concentrators consume available building blocks at
And what makes you think that is the only scenario? Organic chemistry
is very good at doing non-random.
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
On 8/31/2023 7:37 AM, Mark wrote:molecules, with the characteristic that small molecules could diffuse in through the membrane, but big molecules could not diffuse out. By converting small molecules into big molecules, you could concentrate the organic contents on the inside, so the
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 8:30:21 PM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
On 8/30/2023 6:49 AM, MarkE wrote:
David Deamer, an elder statesman of OoL I believe, concludes an article relating to OoL as follows:
“I will close with a quote from Freeman Dyson, a theoretical physicist at Princeton University who also enjoys thinking about the origin of life:
‘You had what I call the garbage bag model. The early cells were just little bags of some kind of cell membrane, which might have been oily or it might have been a metal oxide. And inside you had a more or less random collection of organic
on “the garbage bag model…little bags of some kind of cell membrane…inside you had a more or less random collection of organic molecules” (you get the idea).https://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance
(Note: I’m not commenting on the content of the article itself.)
THE IRONY
A scientist from an unrelated field rattles off a just-so story on how life might have originated – and a leader in OoL quotes him approvingly.
A scientist accomplished in an overlapping field with highly relevant expertise (James Tour) launches a serious, sustained, specific, coherent critique of OoL research progress and claims -- and is dismissed as unqualified to comment.
THE COMPLETE IRONY
The analogy of “a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747” is dismissed as invalid.
The analogy of a tornado in a molecular junkyard is offered as a satisfactory summary of how life may have begun: “...cut in half, or shaken in half, by some rainstorm or environmental disturbance” (the tornado, in case you missed it), acting
The origin of life is one of the weakest of any scientific endeavor.
To be clear, swollen bags of garbage divided, resealed, and injected with more garbage produce…only more garbage. AKA, garbage in, garbage out.
The claim that “these things could evolve without any kind of replication. It's a simple statistical inheritance...” is a masterclass in sleight-of-hand. Either that or belief in real magic.
Currently about the only thing that we can expect is to figure out the
most likely scenario of how life came to be, but everyone knows that, it >> would only be the most likely scenario, and that since it only seems to >> have happened once, it could obviously have occurred in some less
probable manner. What you have to deal with is what is around the gap,
but you run from doing that. Life arose somehow, and that is what you
have to deal with. You can claim that your designer did it, but is that >> the designer that you want to believe in? For the vast majority of
anti-evolution biblical creationists the god responsible for the origin >> of life on earth is not the Biblical god. End of story. Until that
changes the Top Six best evidences for IDiocy that killed IDiocy on TO
(the origin of life is #3 of the Top Six) just means that you and most
other bibilcal creationists are just out of luck. Science denial isn't
going to do you any good when it is what is around the gaps that you
really can't deal with.
Ron Okimoto
"The origin of life is one of the weakest of any scientific endeavor."
In terms likelihood of arriving at an accepted theory? Yes, possibly.
But one of the strongest for questioning the adequacy of natural causes alone, because by definition it excludes natural selection. Which is the main point of my OP.This is your major problem. Science denial isn't going to do you any
good in this case because you do not want your god to fill this gap.
Science has obvious limits. You have to deal with what science can do
within those limits. Have you read the Origin of Spcies? Natural
selection can happen once you have a lifeform that replicates
imperfectly. Natural selection is a fact of nature. No one should deny
that it exists in nature at this very moment. There is no reason to
deny natural selection when it has been occurring for over 3 billion
years since the origin of the first lifeforms.
What you want to deny is materialism. Science is stuck with the fact
that it can only deal with things that exist. The ID perps claimed that
they could do the same science as everyone else and demonstrate the existence of their god. In order to do that, the ID perps needed to use
the same functional materialism that science has to use in order to
work. Science just can't deal with things until you can demonstrate in
some way that it exists.
It is stupid to use the origin of life in order to deny the science that
you need to deny because the designer of the origin of life on earth is
not your Biblical designer. That is what finally killed IDiocy on TO.
Most of the existing IDiots on this planet do not want to believe in the designer responsible for the Top Six god-of-the-gaps IDiotic evidence.
The god that fills those gaps is not Biblical enough for most Biblical creationists.
"You can claim that your designer did it, but is that the designer that you want to believe in?
What sort of designer do you believe is implied/demonstrated by this claim?
All I claim is that the God that I believe in is responsible for the creation. The Bible is obviously not anything that can be used to
understand the creation. Science is just the best means for
understanding nature that we have come up with. Whatever we eventually
find out is what the creation is likely to be. Saint Augustine pointed
out that it was stupid to use the Bible in order to deny things that we could obviously figure out about nature by ourselves. Your type of
denial has been known to be stupid for millennia. The Bible was written
by young earth creationists. They had adopted the flat earth geocentric cosmology of their neighbors who had been civilized for a longer period
of time. Just imagine what the description of the creation would be
like if the Bible were written today. Even if we wrote the Bible today
we could be wrong about a lot of what might be put into it due to
incomplete knowledge and the authors ignorance of what the creation
actually is.
Humans wrote the Bible. "Inspired" is the term that you need to
acknowledge as it is applied to what is written in the Bible.
Ron Okimoto
David Deamer, an elder statesman of OoL I believe, concludes an article relating to OoL as follows:with the characteristic that small molecules could diffuse in through the membrane, but big molecules could not diffuse out. By converting small molecules into big molecules, you could concentrate the organic contents on the inside, so the cells would
“I will close with a quote from Freeman Dyson, a theoretical physicist at Princeton University who also enjoys thinking about the origin of life:
‘You had what I call the garbage bag model. The early cells were just little bags of some kind of cell membrane, which might have been oily or it might have been a metal oxide. And inside you had a more or less random collection of organic molecules,
https://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chancethe garbage bag model…little bags of some kind of cell membrane…inside you had a more or less random collection of organic molecules” (you get the idea).
(Note: I’m not commenting on the content of the article itself.)
THE IRONY
A scientist from an unrelated field rattles off a just-so story on how life might have originated – and a leader in OoL quotes him approvingly.
A scientist accomplished in an overlapping field with highly relevant expertise (James Tour) launches a serious, sustained, specific, coherent critique of OoL research progress and claims -- and is dismissed as unqualified to comment.
THE COMPLETE IRONY
The analogy of “a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747” is dismissed as invalid.
The analogy of a tornado in a molecular junkyard is offered as a satisfactory summary of how life may have begun: “...cut in half, or shaken in half, by some rainstorm or environmental disturbance” (the tornado, in case you missed it), acting on “
To be clear, swollen bags of garbage divided, resealed, and injected with more garbage produce…only more garbage. AKA, garbage in, garbage out.
The claim that “these things could evolve without any kind of replication. It's a simple statistical inheritance...” is a masterclass in sleight-of-hand. Either that or belief in real magic.
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 9:15:23 PM UTC+10, RonO wrote:molecules, with the characteristic that small molecules could diffuse in through the membrane, but big molecules could not diffuse out. By converting small molecules into big molecules, you could concentrate the organic contents on the inside, so the
On 8/31/2023 7:37 AM, Mark wrote:
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 8:30:21 PM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
On 8/30/2023 6:49 AM, MarkE wrote:
David Deamer, an elder statesman of OoL I believe, concludes an article relating to OoL as follows:
“I will close with a quote from Freeman Dyson, a theoretical physicist at Princeton University who also enjoys thinking about the origin of life:
‘You had what I call the garbage bag model. The early cells were just little bags of some kind of cell membrane, which might have been oily or it might have been a metal oxide. And inside you had a more or less random collection of organic
on “the garbage bag model…little bags of some kind of cell membrane…inside you had a more or less random collection of organic molecules” (you get the idea).https://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance
(Note: I’m not commenting on the content of the article itself.)
THE IRONY
A scientist from an unrelated field rattles off a just-so story on how life might have originated – and a leader in OoL quotes him approvingly.
A scientist accomplished in an overlapping field with highly relevant expertise (James Tour) launches a serious, sustained, specific, coherent critique of OoL research progress and claims -- and is dismissed as unqualified to comment.
THE COMPLETE IRONY
The analogy of “a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747” is dismissed as invalid.
The analogy of a tornado in a molecular junkyard is offered as a satisfactory summary of how life may have begun: “...cut in half, or shaken in half, by some rainstorm or environmental disturbance” (the tornado, in case you missed it), acting
discussion. I'm not questioning the mechanism per se, but rather its limitations. I've written computer simulations modeling mutation and selection evolve "bugs", quite fun to watch on the screen, and a demonstration of bounded adaptation, akaThe origin of life is one of the weakest of any scientific endeavor.
To be clear, swollen bags of garbage divided, resealed, and injected with more garbage produce…only more garbage. AKA, garbage in, garbage out.
The claim that “these things could evolve without any kind of replication. It's a simple statistical inheritance...” is a masterclass in sleight-of-hand. Either that or belief in real magic.
Currently about the only thing that we can expect is to figure out the >> most likely scenario of how life came to be, but everyone knows that, it
would only be the most likely scenario, and that since it only seems to >> have happened once, it could obviously have occurred in some less
probable manner. What you have to deal with is what is around the gap, >> but you run from doing that. Life arose somehow, and that is what you >> have to deal with. You can claim that your designer did it, but is that >> the designer that you want to believe in? For the vast majority of
anti-evolution biblical creationists the god responsible for the origin >> of life on earth is not the Biblical god. End of story. Until that
changes the Top Six best evidences for IDiocy that killed IDiocy on TO >> (the origin of life is #3 of the Top Six) just means that you and most >> other bibilcal creationists are just out of luck. Science denial isn't >> going to do you any good when it is what is around the gaps that you
really can't deal with.
Ron Okimoto
"The origin of life is one of the weakest of any scientific endeavor."
In terms likelihood of arriving at an accepted theory? Yes, possibly.
But one of the strongest for questioning the adequacy of natural causes alone, because by definition it excludes natural selection. Which is the main point of my OP.This is your major problem. Science denial isn't going to do you any
good in this case because you do not want your god to fill this gap. Science has obvious limits. You have to deal with what science can do within those limits. Have you read the Origin of Spcies? Natural
selection can happen once you have a lifeform that replicates
imperfectly. Natural selection is a fact of nature. No one should deny that it exists in nature at this very moment. There is no reason to
deny natural selection when it has been occurring for over 3 billion
years since the origin of the first lifeforms.
What you want to deny is materialism. Science is stuck with the fact
that it can only deal with things that exist. The ID perps claimed that they could do the same science as everyone else and demonstrate the existence of their god. In order to do that, the ID perps needed to use the same functional materialism that science has to use in order to
work. Science just can't deal with things until you can demonstrate in some way that it exists.
It is stupid to use the origin of life in order to deny the science that you need to deny because the designer of the origin of life on earth is not your Biblical designer. That is what finally killed IDiocy on TO.My point wasn't clear: the particular appeal with OoL is that removing NS from the equation takes out of the discussion the presumption that NS can do anything, will do anything, QED. The question of the veracity and scope of NS is a separate
Most of the existing IDiots on this planet do not want to believe in the designer responsible for the Top Six god-of-the-gaps IDiotic evidence.
The god that fills those gaps is not Biblical enough for most Biblical creationists.
Swollen bags of garbage cut in two, resealed, and injected with more garbage produce…only more garbage. AKA, garbage in, garbage out. NS can't help you here, though nice try to appeal to NS-lite ("these things could evolve without any kind ofreplication. It's a simple statistical inheritance.")
Random polymers are forming using racemic monomers, producing cross-linkages, interfering products, etc: i.e., garbage. The result is the most successful tar concentrators consume available building blocks at an increasing rate.
Feel free to address my argument if you're able.
David Deamer, an elder statesman of OoL I believe, concludes an article relating to OoL as follows:with the characteristic that small molecules could diffuse in through the membrane, but big molecules could not diffuse out. By converting small molecules into big molecules, you could concentrate the organic contents on the inside, so the cells would
“I will close with a quote from Freeman Dyson, a theoretical physicist at Princeton University who also enjoys thinking about the origin of life:
‘You had what I call the garbage bag model. The early cells were just little bags of some kind of cell membrane, which might have been oily or it might have been a metal oxide. And inside you had a more or less random collection of organic molecules,
https://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chancethe garbage bag model…little bags of some kind of cell membrane…inside you had a more or less random collection of organic molecules” (you get the idea).
(Note: I’m not commenting on the content of the article itself.)
THE IRONY
A scientist from an unrelated field rattles off a just-so story on how life might have originated – and a leader in OoL quotes him approvingly.
A scientist accomplished in an overlapping field with highly relevant expertise (James Tour) launches a serious, sustained, specific, coherent critique of OoL research progress and claims -- and is dismissed as unqualified to comment.
THE COMPLETE IRONY
The analogy of “a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747” is dismissed as invalid.
The analogy of a tornado in a molecular junkyard is offered as a satisfactory summary of how life may have begun: “...cut in half, or shaken in half, by some rainstorm or environmental disturbance” (the tornado, in case you missed it), acting on “
To be clear, swollen bags of garbage divided, resealed, and injected with more garbage produce…only more garbage. AKA, garbage in, garbage out.
The claim that “these things could evolve without any kind of replication. It's a simple statistical inheritance...” is a masterclass in sleight-of-hand. Either that or belief in real magic.
On Friday, 1 September 2023 at 14:45:22 UTC+3, Mark wrote:molecules, with the characteristic that small molecules could diffuse in through the membrane, but big molecules could not diffuse out. By converting small molecules into big molecules, you could concentrate the organic contents on the inside, so the
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 9:15:23 PM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
On 8/31/2023 7:37 AM, Mark wrote:
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 8:30:21 PM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
On 8/30/2023 6:49 AM, MarkE wrote:
David Deamer, an elder statesman of OoL I believe, concludes an article relating to OoL as follows:
“I will close with a quote from Freeman Dyson, a theoretical physicist at Princeton University who also enjoys thinking about the origin of life:
‘You had what I call the garbage bag model. The early cells were just little bags of some kind of cell membrane, which might have been oily or it might have been a metal oxide. And inside you had a more or less random collection of organic
acting on “the garbage bag model…little bags of some kind of cell membrane…inside you had a more or less random collection of organic molecules” (you get the idea).https://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance
(Note: I’m not commenting on the content of the article itself.) >>>
THE IRONY
A scientist from an unrelated field rattles off a just-so story on how life might have originated – and a leader in OoL quotes him approvingly.
A scientist accomplished in an overlapping field with highly relevant expertise (James Tour) launches a serious, sustained, specific, coherent critique of OoL research progress and claims -- and is dismissed as unqualified to comment.
THE COMPLETE IRONY
The analogy of “a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747” is dismissed as invalid.
The analogy of a tornado in a molecular junkyard is offered as a satisfactory summary of how life may have begun: “...cut in half, or shaken in half, by some rainstorm or environmental disturbance” (the tornado, in case you missed it),
discussion. I'm not questioning the mechanism per se, but rather its limitations. I've written computer simulations modeling mutation and selection evolve "bugs", quite fun to watch on the screen, and a demonstration of bounded adaptation, akaThe origin of life is one of the weakest of any scientific endeavor. >> Currently about the only thing that we can expect is to figure out the
To be clear, swollen bags of garbage divided, resealed, and injected with more garbage produce…only more garbage. AKA, garbage in, garbage out.
The claim that “these things could evolve without any kind of replication. It's a simple statistical inheritance...” is a masterclass in sleight-of-hand. Either that or belief in real magic.
most likely scenario of how life came to be, but everyone knows that, it
would only be the most likely scenario, and that since it only seems to
have happened once, it could obviously have occurred in some less
probable manner. What you have to deal with is what is around the gap,
but you run from doing that. Life arose somehow, and that is what you >> have to deal with. You can claim that your designer did it, but is that
the designer that you want to believe in? For the vast majority of
anti-evolution biblical creationists the god responsible for the origin
of life on earth is not the Biblical god. End of story. Until that
changes the Top Six best evidences for IDiocy that killed IDiocy on TO
(the origin of life is #3 of the Top Six) just means that you and most
other bibilcal creationists are just out of luck. Science denial isn't
going to do you any good when it is what is around the gaps that you >> really can't deal with.
Ron Okimoto
"The origin of life is one of the weakest of any scientific endeavor."
In terms likelihood of arriving at an accepted theory? Yes, possibly.
But one of the strongest for questioning the adequacy of natural causes alone, because by definition it excludes natural selection. Which is the main point of my OP.This is your major problem. Science denial isn't going to do you any good in this case because you do not want your god to fill this gap. Science has obvious limits. You have to deal with what science can do within those limits. Have you read the Origin of Spcies? Natural selection can happen once you have a lifeform that replicates imperfectly. Natural selection is a fact of nature. No one should deny that it exists in nature at this very moment. There is no reason to
deny natural selection when it has been occurring for over 3 billion years since the origin of the first lifeforms.
What you want to deny is materialism. Science is stuck with the fact that it can only deal with things that exist. The ID perps claimed that they could do the same science as everyone else and demonstrate the existence of their god. In order to do that, the ID perps needed to use the same functional materialism that science has to use in order to work. Science just can't deal with things until you can demonstrate in some way that it exists.
It is stupid to use the origin of life in order to deny the science that you need to deny because the designer of the origin of life on earth is not your Biblical designer. That is what finally killed IDiocy on TO. Most of the existing IDiots on this planet do not want to believe in the designer responsible for the Top Six god-of-the-gaps IDiotic evidence. The god that fills those gaps is not Biblical enough for most Biblical creationists.My point wasn't clear: the particular appeal with OoL is that removing NS from the equation takes out of the discussion the presumption that NS can do anything, will do anything, QED. The question of the veracity and scope of NS is a separate
replication. It's a simple statistical inheritance.")Swollen bags of garbage cut in two, resealed, and injected with more garbage produce…only more garbage. AKA, garbage in, garbage out. NS can't help you here, though nice try to appeal to NS-lite ("these things could evolve without any kind of
Random polymers are forming using racemic monomers, producing cross-linkages, interfering products, etc: i.e., garbage. The result is the most successful tar concentrators consume available building blocks at an increasing rate.
Feel free to address my argument if you're able.
I already did above, you just can't read.
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 7:50:20 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:molecules, with the characteristic that small molecules could diffuse in through the membrane, but big molecules could not diffuse out. By converting small molecules into big molecules, you could concentrate the organic contents on the inside, so the
David Deamer, an elder statesman of OoL I believe, concludes an article relating to OoL as follows:
“I will close with a quote from Freeman Dyson, a theoretical physicist at Princeton University who also enjoys thinking about the origin of life:
‘You had what I call the garbage bag model. The early cells were just little bags of some kind of cell membrane, which might have been oily or it might have been a metal oxide. And inside you had a more or less random collection of organic
the garbage bag model…little bags of some kind of cell membrane…inside you had a more or less random collection of organic molecules” (you get the idea).https://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance
(Note: I’m not commenting on the content of the article itself.)
THE IRONY
A scientist from an unrelated field rattles off a just-so story on how life might have originated – and a leader in OoL quotes him approvingly.
A scientist accomplished in an overlapping field with highly relevant expertise (James Tour) launches a serious, sustained, specific, coherent critique of OoL research progress and claims -- and is dismissed as unqualified to comment.
THE COMPLETE IRONY
The analogy of “a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747” is dismissed as invalid.
The analogy of a tornado in a molecular junkyard is offered as a satisfactory summary of how life may have begun: “...cut in half, or shaken in half, by some rainstorm or environmental disturbance” (the tornado, in case you missed it), acting on
To be clear, swollen bags of garbage divided, resealed, and injected with more garbage produce…only more garbage. AKA, garbage in, garbage out.
The claim that “these things could evolve without any kind of replication. It's a simple statistical inheritance...” is a masterclass in sleight-of-hand. Either that or belief in real magic.First, I repeat a prior request. Please stop with the run-on line length. Hit the return key every 60 or so characters. Otherwise, the quoting and indentation mechanism screws up replies and things become quite
unreadable very quickly. It isn't just me. Usenet has had this standard
for decades. Please put in this minimal effort to improve communication.
Next, your point here seems to be to draw some contrast between those
who have pointed out that Tour lacks solid bona fides regarding OoL
research and Deamer citing someone else who doesn't have solid bona
fides in OoL research. Context is not your friend.
In your other thread, you reference Tour and you asserted that he has expertise that is especially relevant to OoL research. Based on that assertion of your, others responded that he actually doesn't have
especially relevant expertise in that field in as much as he has not published in that specific field. It's a fair retort to your initial assertion,
and it's being made by people with arguably better qualifications than
Tour who nevertheless disclaim that their own expertise makes them
"experts" in OoL research.
You, and one insistent other, tried to paint refutations of your assertion about the relevance of Tour's expertise as intellectual snobbery.
Nonsense. It was a refutation of your specific assertion. It is necessary
to ignore the context of your claim to paint their words the way you
do.
Further, you misrepresent the point of the above quote by Dyson. Deamer isn't citing Dyson as an authority on OoL research. Rather, he is citing a particular line of reasoning that contradicts an assertion that you and others like to make. Specifically, you try to claim that there can be no cases of the mechanism of natural selection prior to the emergence of
the first recognizable living cell. The author of the piece isn't the point, so your claims about irony misfire. The point, which you really ought to consider, is that the mechanism of natural selection can have a role in changing the "odds" of a seemingly daunting combination of events.
There are many other scenarios relevant to possible steps in OoL that
can also involve differential reproductive success. And these can possibly happen for stages prior to what most would consider to be the emergence
of the first recognizable living cell. I happen to think that the other lines
I have in mind are better, and think that Dyson's example is misleading
even though possibly involved in a modified way. Regardless, it succeeds
at illustrating the falsity of proclamations that NS can't happen prior
to the emergence of life.
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 2:45:22 PM UTC+10, Mark Isaak wrote:an increasing rate. A wave of the selection wand won't help here.
On 8/30/23 3:42 PM, Mark wrote:
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 1:20:22 AM UTC+10, Mark Isaak wrote:
[...]
The problem with the tornado in a junkyard is not that messy occurrences >>>> such as that do not occur in evolution, but that they are not the *only* >>>> thing that occurs in evolution. Evolution also has inheritance and
selection, or what you call magic.
Think about what's happening in this scenario. Random polymers are forming using racemic monomers, with cross-linkages, interfering products, etc: i.e., garbage. The result is the most successful tar concentrators consume available building blocks at
And what makes you think that is the only scenario? Organic chemistry
is very good at doing non-random.
Do you mean that nucleotides spontaneously forming a polymer have chemical affinities which influence their ordering, thus making the sequence non-random?
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 10:40:22 PM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:molecules, with the characteristic that small molecules could diffuse in through the membrane, but big molecules could not diffuse out. By converting small molecules into big molecules, you could concentrate the organic contents on the inside, so the
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 7:50:20 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
David Deamer, an elder statesman of OoL I believe, concludes an article relating to OoL as follows:
“I will close with a quote from Freeman Dyson, a theoretical physicist at Princeton University who also enjoys thinking about the origin of life:
‘You had what I call the garbage bag model. The early cells were just little bags of some kind of cell membrane, which might have been oily or it might have been a metal oxide. And inside you had a more or less random collection of organic
on “the garbage bag model…little bags of some kind of cell membrane…inside you had a more or less random collection of organic molecules” (you get the idea).https://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance
(Note: I’m not commenting on the content of the article itself.)
THE IRONY
A scientist from an unrelated field rattles off a just-so story on how life might have originated – and a leader in OoL quotes him approvingly.
A scientist accomplished in an overlapping field with highly relevant expertise (James Tour) launches a serious, sustained, specific, coherent critique of OoL research progress and claims -- and is dismissed as unqualified to comment.
THE COMPLETE IRONY
The analogy of “a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747” is dismissed as invalid.
The analogy of a tornado in a molecular junkyard is offered as a satisfactory summary of how life may have begun: “...cut in half, or shaken in half, by some rainstorm or environmental disturbance” (the tornado, in case you missed it), acting
To be clear, swollen bags of garbage divided, resealed, and injected with more garbage produce…only more garbage. AKA, garbage in, garbage out.
I've not particularly noticed this using google groups on a laptop, but like manyThe claim that “these things could evolve without any kind of replication. It's a simple statistical inheritance...” is a masterclass in sleight-of-hand. Either that or belief in real magic.First, I repeat a prior request. Please stop with the run-on line length. Hit the return key every 60 or so characters. Otherwise, the quoting and indentation mechanism screws up replies and things become quite
unreadable very quickly. It isn't just me. Usenet has had this standard for decades. Please put in this minimal effort to improve communication.
of google group's shortcomings I've possibly unconsciously learnt to ignore it.
Next, your point here seems to be to draw some contrast between those
who have pointed out that Tour lacks solid bona fides regarding OoL research and Deamer citing someone else who doesn't have solid bona
fides in OoL research. Context is not your friend.
In your other thread, you reference Tour and you asserted that he has expertise that is especially relevant to OoL research. Based on that assertion of your, others responded that he actually doesn't have especially relevant expertise in that field in as much as he has not published in that specific field. It's a fair retort to your initial assertion,I'm asserting (and it is only my assertion) that Tour's expertise is based not
and it's being made by people with arguably better qualifications than Tour who nevertheless disclaim that their own expertise makes them "experts" in OoL research.
on his being published in the field, but by his demonstrated (published) knowledge
of synthetic organic chemistry. This is particularly relevant, because he not
only understands the chemistry, but his work has been to do it himself, thus giving him an acute understanding of what does and doesn't work, or at least a keen sense of relative difficulty.
You, and one insistent other, tried to paint refutations of your assertion about the relevance of Tour's expertise as intellectual snobbery. Nonsense. It was a refutation of your specific assertion. It is necessary to ignore the context of your claim to paint their words the way you
do.
Further, you misrepresent the point of the above quote by Dyson. Deamer isn't citing Dyson as an authority on OoL research. Rather, he is citing a particular line of reasoning that contradicts an assertion that you and others like to make. Specifically, you try to claim that there can be no cases of the mechanism of natural selection prior to the emergence ofNo reasonable person would claim Deamer to be citing Dyson as an authority on OoL research. If I didn't explicitly make that qualification, it was because
the first recognizable living cell. The author of the piece isn't the point,
so your claims about irony misfire. The point, which you really ought to consider, is that the mechanism of natural selection can have a role in changing the "odds" of a seemingly daunting combination of events.
I assumed it to be obvious.
Nor do I claim that "there can be no cases of the mechanism of natural selection
prior to the emergence of the first recognizable living cell." Rather, I'm saying that
in this "garbage bag world" scenario, natural selection is not operating. Dyson
agrees: "So these things could evolve without any kind of replication. It's a simple
statistical inheritance."
Thinking about this some more, there's a subtle but important distinction here.
First, "so the cells would become more concentrated" - okay, granted due to osmotic pressure. Second, "and the chemistry would gradually become
more efficient" - greater "efficiency" of what? Stuffing garbage in at a higher rate?
Okay, I'll grant that.
The distinction then? Dyson's "statistical inheritance" produces increased concentrations of random polymers (branched, tangled, 2'-5' linked, etc, i.e., garbage).
What is missing is _optimisation_. Natural section is not at work, and so we do
not have evolution leading to greater complexity or function. What we actually have
is merely the growth garbage concentrators, gobbling up monomers at an accelarating rate. Dyson uses the word "evolution", but on closer examination it
means only change, but not improvement or the accrual of information.
There are many other scenarios relevant to possible steps in OoL thatAnd that is precisely what Tour is asking: show me, I mean actually show me, the "many other scenarios relevant to possible steps in OoL".
can also involve differential reproductive success. And these can possibly happen for stages prior to what most would consider to be the emergence
of the first recognizable living cell. I happen to think that the other lines
I have in mind are better, and think that Dyson's example is misleading even though possibly involved in a modified way. Regardless, it succeeds at illustrating the falsity of proclamations that NS can't happen prior
to the emergence of life.
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 9:25:22?AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:molecules, with the characteristic that small molecules could diffuse in through the membrane, but big molecules could not diffuse out. By converting small molecules into big molecules, you could concentrate the organic contents on the inside, so the
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 10:40:22?PM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote: >> > On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 7:50:20?AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
David Deamer, an elder statesman of OoL I believe, concludes an article relating to OoL as follows:
“I will close with a quote from Freeman Dyson, a theoretical physicist at Princeton University who also enjoys thinking about the origin of life:
‘You had what I call the garbage bag model. The early cells were just little bags of some kind of cell membrane, which might have been oily or it might have been a metal oxide. And inside you had a more or less random collection of organic
conditions.’”on “the garbage bag model…little bags of some kind of cell membrane…inside you had a more or less random collection of organic molecules” (you get the idea).
https://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance
(Note: I’m not commenting on the content of the article itself.)
THE IRONY
A scientist from an unrelated field rattles off a just-so story on how life might have originated – and a leader in OoL quotes him approvingly.
A scientist accomplished in an overlapping field with highly relevant expertise (James Tour) launches a serious, sustained, specific, coherent critique of OoL research progress and claims -- and is dismissed as unqualified to comment.
THE COMPLETE IRONY
The analogy of “a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747” is dismissed as invalid.
The analogy of a tornado in a molecular junkyard is offered as a satisfactory summary of how life may have begun: “...cut in half, or shaken in half, by some rainstorm or environmental disturbance” (the tornado, in case you missed it), acting
of google group's shortcomings I've possibly unconsciously learnt to ignore it.First, I repeat a prior request. Please stop with the run-on line length. >> > Hit the return key every 60 or so characters. Otherwise, the quoting and >> > indentation mechanism screws up replies and things become quite
To be clear, swollen bags of garbage divided, resealed, and injected with more garbage produce…only more garbage. AKA, garbage in, garbage out.
The claim that “these things could evolve without any kind of replication. It's a simple statistical inheritance...” is a masterclass in sleight-of-hand. Either that or belief in real magic.
unreadable very quickly. It isn't just me. Usenet has had this standard >> > for decades. Please put in this minimal effort to improve communication. >> I've not particularly noticed this using google groups on a laptop, but like many
This is a common problem with the posts from several GG users, not just yours. A solution might be to change the GG window from full screen to something narrower than 70 characters or so, as I did here. That way GG automatically wraps the text.Whether the text appears that way in Usenet readers should be determined by this test post.
Next, your point here seems to be to draw some contrast between thoseI'm asserting (and it is only my assertion) that Tour's expertise is based not
who have pointed out that Tour lacks solid bona fides regarding OoL
research and Deamer citing someone else who doesn't have solid bona
fides in OoL research. Context is not your friend.
In your other thread, you reference Tour and you asserted that he has
expertise that is especially relevant to OoL research. Based on that
assertion of your, others responded that he actually doesn't have
especially relevant expertise in that field in as much as he has not
published in that specific field. It's a fair retort to your initial assertion,
and it's being made by people with arguably better qualifications than
Tour who nevertheless disclaim that their own expertise makes them
"experts" in OoL research.
on his being published in the field, but by his demonstrated (published) knowledge
of synthetic organic chemistry. This is particularly relevant, because he not
only understands the chemistry, but his work has been to do it himself, thus
giving him an acute understanding of what does and doesn't work, or at least
a keen sense of relative difficulty.
No reasonable person would claim Deamer to be citing Dyson as an authority >> on OoL research. If I didn't explicitly make that qualification, it was because
You, and one insistent other, tried to paint refutations of your assertion
about the relevance of Tour's expertise as intellectual snobbery.
Nonsense. It was a refutation of your specific assertion. It is necessary >> > to ignore the context of your claim to paint their words the way you
do.
Further, you misrepresent the point of the above quote by Dyson. Deamer >> > isn't citing Dyson as an authority on OoL research. Rather, he is citing a
particular line of reasoning that contradicts an assertion that you and >> > others like to make. Specifically, you try to claim that there can be no >> > cases of the mechanism of natural selection prior to the emergence of
the first recognizable living cell. The author of the piece isn't the point,
so your claims about irony misfire. The point, which you really ought to >> > consider, is that the mechanism of natural selection can have a role in >> > changing the "odds" of a seemingly daunting combination of events.
I assumed it to be obvious.
Nor do I claim that "there can be no cases of the mechanism of natural selection
prior to the emergence of the first recognizable living cell." Rather, I'm saying that
in this "garbage bag world" scenario, natural selection is not operating. Dyson
agrees: "So these things could evolve without any kind of replication. It's a simple
statistical inheritance."
Thinking about this some more, there's a subtle but important distinction here.
First, "so the cells would become more concentrated" - okay, granted due to >> osmotic pressure. Second, "and the chemistry would gradually become
more efficient" - greater "efficiency" of what? Stuffing garbage in at a higher rate?
Okay, I'll grant that.
The distinction then? Dyson's "statistical inheritance" produces increased >> concentrations of random polymers (branched, tangled, 2'-5' linked, etc, i.e., garbage).
What is missing is _optimisation_. Natural section is not at work, and so we do
not have evolution leading to greater complexity or function. What we actually have
is merely the growth garbage concentrators, gobbling up monomers at an
accelarating rate. Dyson uses the word "evolution", but on closer examination it
means only change, but not improvement or the accrual of information.
There is a prebiotic analogue called chemical evolution, where different environmental conditions encourage different chemical processes and products.
<https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18160077/>
There is also the case where different self-reproducing molecules compete for raw materials.
There are many other scenarios relevant to possible steps in OoL thatAnd that is precisely what Tour is asking: show me, I mean actually show me,
can also involve differential reproductive success. And these can possibly
happen for stages prior to what most would consider to be the emergence >> > of the first recognizable living cell. I happen to think that the other lines
I have in mind are better, and think that Dyson's example is misleading >> > even though possibly involved in a modified way. Regardless, it succeeds >> > at illustrating the falsity of proclamations that NS can't happen prior >> > to the emergence of life.
the "many other scenarios relevant to possible steps in OoL".
Over to you.
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 10:20:22 PM UTC+10, Öö Tiib wrote:molecules, with the characteristic that small molecules could diffuse in through the membrane, but big molecules could not diffuse out. By converting small molecules into big molecules, you could concentrate the organic contents on the inside, so the
On Friday, 1 September 2023 at 14:45:22 UTC+3, Mark wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 9:15:23 PM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
On 8/31/2023 7:37 AM, Mark wrote:
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 8:30:21 PM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
On 8/30/2023 6:49 AM, MarkE wrote:
David Deamer, an elder statesman of OoL I believe, concludes an article relating to OoL as follows:
“I will close with a quote from Freeman Dyson, a theoretical physicist at Princeton University who also enjoys thinking about the origin of life:
‘You had what I call the garbage bag model. The early cells were just little bags of some kind of cell membrane, which might have been oily or it might have been a metal oxide. And inside you had a more or less random collection of organic
acting on “the garbage bag model…little bags of some kind of cell membrane…inside you had a more or less random collection of organic molecules” (you get the idea).https://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance
(Note: I’m not commenting on the content of the article itself.) >>>
THE IRONY
A scientist from an unrelated field rattles off a just-so story on how life might have originated – and a leader in OoL quotes him approvingly.
A scientist accomplished in an overlapping field with highly relevant expertise (James Tour) launches a serious, sustained, specific, coherent critique of OoL research progress and claims -- and is dismissed as unqualified to comment.
THE COMPLETE IRONY
The analogy of “a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747” is dismissed as invalid.
The analogy of a tornado in a molecular junkyard is offered as a satisfactory summary of how life may have begun: “...cut in half, or shaken in half, by some rainstorm or environmental disturbance” (the tornado, in case you missed it),
discussion. I'm not questioning the mechanism per se, but rather its limitations. I've written computer simulations modeling mutation and selection evolve "bugs", quite fun to watch on the screen, and a demonstration of bounded adaptation, akaThe origin of life is one of the weakest of any scientific endeavor.
To be clear, swollen bags of garbage divided, resealed, and injected with more garbage produce…only more garbage. AKA, garbage in, garbage out.
The claim that “these things could evolve without any kind of replication. It's a simple statistical inheritance...” is a masterclass in sleight-of-hand. Either that or belief in real magic.
Currently about the only thing that we can expect is to figure out the
most likely scenario of how life came to be, but everyone knows that, it
would only be the most likely scenario, and that since it only seems to
have happened once, it could obviously have occurred in some less >> probable manner. What you have to deal with is what is around the gap,
but you run from doing that. Life arose somehow, and that is what you
have to deal with. You can claim that your designer did it, but is that
the designer that you want to believe in? For the vast majority of >> anti-evolution biblical creationists the god responsible for the origin
of life on earth is not the Biblical god. End of story. Until that >> changes the Top Six best evidences for IDiocy that killed IDiocy on TO
(the origin of life is #3 of the Top Six) just means that you and most
other bibilcal creationists are just out of luck. Science denial isn't
going to do you any good when it is what is around the gaps that you
really can't deal with.
Ron Okimoto
"The origin of life is one of the weakest of any scientific endeavor."
In terms likelihood of arriving at an accepted theory? Yes, possibly.
But one of the strongest for questioning the adequacy of natural causes alone, because by definition it excludes natural selection. Which is the main point of my OP.This is your major problem. Science denial isn't going to do you any good in this case because you do not want your god to fill this gap. Science has obvious limits. You have to deal with what science can do within those limits. Have you read the Origin of Spcies? Natural selection can happen once you have a lifeform that replicates imperfectly. Natural selection is a fact of nature. No one should deny that it exists in nature at this very moment. There is no reason to deny natural selection when it has been occurring for over 3 billion years since the origin of the first lifeforms.
What you want to deny is materialism. Science is stuck with the fact that it can only deal with things that exist. The ID perps claimed that
they could do the same science as everyone else and demonstrate the existence of their god. In order to do that, the ID perps needed to use
the same functional materialism that science has to use in order to work. Science just can't deal with things until you can demonstrate in some way that it exists.
It is stupid to use the origin of life in order to deny the science thatMy point wasn't clear: the particular appeal with OoL is that removing NS from the equation takes out of the discussion the presumption that NS can do anything, will do anything, QED. The question of the veracity and scope of NS is a separate
you need to deny because the designer of the origin of life on earth is
not your Biblical designer. That is what finally killed IDiocy on TO. Most of the existing IDiots on this planet do not want to believe in the
designer responsible for the Top Six god-of-the-gaps IDiotic evidence. The god that fills those gaps is not Biblical enough for most Biblical creationists.
replication. It's a simple statistical inheritance.")Swollen bags of garbage cut in two, resealed, and injected with more garbage produce…only more garbage. AKA, garbage in, garbage out. NS can't help you here, though nice try to appeal to NS-lite ("these things could evolve without any kind of
Random polymers are forming using racemic monomers, producing cross-linkages, interfering products, etc: i.e., garbage. The result is the most successful tar concentrators consume available building blocks at an increasing rate.
Feel free to address my argument if you're able.
I already did above, you just can't read.You said:
"Likelihood of auto- and cross-catalytic polymer sets forming in such tar garbage bag is very low."
The opposite is true. The vast majority or reaction products in this random, messy mixture of chemicals will be anything but the necessary chains without branching or 2'-5' linkage.
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 10:05:20 PM UTC+10, broger...@gmail.com wrote:molecules, with the characteristic that small molecules could diffuse in through the membrane, but big molecules could not diffuse out. By converting small molecules into big molecules, you could concentrate the organic contents on the inside, so the
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 7:50:20 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
David Deamer, an elder statesman of OoL I believe, concludes an article relating to OoL as follows:
“I will close with a quote from Freeman Dyson, a theoretical physicist at Princeton University who also enjoys thinking about the origin of life:
‘You had what I call the garbage bag model. The early cells were just little bags of some kind of cell membrane, which might have been oily or it might have been a metal oxide. And inside you had a more or less random collection of organic
principle. If you are interested in learning about the science in the field, you're stuck reading an actual book.https://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance
(Note: I’m not commenting on the content of the article itself.)Yes, I noticed that your comments actually ignore everything that Deamer wrote. And, indeed, this blog post is in no way a summary of current thought on OoL, simply an attempt to refute one of the ID movements arguments that OoL is impossible in
It's entirely my prerogative to not address the body of Deamer's article -- I clearly have a separate, demonstrated purpose in referencing it. Suggesting that *not* addressing amounts to dishonesty or avoidance is a cheap attempt at casting aspersions.on “the garbage bag model…little bags of some kind of cell membrane…inside you had a more or less random collection of organic molecules” (you get the idea).
And relax, I'll get to addressing Deamer's book in good time.
THE IRONY
A scientist from an unrelated field rattles off a just-so story on how life might have originated – and a leader in OoL quotes him approvingly.
A scientist accomplished in an overlapping field with highly relevant expertise (James Tour) launches a serious, sustained, specific, coherent critique of OoL research progress and claims -- and is dismissed as unqualified to comment.
THE COMPLETE IRONY
The analogy of “a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747” is dismissed as invalid.
The analogy of a tornado in a molecular junkyard is offered as a satisfactory summary of how life may have begun: “...cut in half, or shaken in half, by some rainstorm or environmental disturbance” (the tornado, in case you missed it), acting
one of the earliest steps in a possible pathway towards life, not a summary of how life began.To be clear, swollen bags of garbage divided, resealed, and injected with more garbage produce…only more garbage. AKA, garbage in, garbage out.
The claim that “these things could evolve without any kind of replication. It's a simple statistical inheritance...” is a masterclass in sleight-of-hand. Either that or belief in real magic.Perhaps you missed the point of the Dyson quote. It is not offered as a "satisfactory summary of how life may have begun." It is offered as an explanation of how macromolecules could get concentrated within membranes. It is an informed guess about
On 9/1/2023 6:43 AM, Mark wrote:molecules, with the characteristic that small molecules could diffuse in through the membrane, but big molecules could not diffuse out. By converting small molecules into big molecules, you could concentrate the organic contents on the inside, so the
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 9:15:23 PM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
On 8/31/2023 7:37 AM, Mark wrote:
On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 8:30:21 PM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
On 8/30/2023 6:49 AM, MarkE wrote:
David Deamer, an elder statesman of OoL I believe, concludes an article relating to OoL as follows:
“I will close with a quote from Freeman Dyson, a theoretical physicist at Princeton University who also enjoys thinking about the origin of life:
‘You had what I call the garbage bag model. The early cells were just little bags of some kind of cell membrane, which might have been oily or it might have been a metal oxide. And inside you had a more or less random collection of organic
on “the garbage bag model…little bags of some kind of cell membrane…inside you had a more or less random collection of organic molecules” (you get the idea).https://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance
(Note: I’m not commenting on the content of the article itself.) >>>>>
THE IRONY
A scientist from an unrelated field rattles off a just-so story on how life might have originated – and a leader in OoL quotes him approvingly.
A scientist accomplished in an overlapping field with highly relevant expertise (James Tour) launches a serious, sustained, specific, coherent critique of OoL research progress and claims -- and is dismissed as unqualified to comment.
THE COMPLETE IRONY
The analogy of “a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747” is dismissed as invalid.
The analogy of a tornado in a molecular junkyard is offered as a satisfactory summary of how life may have begun: “...cut in half, or shaken in half, by some rainstorm or environmental disturbance” (the tornado, in case you missed it), acting
discussion. I'm not questioning the mechanism per se, but rather its limitations. I've written computer simulations modeling mutation and selection evolve "bugs", quite fun to watch on the screen, and a demonstration of bounded adaptation, akaThis is your major problem. Science denial isn't going to do you anyThe origin of life is one of the weakest of any scientific endeavor. >>>> Currently about the only thing that we can expect is to figure out the >>>> most likely scenario of how life came to be, but everyone knows that, it
To be clear, swollen bags of garbage divided, resealed, and injected with more garbage produce…only more garbage. AKA, garbage in, garbage out.
The claim that “these things could evolve without any kind of replication. It's a simple statistical inheritance...” is a masterclass in sleight-of-hand. Either that or belief in real magic.
would only be the most likely scenario, and that since it only seems to >>>> have happened once, it could obviously have occurred in some less
probable manner. What you have to deal with is what is around the gap, >>>> but you run from doing that. Life arose somehow, and that is what you >>>> have to deal with. You can claim that your designer did it, but is that >>>> the designer that you want to believe in? For the vast majority of
anti-evolution biblical creationists the god responsible for the origin >>>> of life on earth is not the Biblical god. End of story. Until that
changes the Top Six best evidences for IDiocy that killed IDiocy on TO >>>> (the origin of life is #3 of the Top Six) just means that you and most >>>> other bibilcal creationists are just out of luck. Science denial isn't >>>> going to do you any good when it is what is around the gaps that you >>>> really can't deal with.
Ron Okimoto
"The origin of life is one of the weakest of any scientific endeavor." >>>
In terms likelihood of arriving at an accepted theory? Yes, possibly. >>>
But one of the strongest for questioning the adequacy of natural causes alone, because by definition it excludes natural selection. Which is the main point of my OP.
good in this case because you do not want your god to fill this gap.
Science has obvious limits. You have to deal with what science can do
within those limits. Have you read the Origin of Spcies? Natural
selection can happen once you have a lifeform that replicates
imperfectly. Natural selection is a fact of nature. No one should deny
that it exists in nature at this very moment. There is no reason to
deny natural selection when it has been occurring for over 3 billion
years since the origin of the first lifeforms.
What you want to deny is materialism. Science is stuck with the fact
that it can only deal with things that exist. The ID perps claimed that >> they could do the same science as everyone else and demonstrate the
existence of their god. In order to do that, the ID perps needed to use >> the same functional materialism that science has to use in order to
work. Science just can't deal with things until you can demonstrate in
some way that it exists.
It is stupid to use the origin of life in order to deny the science that >> you need to deny because the designer of the origin of life on earth is >> not your Biblical designer. That is what finally killed IDiocy on TO.
Most of the existing IDiots on this planet do not want to believe in the >> designer responsible for the Top Six god-of-the-gaps IDiotic evidence.
The god that fills those gaps is not Biblical enough for most Biblical
creationists.
My point wasn't clear: the particular appeal with OoL is that removing NS from the equation takes out of the discussion the presumption that NS can do anything, will do anything, QED. The question of the veracity and scope of NS is a separate
Your point was clear, you are just wrong about natural selection in
terms of the origin of life. What you are likely claiming about natural selection is likely just materialistic mechanisms. The materialistic mechanisms that were needed for the origin of life do not need to
involve natural selection, just natural chemical properties of matter.
As I stated natural selection starts being a factor once you have self replication with imperfect replication. If the first self replicators produced identical copies of themselves there would be nothing for
natural selection to work with. Natural selection requires variation,
and differential replication of the variants under the existing environmental conditions.
What you are describing is natural selection after the origin of life.
In order to evolve bugs, you first need bugs, and you need genetic
variation among the bugs.
replication. It's a simple statistical inheritance.")Swollen bags of garbage cut in two, resealed, and injected with more garbage produce…only more garbage. AKA, garbage in, garbage out. NS can't help you here, though nice try to appeal to NS-lite ("these things could evolve without any kind of
It likely wasn't just swoillen bags of garbage. What this requires is a mechanism to stuff the bags with things. The example was macromolecules
that could not defuse out of the membrane enclosure. You need something making the macromolecules inside the bag. It would be something making
the same macromolecules. These macromolecules might be used to make
other types of macromolecules. The bag would fill up with
macromolecules while the components used to make the macromolecules
would be defusing in and out of the bag. The proposal was that these membrane bubbles could break up and form daughter bubbles filled with a portion of what was in the original bubble.
It is a crude model as to how a really primative self replicator could
get started. It might not even be a self replicator because the
original macromolecule that made other macromolecules may never make a
copy of itself, but it may make more macromolecules that can make other macromolecules.
My guess is that membranes were not involved in producing the first self replicators. There are plenty of spaces in sedimentary matrix that
could temporarily confine macromolecules. Currents or flooding could
mix things up once in a while.
Random polymers are forming using racemic monomers, producing cross-linkages, interfering products, etc: i.e., garbage. The result is the most successful tar concentrators consume available building blocks at an increasing rate.
Feel free to address my argument if you're able.Beats me why this would matter. I don't think that the bags are
necessary, but the model has a mechanism of getting rid of products that
can choke the system. As the bags divide you can obviously lose things,
and this happens over and over as the bags fill up with the
macromolecules and split with a portion of the contents lost to one
daughter bag or the other. The components to make the macromolecules
can defuse in and out, and some of the macromolecule contents are lost
each division.
Ron Okimoto
All I claim is that the God that I believe in is responsible for the
"You can claim that your designer did it, but is that the designer that you want to believe in?
What sort of designer do you believe is implied/demonstrated by this claim?
creation. The Bible is obviously not anything that can be used to
understand the creation. Science is just the best means for
understanding nature that we have come up with. Whatever we eventually
find out is what the creation is likely to be. Saint Augustine pointed
out that it was stupid to use the Bible in order to deny things that we >> could obviously figure out about nature by ourselves. Your type of
denial has been known to be stupid for millennia. The Bible was written >> by young earth creationists. They had adopted the flat earth geocentric >> cosmology of their neighbors who had been civilized for a longer period >> of time. Just imagine what the description of the creation would be
like if the Bible were written today. Even if we wrote the Bible today
we could be wrong about a lot of what might be put into it due to
incomplete knowledge and the authors ignorance of what the creation
actually is.
Humans wrote the Bible. "Inspired" is the term that you need to
acknowledge as it is applied to what is written in the Bible.
Ron Okimoto
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 8:30:20 AM UTC-4, Mark wrote:molecules, with the characteristic that small molecules could diffuse in through the membrane, but big molecules could not diffuse out. By converting small molecules into big molecules, you could concentrate the organic contents on the inside, so the
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 10:05:20 PM UTC+10, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 7:50:20 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
David Deamer, an elder statesman of OoL I believe, concludes an article relating to OoL as follows:
“I will close with a quote from Freeman Dyson, a theoretical physicist at Princeton University who also enjoys thinking about the origin of life:
‘You had what I call the garbage bag model. The early cells were just little bags of some kind of cell membrane, which might have been oily or it might have been a metal oxide. And inside you had a more or less random collection of organic
principle. If you are interested in learning about the science in the field, you're stuck reading an actual book.https://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance
(Note: I’m not commenting on the content of the article itself.)Yes, I noticed that your comments actually ignore everything that Deamer wrote. And, indeed, this blog post is in no way a summary of current thought on OoL, simply an attempt to refute one of the ID movements arguments that OoL is impossible in
on “the garbage bag model…little bags of some kind of cell membrane…inside you had a more or less random collection of organic molecules” (you get the idea).THE IRONY
A scientist from an unrelated field rattles off a just-so story on how life might have originated – and a leader in OoL quotes him approvingly.
A scientist accomplished in an overlapping field with highly relevant expertise (James Tour) launches a serious, sustained, specific, coherent critique of OoL research progress and claims -- and is dismissed as unqualified to comment.
THE COMPLETE IRONY
The analogy of “a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747” is dismissed as invalid.
The analogy of a tornado in a molecular junkyard is offered as a satisfactory summary of how life may have begun: “...cut in half, or shaken in half, by some rainstorm or environmental disturbance” (the tornado, in case you missed it), acting
one of the earliest steps in a possible pathway towards life, not a summary of how life began.To be clear, swollen bags of garbage divided, resealed, and injected with more garbage produce…only more garbage. AKA, garbage in, garbage out.
The claim that “these things could evolve without any kind of replication. It's a simple statistical inheritance...” is a masterclass in sleight-of-hand. Either that or belief in real magic.Perhaps you missed the point of the Dyson quote. It is not offered as a "satisfactory summary of how life may have begun." It is offered as an explanation of how macromolecules could get concentrated within membranes. It is an informed guess about
exclude such a possibility, and notwithstanding several and varied definitions thereof provided forthwith..."No. Rather, "how macromolecules could get concentrated within membranes" is offered as a satisfactory explanation of how life may have begun*.
* My lawyers advised me to further qualify this as, "_begun_, referring to an early, though not necessarily first, step, not to imply the immediate and subsequent appearance of _life_, in and of itself, though neither to implicitly nor expressly
Sure, explaining how macromolecules can get concentrated is an attempt to explain one, of many, necessary early steps.
RonO wrote:
On 8/30/2023 6:49 AM, MarkE wrote:
David Deamer, an elder statesman of OoL I believe, concludes an
article relating to OoL as follows:
“I will close with a quote from Freeman Dyson, a theoretical
physicist at Princeton University who also enjoys thinking about the
origin of life:
‘You had what I call the garbage bag model. The early cells were just
little bags of some kind of cell membrane, which might have been oily
or it might have been a metal oxide. And inside you had a more or
less random collection of organic molecules, with the characteristic
that small molecules could diffuse in through the membrane, but big
molecules could not diffuse out. By converting small molecules into
big molecules, you could concentrate the organic contents on the
inside, so the cells would become more concentrated and the chemistry
would gradually become more efficient. So these things could evolve
without any kind of replication. It's a simple statistical
inheritance. When a cell became so big that it got cut in half, or
shaken in half, by some rainstorm or environmental disturbance, it
would then produce two cells which would be its daughters, which
would inherit, more or less, but only statistically, the chemical
machinery inside. Evolution could work under those conditions.’”
https://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance
(Note: I’m not commenting on the content of the article itself.)
THE IRONY
A scientist from an unrelated field rattles off a just-so story on
how life might have originated – and a leader in OoL quotes him
approvingly.
A scientist accomplished in an overlapping field with highly relevant
expertise (James Tour) launches a serious, sustained, specific,
coherent critique of OoL research progress and claims -- and is
dismissed as unqualified to comment.
THE COMPLETE IRONY
The analogy of “a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble
a Boeing 747” is dismissed as invalid.
The analogy of a tornado in a molecular junkyard is offered as a
satisfactory summary of how life may have begun: “...cut in half, or
shaken in half, by some rainstorm or environmental disturbance” (the
tornado, in case you missed it), acting on “the garbage bag
model…little bags of some kind of cell membrane…inside you had a more >>> or less random collection of organic molecules” (you get the idea).
To be clear, swollen bags of garbage divided, resealed, and injected
with more garbage produce…only more garbage. AKA, garbage in, garbage
out.
The claim that “these things could evolve without any kind of
replication. It's a simple statistical inheritance...” is a
masterclass in sleight-of-hand. Either that or belief in real magic.
The origin of life is one of the weakest of any scientific endeavor.
Currently about the only thing that we can expect is to figure out the
most likely scenario of how life came to be, but everyone knows that,
it would only be the most likely scenario, and that since it only
seems to have happened once, it could obviously have occurred in some
less probable manner. What you have to deal with is what is around
the gap, but you run from doing that. Life arose somehow, and that is
what you have to deal with. You can claim that your designer did it,
but is that the designer that you want to believe in? For the vast
majority of anti-evolution biblical creationists the god responsible
for the origin of life on earth is not the Biblical god. End of
story. Until that changes the Top Six best evidences for IDiocy that
killed IDiocy on TO (the origin of life is #3 of the Top Six) just
means that you and most other bibilcal creationists are just out of
luck. Science denial isn't going to do you any good when it is what
is around the gaps that you really can't deal with.
What does "around the gaps" mean? It describes, for example: what is
unknown between dead matter _(?)__ and life: and within this gap is
where we find evolution - inventing scenarios in a vain attempt to fill
these gaps. The designer's finalized endeavor is _after_ the "gaps". In
this OoL case "after the gap", is where we find the finished labor of
the designer _life_ itself_!
Ron Okimoto
RonO wrote:
On 2/1/2024 1:13 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Prior to your introducing them into TO, I had never heard of the Top Six
RonO wrote:
On 8/30/2023 6:49 AM, MarkE wrote:What does "around the gaps" mean? It describes, for example: what is
David Deamer, an elder statesman of OoL I believe, concludes an
article relating to OoL as follows:
“I will close with a quote from Freeman Dyson, a theoretical
physicist at Princeton University who also enjoys thinking about
the origin of life:
‘You had what I call the garbage bag model. The early cells were
just little bags of some kind of cell membrane, which might have
been oily or it might have been a metal oxide. And inside you had a
more or less random collection of organic molecules, with the
characteristic that small molecules could diffuse in through the
membrane, but big molecules could not diffuse out. By converting
small molecules into big molecules, you could concentrate the
organic contents on the inside, so the cells would become more
concentrated and the chemistry would gradually become more
efficient. So these things could evolve without any kind of
replication. It's a simple statistical inheritance. When a cell
became so big that it got cut in half, or shaken in half, by some
rainstorm or environmental disturbance, it would then produce two
cells which would be its daughters, which would inherit, more or
less, but only statistically, the chemical machinery inside.
Evolution could work under those conditions.’”
https://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance
(Note: I’m not commenting on the content of the article itself.)
THE IRONY
A scientist from an unrelated field rattles off a just-so story on
how life might have originated – and a leader in OoL quotes him
approvingly.
A scientist accomplished in an overlapping field with highly
relevant expertise (James Tour) launches a serious, sustained,
specific, coherent critique of OoL research progress and claims --
and is dismissed as unqualified to comment.
THE COMPLETE IRONY
The analogy of “a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might
assemble a Boeing 747” is dismissed as invalid.
The analogy of a tornado in a molecular junkyard is offered as a
satisfactory summary of how life may have begun: “...cut in half,
or shaken in half, by some rainstorm or environmental disturbance” >>>>> (the tornado, in case you missed it), acting on “the garbage bag
model…little bags of some kind of cell membrane…inside you had a >>>>> more or less random collection of organic molecules” (you get the
idea).
To be clear, swollen bags of garbage divided, resealed, and
injected with more garbage produce…only more garbage. AKA, garbage >>>>> in, garbage out.
The claim that “these things could evolve without any kind of
replication. It's a simple statistical inheritance...” is a
masterclass in sleight-of-hand. Either that or belief in real magic. >>>>>
The origin of life is one of the weakest of any scientific endeavor.
Currently about the only thing that we can expect is to figure out
the most likely scenario of how life came to be, but everyone knows
that, it would only be the most likely scenario, and that since it
only seems to have happened once, it could obviously have occurred
in some less probable manner. What you have to deal with is what is
around the gap, but you run from doing that. Life arose somehow,
and that is what you have to deal with. You can claim that your
designer did it, but is that the designer that you want to believe
in? For the vast majority of anti-evolution biblical creationists
the god responsible for the origin of life on earth is not the
Biblical god. End of story. Until that changes the Top Six best
evidences for IDiocy that killed IDiocy on TO (the origin of life is
#3 of the Top Six) just means that you and most other bibilcal
creationists are just out of luck. Science denial isn't going to do
you any good when it is what is around the gaps that you really
can't deal with.
;
unknown between dead matter _(?)__ and life: and within this gap is
where we find evolution - inventing scenarios in a vain attempt to
fill these gaps. The designer's finalized endeavor is _after_ the
"gaps". In this OoL case "after the gap", is where we find the
finished labor of the designer _life_ itself_!
The first time that you encountered the Top Six you could not figure
out why the other anti evolution creationists could not deal with them
and they quit the ID scam. You asked for assistance, but Glenn, Bill
and Kalkidas would not help you out. After a period of absence you
again encountered the Top Six, but you claimed to not remember the
previous encounter and how that turned out. You again asked for
assistance from the other creationists, but no one would help you
out. After another period of absence you again came back and claimed
to not remember the previous encounters with the Top Six, and again
you failed to understand why the other creationists could not deal
with them in an honest and straightforward manner. You have never
understood why the others quit supporting the ID scam and the Top Six.
.. This caught me completely off guard.
Of course, I do recall you saying you were not trying to refute the Top
Do you recall claiming that I was not refuting the Top Six, and that I
had to tell you that I had never been trying to refute the Top Six?
Six. Yes, and I did not understand your fanatical obsession with these
"top six"....And really, I still don't! Furthermore and since, I had -
had nothing what-so- ever to do, at the time, with these "top six". I
had no desire to defend something I knew nothing about. But the issue
was forced with your persistent obsession.
Nevertheless, I did locate and read these "Top Six". There were some
points, evidences that I did
agreed with, but certain points and claims I did not. IE the Biblical prospective. I never turned to the Bible for anything, nor did I _ever_
use anything from the Bible in support of my position. I completely
disagreed with the Biblical form of creation. Therefore, I thought your
aim was completely off target, and I still do.
Nothing here applied to me or my views regarding intelligent design.
It is just a simple fact that all the other anti evolution
creationists who quit the ID scam did so because the ID perps shot
themselves in the head by presenting them in their logical order of
occurrence as to how they must have happened in this universe. The
designer that fills the Top Six god-of-the-gaps denial arguments is
not the Biblical designer for nearly all IDiotic type creationists in
existence. The order of creation is wrong, and a lot of it isn't even
mentioned in the Bible.
The scientific creationists used the same Top Six gap denial
arguments, but just as the ID perps continued to do, they used them as
fire and forget bits of denial that the rubes were supposed to use to
lie to themselves just long enough to forget that gap and lie to
themselves about another. You obviously are a champion at forgetting
what your argument was, and it is why you are about the only anti
evolution creationist still posting on TO.
You can go to the Reason to Believe old earth creationist web site and
see how they can't deal with the Top Six. They use them for denial
purposes, but they then have to deny the denial because they need land
plants to be created before sea creatures, but the Cambrian explosion
occurred long before there were land plants in the ordovician, and the
angiosperms described in the Bible do not evolve until after dinosaurs
had evolved. Even though they use Meyer's claim that a 25 million
year period over half a billion years ago is too short of a time for
the diversification of bilateral animals to have occurred they want
land plants to be created before sea creature. Life had been evolving
for billions of years before the Cambrian explosion, and that fact
isn't mentioned in the Bible.
You're going into all this horse sh_t, in denying the fact that it's evolution that's in the gaps trying to find fossil evidence to shorten
What you are posting to is MarkE's denial of reality. MarkE could not
give up on the Gap denial even though he, like the other anti
evolution creationists, could not deal with the Top Six in an honest
and straight forward manner.
these gaps, _not_ the designer!
Instead he tried to keep wallowing in the denial of
each one separately. He spent a significant effort defining theMoe of the same.
origin of life gap. In doing so, he had to demonstrate what was
around the gap.
The Big Bang (#1) had happened over 13 billion years ago, and it
took around 8 billion years to produce the elements that our planetI agree totally with everything in this paragraph.
was made from, as products of dying stars, to create that part of the
fine tuning argument (#2). Really, it took 8 billion years to produce
the elements that made it possible for life to be created on this planet
(#3). MarkE knew that the surface of the earth would have initiallyHere you go again with your insane obsession with Biblical Creationism.
been molten rock before cooling enough for there to be liquid water.
Once there was liquid water there could be the chemistry for
abiogenesis to occur, using the elements that it took 8 billion years
to create. The origin of life likely occurred over 3 billion years
ago. This is not mentioned in the Bible, nor are the billions of
years when life was evolving as microbial lifeforms.
The flagellum (#4) evolved over a
billion years ago among the microbes that existed at that time, and itOh yes, I do understand the nature of the gaps. It's in the gaps, where
looks like a flagellum (not identical) evolved independently in
archaea and eubacteria. The Cambrian explosion (#5) occurred within a
25 million year period over half a billion years ago, long before land
plants evolved, and the gaps in the human fossil record occurred
within the last 10 million years of the existence of life on this planet.
MarkE found that he did not want to believe in the god that filled his
origin of life gap. It is not the Biblical designer. He refused to
describe how his Biblical designer fit into that gap. In spite of
this realization he continued to lie to himself that gap denial was at
all useful in maintaining his religious beliefs.
You are just too incompetent to understand what you are doing when you
use the gap denial stupidity. The other anti evolution creationists
were not that incompetent.
we find evolutionist desperately searching for supporting evidence
between supposed ancestors and decedents
and this fossil evidence is not really observed, rather what's claimed
is just an intrepretation
within the ovreaching evolutionary paradigm. . It's not IDest searching
the gaps for anything. The evidence for design is _observed_after_the
gaps. Unlike the observed evidence for ID after the gaps the evidence between ancestor and decedent is unobserved.
So, you set yourself up as absolute authority, so when I disagreed with
you, it's your evidence of you arrogance, not my incompetency.
Did you see the post where Kalkidas claimed
that ID and the Top six were no longer worth thinking about even<
though he had probably been an IDiot for decades? I should have saved
that post, but maybe someone else did. Kalkidas is still a Biblical
creationist, but he no longer wants to use the gap denial stupidity to
support his religious beliefs. The designer that fills those gaps in
their logical order of occurrence in this universe is not the Biblical
designer. It turned out that the ID perps never wanted to accomplish
any ID science because any success would have just been more science
for the Biblical creationists to deny. The majority of support for
the ID scam still comes from young earth Biblical "literalists". Even
the old earth Biblical "literalists" at Reason to Believe can't deal
with the Top Six in an honest and straightforward manner, and neither
could a lot of the old earth Biblical creationists that we had posting
on TO.
Like most of what you wrote, Absolutely nothing here applies to me!
Ron Okimoto
Ron Okimoto
You are confusing me with someone else. I knew nothing of Discovery
When the Top Six were first put out by the ID perps at the Discovery
Institute you started putting them up one at a time in individual
threads, just as they had previously been presented by the scientific
creationists, and then the ID perps that came later. You were not
dealing with them as related to each other.
Institute until you introduced it. In fact, it's not a site would never have referenced, because it's Biblical creationism, which I do not
accept. Nor is it the same as Intelligent Ddesign.
jillery wrote:
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 20:12:53 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
RonO wrote:
When the Top Six were first put out by the ID perps at the DiscoveryYou are confusing me with someone else. I knew nothing of Discovery
Institute you started putting them up one at a time in individual
threads, just as they had previously been presented by the scientific
creationists, and then the ID perps that came later. You were not
dealing with them as related to each other.
Institute until you introduced it. In fact, it's not a site [I] would [] >>> have referenced, because it's Biblical creationism, which I do not
accept. Nor is it the same as Intelligent D[]esign.
The folks at Discotut explicitly say the promote Intelligent Design.
That you don't "reference" Discotut doesn't inform this discussion.
I did not know that! I made a bad assumption, driven because of the bad
press I see at TO.
The point you continue to misunderstand is, your arguments are very
similar to those from Discotut and other cdesign proponentsists as
well as from other Biblical Creationists.
Not that I believe you, but if what you say were true, since I arrived
at my arguments and conclusions independently of any and all else -
except Michael Denton's book "crisis".
It demonstrates the obvious flaws and defects in evolution is obvious to anyone who dares
examine the evidence and question the claims in respect to evolution.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 2/6/24 3:26 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Quite the contrary! I accepted evolution without question, during my
jillery wrote:
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 20:12:53 -0500, Ron DeanI did not know that! I made a bad assumption, driven because of the
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
RonO wrote:
When the Top Six were first put out by the ID perps at the Discovery >>>>>> Institute you started putting them up one at a time in individualYou are confusing me with someone else. I knew nothing of Discovery
threads, just as they had previously been presented by the scientific >>>>>> creationists, and then the ID perps that came later. You were not >>>>>> dealing with them as related to each other.
Institute until you introduced it. In fact, it's not a site [I]
would []
have referenced, because it's Biblical creationism, which I do not
accept. Nor is it the same as Intelligent D[]esign.
The folks at Discotut explicitly say the promote Intelligent Design.
That you don't "reference" Discotut doesn't inform this discussion.
;
bad press I see at TO.
;Not that I believe you, but if what you say were true, since I
The point you continue to misunderstand is, your arguments are very
similar to those from Discotut and other cdesign proponentsists as
well as from other Biblical Creationists.
;
arrived at my arguments and conclusions independently of any and all
else - except Michael Denton's book "crisis".
It demonstrates the obvious flaws and defects in evolution is obvious
to anyone who dares
examine the evidence and question the claims in respect to evolution.
Except you don't know any of those "obvious" flaws and defects, at
least not well enough to state them yourself.
My conclusion, based on available data, is that you became convinced
that evolution was false solely because you *wanted* to be.
years at the university. However, later, on a challenge by a friend, I
very reluctantly read, "Evolution a Theory in Crisis" by Dr. Michael
Denton. Then I read books by S.J. Gould and N. Eldredge. This is why I changed my mind. Have you read Denton etc? If not what books, critical
of evolution have you read? Frankly, I doubt you know any evidence
contrary to evolution. I strongly suspect you just accept evolution
without question?
On 07/02/2024 06:26, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 2/6/24 3:26 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Quite the contrary! I accepted evolution without question, during my
jillery wrote:Except you don't know any of those "obvious" flaws and defects, at
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 20:12:53 -0500, Ron DeanI did not know that! I made a bad assumption, driven because of the bad >>>> press I see at TO.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
RonO wrote:
When the Top Six were first put out by the ID perps at the Discovery >>>>>>> Institute you started putting them up one at a time in individual >>>>>>> threads, just as they had previously been presented by the scientific >>>>>>> creationists, and then the ID perps that came later. You were not >>>>>>> dealing with them as related to each other.You are confusing me with someone else. I knew nothing of Discovery >>>>>> Institute until you introduced it. In fact, it's not a site [I] would [] >>>>>> have referenced, because it's Biblical creationism, which I do not >>>>>> accept. Nor is it the same as Intelligent D[]esign.
The folks at Discotut explicitly say the promote Intelligent Design. >>>>> That you don't "reference" Discotut doesn't inform this discussion.
;
;Not that I believe you, but if what you say were true, since I
The point you continue to misunderstand is, your arguments are very
similar to those from Discotut and other cdesign proponentsists as
well as from other Biblical Creationists.
;
arrived at my arguments and conclusions independently of any and all
else - except Michael Denton's book "crisis".
It demonstrates the obvious flaws and defects in evolution is obvious
to anyone who dares
examine the evidence and question the claims in respect to evolution. >>>
least not well enough to state them yourself.
My conclusion, based on available data, is that you became convinced
that evolution was false solely because you *wanted* to be.
years at the university. However, later, on a challenge by a friend, I
very reluctantly read, "Evolution a Theory in Crisis" by Dr. Michael
Denton. Then I read books by S.J. Gould and N. Eldredge. This is why I
changed my mind. Have you read Denton etc? If not what books, critical
of evolution have you read? Frankly, I doubt you know any evidence
contrary to evolution. I strongly suspect you just accept evolution
without question?
I've read Denton. It was quite forgettable. As I've said before, it's notorious for its refutation of Lamarckism ("the great chain of being") misrepresented as a refutation of evolution.
https://ncse.ngo/review-evolution-theory-crisis
PS: From your posts here, I doubt that you know any evidence contrary
to evolution; if you do you're signally bad at presenting it.
I've read Denton. It was quite forgettable. As I've said before, it's
notorious for its refutation of Lamarckism ("the great chain of
being") misrepresented as a refutation of evolution.
While it is true that Lamarck believed in the great chain of being, I
think "Lamarckism" usually refers to the inheritance of acquired characteristics.
On 07/02/2024 10:39, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
I've read Denton. It was quite forgettable. As I've said before, it's
notorious for its refutation of Lamarckism ("the great chain of being")
misrepresented as a refutation of evolution.
While it is true that Lamarck believed in the great chain of being, I
think "Lamarckism" usually refers to the inheritance of acquired
characteristics.
Back in the day most everybody believed in the inheritance of acquired characteristics, while the great chain of being was Lamarck's specific contribution.
I watched this entire video. There was very little here that described
my position. I've never argued humans descended from monkeys, then why
are there still monkeys.
I never claimed there are no
transitional fossils, I argue that transitional fossils are
interpretation made within the evolutionist paradigm. I have argued that
most species appear abruptly in the strata, remain in a state of stasis
then disappear from the record Gould - Eldredge.
Jim Jackson wrote:
On 2024-02-07, Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
I watched this entire video. There was very little here that described
my position. I've never argued humans descended from monkeys, then why
are there still monkeys.
Is that serious question? Genuine question?
According to the video, that was referenced, it was an woman
evolutionist "representing" intelligent design/creation, or rather misrepresenting.
On 2024-02-07, Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Jim Jackson wrote:
On 2024-02-07, Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:According to the video, that was referenced, it was an woman
I watched this entire video. There was very little here that described >>>> my position. I've never argued humans descended from monkeys, then why >>>> are there still monkeys.
Is that serious question? Genuine question?
evolutionist "representing" intelligent design/creation, or rather
misrepresenting.
You said (see above) "I've never argued humans descended from monkeys,
then why are there still monkeys."
I asked if that was a serious question?
You didn't answer.
On 2024-02-07, Ron Dean<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
I watched this entire video. There was very little here that describedIs that serious question? Genuine question?
my position. I've never argued humans descended from monkeys, then why
are there still monkeys.
On 2024-02-07 11:26:06 +0000, Ernest Major said:
On 07/02/2024 10:39, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
I've read Denton. It was quite forgettable. As I've said before,
it's notorious for its refutation of Lamarckism ("the great chain of
being") misrepresented as a refutation of evolution.
While it is true that Lamarck believed in the great chain of being, I
think "Lamarckism" usually refers to the inheritance of acquired
characteristics.
Back in the day most everybody believed in the inheritance of acquired
characteristics, while the great chain of being was Lamarck's specific
contribution.
Perhaps I should have written "'Lamarckism' as understood today usually refers to the inheritance of acquired characteristics."
More important, I find it almost incredible that anyone with any
knowledge of biology (which Denton certainly is) could think that
refuting the great chain of being amounted to refuting evolution. The
only reasonable explanation is dishonesty. I tried (unsuccessfully) to
see if I could could find the relevant passage quoted on the web (I'm
not going to put money in Denton's pocket by buying his book!)
Jim Jackson wrote:
On 2024-02-07, Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:This was _not_ my statement, but rather a quote from the Jillery
Jim Jackson wrote:
On 2024-02-07, Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:According to the video, that was referenced, it was an woman
I watched this entire video. There was very little here that described >>>>> my position. I've never argued humans descended from monkeys, then why >>>>> are there still monkeys.
Is that serious question? Genuine question?
evolutionist "representing" intelligent design/creation, or rather
misrepresenting.
You said (see above) "I've never argued humans descended from monkeys,
then why are there still monkeys."
I asked if that was a serious question?
You didn't answer.
referenced video. So, you asked: "was it a serious question?" I don't
know, I cannot read the mind of the lady in the video.
I do not have access to this book at the present, so I cannot confirm anything, but I do not recall Denton taking issue with Lamarck, nor do I understand why he would.
I've read Denton. It was quite forgettable. As I've said before, it's
notorious for its refutation of Lamarckism ("the great chain of
being") misrepresented as a refutation of evolution.
On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 8:18:01 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
RonO wrote:........
On 2/2/2024 2:11 AM, Ron Dean wrote:You are confusing me with someone else. I knew nothing of Discovery
RonO wrote:
On 2/1/2024 1:13 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Prior to your introducing them into TO, I had never heard of the Top
RonO wrote:
On 8/30/2023 6:49 AM, MarkE wrote:>
David Deamer, an elder statesman of OoL I believe, concludes an >>>>>>>> article relating to OoL as follows:
“I will close with a quote from Freeman Dyson, a theoretical >>>>>>>> physicist at Princeton University who also enjoys thinking about >>>>>>>> the origin of life:
‘You had what I call the garbage bag model. The early cells were >>>>>>>> just little bags of some kind of cell membrane, which might have >>>>>>>> been oily or it might have been a metal oxide. And inside you had >>>>>>>> a more or less random collection of organic molecules, with the >>>>>>>> characteristic that small molecules could diffuse in through the >>>>>>>> membrane, but big molecules could not diffuse out. By converting >>>>>>>> small molecules into big molecules, you could concentrate the
organic contents on the inside, so the cells would become more >>>>>>>> concentrated and the chemistry would gradually become more
efficient. So these things could evolve without any kind of
replication. It's a simple statistical inheritance. When a cell >>>>>>>> became so big that it got cut in half, or shaken in half, by some >>>>>>>> rainstorm or environmental disturbance, it would then produce two >>>>>>>> cells which would be its daughters, which would inherit, more or >>>>>>>> less, but only statistically, the chemical machinery inside.
Evolution could work under those conditions.’”
https://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance
(Note: I’m not commenting on the content of the article itself.) >>>>>>>>
THE IRONY
A scientist from an unrelated field rattles off a just-so story on >>>>>>>> how life might have originated – and a leader in OoL quotes him >>>>>>>> approvingly.
A scientist accomplished in an overlapping field with highly
relevant expertise (James Tour) launches a serious, sustained, >>>>>>>> specific, coherent critique of OoL research progress and claims -- >>>>>>>> and is dismissed as unqualified to comment.
THE COMPLETE IRONY
The analogy of “a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might
assemble a Boeing 747” is dismissed as invalid.
The analogy of a tornado in a molecular junkyard is offered as a >>>>>>>> satisfactory summary of how life may have begun: “...cut in half, >>>>>>>> or shaken in half, by some rainstorm or environmental disturbance” >>>>>>>> (the tornado, in case you missed it), acting on “the garbage bag >>>>>>>> model…little bags of some kind of cell membrane…inside you had a >>>>>>>> more or less random collection of organic molecules” (you get the >>>>>>>> idea).
To be clear, swollen bags of garbage divided, resealed, and
injected with more garbage produce…only more garbage. AKA, garbage >>>>>>>> in, garbage out.
The claim that “these things could evolve without any kind of >>>>>>>> replication. It's a simple statistical inheritance...” is a
masterclass in sleight-of-hand. Either that or belief in real magic. >>>>>>>>
The origin of life is one of the weakest of any scientific
endeavor. Currently about the only thing that we can expect is to >>>>>>> figure out the most likely scenario of how life came to be, but
everyone knows that, it would only be the most likely scenario, and >>>>>>> that since it only seems to have happened once, it could obviously >>>>>>> have occurred in some less probable manner. What you have to deal >>>>>>> with is what is around the gap, but you run from doing that. Life >>>>>>> arose somehow, and that is what you have to deal with. You can
claim that your designer did it, but is that the designer that you >>>>>>> want to believe in? For the vast majority of anti-evolution
biblical creationists the god responsible for the origin of life on >>>>>>> earth is not the Biblical god. End of story. Until that changes >>>>>>> the Top Six best evidences for IDiocy that killed IDiocy on TO (the >>>>>>> origin of life is #3 of the Top Six) just means that you and most >>>>>>> other bibilcal creationists are just out of luck. Science denial >>>>>>> isn't going to do you any good when it is what is around the gaps >>>>>>> that you really can't deal with.
What does "around the gaps" mean? It describes, for example: what is >>>>>> unknown between dead matter _(?)__ and life: and within this gap is >>>>>> where we find evolution - inventing scenarios in a vain attempt to >>>>>> fill these gaps. The designer's finalized endeavor is _after_ the
"gaps". In this OoL case "after the gap", is where we find the
finished labor of the designer _life_ itself_!
The first time that you encountered the Top Six you could not figure >>>>> out why the other anti evolution creationists could not deal with
them and they quit the ID scam. You asked for assistance, but Glenn, >>>>> Bill and Kalkidas would not help you out. After a period of absence >>>>> you again encountered the Top Six, but you claimed to not remember
the previous encounter and how that turned out. You again asked for >>>>> assistance from the other creationists, but no one would help you
out. After another period of absence you again came back and claimed >>>>> to not remember the previous encounters with the Top Six, and again
you failed to understand why the other creationists could not deal
with them in an honest and straightforward manner. You have never
understood why the others quit supporting the ID scam and the Top Six. >>>>>
Six .. This caught me completely off guard.
Of course, I do recall you saying you were not trying to refute the
Do you recall claiming that I was not refuting the Top Six, and that >>>>> I had to tell you that I had never been trying to refute the Top Six? >>>>>
Top Six. Yes, and I did not understand your fanatical obsession with
these "top six"....And really, I still don't! Furthermore and since, I >>>> had - had nothing what-so- ever to do, at the time, with these "top
six". I had no desire to defend something I knew nothing about. But
the issue was forced with your persistent obsession.
Nevertheless, I did locate and read these "Top Six". There were some
points, evidences that I did
agreed with, but certain points and claims I did not. IE the Biblical
prospective. I never turned to the Bible for anything, nor did I
_ever_ use anything from the Bible in support of my position. I
completely disagreed with the Biblical form of creation. Therefore, I
thought your aim was completely off target, and I still do.
Nothing here applied to me or my views regarding intelligent design.
It is just a simple fact that all the other anti evolution
creationists who quit the ID scam did so because the ID perps shot
themselves in the head by presenting them in their logical order of
occurrence as to how they must have happened in this universe. The
designer that fills the Top Six god-of-the-gaps denial arguments is
not the Biblical designer for nearly all IDiotic type creationists in >>>>> existence. The order of creation is wrong, and a lot of it isn't
even mentioned in the Bible.
The scientific creationists used the same Top Six gap denial
arguments, but just as the ID perps continued to do, they used them
as fire and forget bits of denial that the rubes were supposed to use >>>>> to lie to themselves just long enough to forget that gap and lie to
themselves about another. You obviously are a champion at forgetting >>>>> what your argument was, and it is why you are about the only anti
evolution creationist still posting on TO.
You can go to the Reason to Believe old earth creationist web site
and see how they can't deal with the Top Six. They use them for
denial purposes, but they then have to deny the denial because they
need land plants to be created before sea creatures, but the Cambrian >>>>> explosion occurred long before there were land plants in the
ordovician, and the angiosperms described in the Bible do not evolve >>>>> until after dinosaurs had evolved. Even though they use Meyer's
claim that a 25 million year period over half a billion years ago is >>>>> too short of a time for the diversification of bilateral animals to
have occurred they want land plants to be created before sea
creature. Life had been evolving for billions of years before the
Cambrian explosion, and that fact isn't mentioned in the Bible.
You're going into all this horse sh_t, in denying the fact that it's
What you are posting to is MarkE's denial of reality. MarkE could
not give up on the Gap denial even though he, like the other anti
evolution creationists, could not deal with the Top Six in an honest >>>>> and straight forward manner.
evolution that's in the gaps trying to find fossil evidence to shorten >>>> these gaps, _not_ the designer!
Instead he tried to keep wallowing in the denial of
each one separately. He spent a significant effort defining theMoe of the same.
origin of life gap. In doing so, he had to demonstrate what was
around the gap.
The Big Bang (#1) had happened over 13 billion years ago, and it
took around 8 billion years to produce the elements that our planetI agree totally with everything in this paragraph.
was made from, as products of dying stars, to create that part of the >>>>> fine tuning argument (#2). Really, it took 8 billion years to
produce the elements that made it possible for life to be created on >>>>> this planet
(#3). MarkE knew that the surface of the earth would have initially >>>>> been molten rock before cooling enough for there to be liquid water. >>>>> Once there was liquid water there could be the chemistry forHere you go again with your insane obsession with Biblical Creationism. >>>>
abiogenesis to occur, using the elements that it took 8 billion years >>>>> to create. The origin of life likely occurred over 3 billion years
ago. This is not mentioned in the Bible, nor are the billions of
years when life was evolving as microbial lifeforms.
The flagellum (#4) evolved over a
billion years ago among the microbes that existed at that time, andOh yes, I do understand the nature of the gaps. It's in the gaps,
it looks like a flagellum (not identical) evolved independently in
archaea and eubacteria. The Cambrian explosion (#5) occurred within >>>>> a 25 million year period over half a billion years ago, long before
land plants evolved, and the gaps in the human fossil record occurred >>>>> within the last 10 million years of the existence of life on this
planet.
MarkE found that he did not want to believe in the god that filled
his origin of life gap. It is not the Biblical designer. He refused >>>>> to describe how his Biblical designer fit into that gap. In spite of >>>>> this realization he continued to lie to himself that gap denial was
at all useful in maintaining his religious beliefs.
You are just too incompetent to understand what you are doing when
you use the gap denial stupidity. The other anti evolution
creationists were not that incompetent.
where we find evolutionist desperately searching for supporting
evidence between supposed ancestors and decedents
and this fossil evidence is not really observed, rather what's claimed >>>> is just an intrepretation
within the ovreaching evolutionary paradigm. . It's not IDest
searching the gaps for anything. The evidence for design is
_observed_after_the gaps. Unlike the observed evidence for ID after
the gaps the evidence between ancestor and decedent is unobserved.
So, you set yourself up as absolute authority, so when I disagreed
with you, it's your evidence of you arrogance, not my incompetency.
When the Top Six were first put out by the ID perps at the Discovery
Institute you started putting them up one at a time in individual
threads, just as they had previously been presented by the scientific
creationists, and then the ID perps that came later. You were not
dealing with them as related to each other.
Institute until you introduced it. In fact, it's not a site would never
have referenced, because it's Biblical creationism, which I do not
accept. Nor is it the same as Intelligent Ddesign.
It turned out that almost
none of the IDiots still posting at that time could deal with them asI agree!
they related to each other. Nature is just not the Biblical creation.
Did you see the post where Kalkidas claimed
that ID and the Top six were no longer worth thinking about even<
though he had probably been an IDiot for decades? I should have
saved that post, but maybe someone else did. Kalkidas is still a
Biblical creationist, but he no longer wants to use the gap denial
stupidity to support his religious beliefs. The designer that fills >>>>> those gaps in their logical order of occurrence in this universe is
not the Biblical designer. It turned out that the ID perps never
wanted to accomplish any ID science because any success would have
just been more science for the Biblical creationists to deny. The
majority of support for the ID scam still comes from young earth
Biblical "literalists". Even the old earth Biblical "literalists" at >>>>> Reason to Believe can't deal with the Top Six in an honest and
straightforward manner, and neither could a lot of the old earth
Biblical creationists that we had posting on TO.
Like most of what you wrote, Absolutely nothing here applies to me!
It obviously applies to you because you still do not want to understand
why the other IDiots quit, and you still want to use the god-of-the-gaps >>> stupidity as independent bits of denial. They do not support your anti
evolution religious beliefs. Pretending that they do does not change
that reality. MarkE likely realizes that fact. The universe is over 13 >>> billion years old. The Biblical geocentric universe never existed. Our >>> planet formed out of elements that it took 8 billion years to produce
out of dead star remains.
I question that I'm dealing with a living breathing human being here.
I'm thinking that Ron O is a machine, a computer that's programed with a
bank of stock responses to what the programmer anticipated which was
thought to be commonly beliefs and dogmas held by what the programmer
labeled "religious anti-evolutionist". This is evidenced by the
repeating of the same responses and arguments to statements by
"anti-evolutionist", as well as unnecessarily repeating over and over
what's agreed upon and accepted natural phenomenon. So, when new issues
are raised which deviate and are not in compliance with standard
anticipated religious motifs, the computer program is limited and
cannot relate to unanticipated comments of non religious issues. In such
cases the programs miss the mark entirely and are completely off target.
In such cases a normal and rational communication is impossible.
It's quite frustrating to interact with someone who simply repeats the same arguments over and over in virtually the same words and pays no attention to anything your write.
Life existed on this planet soon after it was
cool enough to form liquid water. This life has been evolving for
billions of years. Life was limited to microbial lifeforms until around >>> a billion years ago. By around a half billion years ago multicellular
life had evolved to the extent that we could have a rapid
diversification of bilateral animals over half a billion years ago. Land >>> plants did not evolve from fresh water algae until the Ordovician, and
the crop plants described as being created before sea creatures did not
evolve until dinosaurs were the dominant land animal on the planet, so
these plants were not created before the land animals as described in
the Bible. The sun and moon were not created after land plants were
created. Even most old earth creationists cannot deal with this reality. >>>
Ron Okimoto
Ron Okimoto
Ron Okimoto
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 2/6/24 3:26 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Quite the contrary! I accepted evolution without question, during my
jillery wrote:
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 20:12:53 -0500, Ron DeanI did not know that! I made a bad assumption, driven because of the
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
RonO wrote:
When the Top Six were first put out by the ID perps at the Discovery >>>>>> Institute you started putting them up one at a time in individualYou are confusing me with someone else. I knew nothing of Discovery
threads, just as they had previously been presented by the scientific >>>>>> creationists, and then the ID perps that came later. You were not >>>>>> dealing with them as related to each other.
Institute until you introduced it. In fact, it's not a site [I]
would []
have referenced, because it's Biblical creationism, which I do not
accept. Nor is it the same as Intelligent D[]esign.
The folks at Discotut explicitly say the promote Intelligent Design.
That you don't "reference" Discotut doesn't inform this discussion.
;
bad press I see at TO.
;Not that I believe you, but if what you say were true, since I
The point you continue to misunderstand is, your arguments are very
similar to those from Discotut and other cdesign proponentsists as
well as from other Biblical Creationists.
;
arrived at my arguments and conclusions independently of any and all
else - except Michael Denton's book "crisis".
It demonstrates the obvious flaws and defects in evolution is obvious
to anyone who dares
examine the evidence and question the claims in respect to evolution.
Except you don't know any of those "obvious" flaws and defects, at
least not well enough to state them yourself.
My conclusion, based on available data, is that you became convinced
that evolution was false solely because you *wanted* to be.
years at the university. However, later, on a challenge by a friend, I
very reluctantly read, "Evolution a Theory in Crisis" by Dr. Michael
Denton. Then I read books by S.J. Gould and N. Eldredge. This is why I changed my mind. Have you read Denton etc? If not what books, critical
of evolution have you read? Frankly, I doubt you know any evidence
contrary to evolution. I strongly suspect you just accept evolution
without question?
On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 4:03:03 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:accounts, firmly believed in evolution without ever questioning it. That's why you are so unfamiliar with the evidence supporting it. And when you read a book like Denton's you also do not ask for the evidence or evaluate the arguments. That's one reason
Ernest Major wrote:You keep asking this question. The answer is, yes, all of us on the "accept evolution" side questioned (and question) evolution. We always ask for the evidence supporting a given claim, look at alternative explanations, etc. You, however, by your own
On 07/02/2024 06:26, Ron Dean wrote:I do not have access to this book at the present, so I cannot confirm
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 2/6/24 3:26 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Quite the contrary! I accepted evolution without question, during my
jillery wrote:Except you don't know any of those "obvious" flaws and defects, at
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 20:12:53 -0500, Ron DeanI did not know that! I made a bad assumption, driven because of the >>>>>> bad press I see at TO.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
RonO wrote:
When the Top Six were first put out by the ID perps at the Discovery >>>>>>>>> Institute you started putting them up one at a time in individual >>>>>>>>> threads, just as they had previously been presented by theYou are confusing me with someone else. I knew nothing of Discovery >>>>>>>> Institute until you introduced it. In fact, it's not a site [I] >>>>>>>> would []
scientific
creationists, and then the ID perps that came later. You were not >>>>>>>>> dealing with them as related to each other.
have referenced, because it's Biblical creationism, which I do not >>>>>>>> accept. Nor is it the same as Intelligent D[]esign.
The folks at Discotut explicitly say the promote Intelligent Design. >>>>>>> That you don't "reference" Discotut doesn't inform this discussion. >>>>>> >
>
The point you continue to misunderstand is, your arguments are very >>>>>>> similar to those from Discotut and other cdesign proponentsists as >>>>>>> well as from other Biblical Creationists.>
Not that I believe you, but if what you say were true, since I
arrived at my arguments and conclusions independently of any and all >>>>>> else - except Michael Denton's book "crisis".
It demonstrates the obvious flaws and defects in evolution is
obvious to anyone who dares
examine the evidence and question the claims in respect to evolution. >>>>>
least not well enough to state them yourself.
My conclusion, based on available data, is that you became convinced >>>>> that evolution was false solely because you *wanted* to be.
years at the university. However, later, on a challenge by a friend, I >>>> very reluctantly read, "Evolution a Theory in Crisis" by Dr. Michael
Denton. Then I read books by S.J. Gould and N. Eldredge. This is why I >>>> changed my mind. Have you read Denton etc? If not what books, critical >>>> of evolution have you read? Frankly, I doubt you know any evidence
contrary to evolution. I strongly suspect you just accept evolution
without question?
I've read Denton. It was quite forgettable. As I've said before, it's
notorious for its refutation of Lamarckism ("the great chain of being")
misrepresented as a refutation of evolution.
anything, but I do not recall Denton taking issue with Lamarck, nor do I
understand why he would.
As I said, I suspect you just accept evolution without question. Have
https://ncse.ngo/review-evolution-theory-crisis
PS: From your posts here, I doubt that you know any evidence contrary to >>> evolution; if you do you're signally bad at presenting it.
you ever?
[Side note, what you did when you were reluctant to read Denton's book was not "questioning ID," you were simply slow to trade in one idea you didn't really understand for another].cannot remember the arguments against it that you say you found convincing in Denton's book.
You seem to think that claiming to have once believed firmly in evolution and then rejected will somehow add credibility to your arguments. It won't, especially since you show no evidence of ever having understood the evidence supporting evolution and
On 07/02/2024 13:22, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2024-02-07 11:26:06 +0000, Ernest Major said:A surprising number of people think of evolution as a ladder (and
On 07/02/2024 10:39, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
I've read Denton. It was quite forgettable. As I've said before, it's >>>>> notorious for its refutation of Lamarckism ("the great chain of being") >>>>> misrepresented as a refutation of evolution.
While it is true that Lamarck believed in the great chain of being, I
think "Lamarckism" usually refers to the inheritance of acquired
characteristics.
Back in the day most everybody believed in the inheritance of acquired
characteristics, while the great chain of being was Lamarck's specific
contribution.
Perhaps I should have written "'Lamarckism' as understood today usually
refers to the inheritance of acquired characteristics."
More important, I find it almost incredible that anyone with any
knowledge of biology (which Denton certainly is) could think that
refuting the great chain of being amounted to refuting evolution. The
only reasonable explanation is dishonesty. I tried (unsuccessfully) to
see if I could could find the relevant passage quoted on the web (I'm
not going to put money in Denton's pocket by buying his book!)
themselves as the pinnacle of evolution). One would hope that a
biochemist would know better, but I expect that one can function as a biochemist without a good understanding of evolution.
broger...@gmail.com wrote:own accounts, firmly believed in evolution without ever questioning it.
On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 1:03:06 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 4:03:03 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>> Ernest Major wrote:
You keep asking this question. The answer is, yes, all of us on the "accept evolution" side questioned (and question) evolution. We always ask for the evidence supporting a given claim, look at alternative explanations, etc. You, however, by yourOn 07/02/2024 06:26, Ron Dean wrote:I do not have access to this book at the present, so I cannot confirm >>>> anything, but I do not recall Denton taking issue with Lamarck, nor do I
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 2/6/24 3:26 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Quite the contrary! I accepted evolution without question, during my >>>>>> years at the university. However, later, on a challenge by a friend, I
jillery wrote:
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 20:12:53 -0500, Ron DeanI did not know that! I made a bad assumption, driven because of the >>>>>>>> bad press I see at TO.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
RonO wrote:
When the Top Six were first put out by the ID perps at the DiscoveryYou are confusing me with someone else. I knew nothing of Discovery
Institute you started putting them up one at a time in individual
threads, just as they had previously been presented by the >>>>>>>>>>> scientific
creationists, and then the ID perps that came later. You were not
dealing with them as related to each other.
Institute until you introduced it. In fact, it's not a site [I] >>>>>>>>>> would []
have referenced, because it's Biblical creationism, which I do not
accept. Nor is it the same as Intelligent D[]esign.
The folks at Discotut explicitly say the promote Intelligent Design.
That you don't "reference" Discotut doesn't inform this discussion.
Not that I believe you, but if what you say were true, since I >>>>>>>> arrived at my arguments and conclusions independently of any and all
The point you continue to misunderstand is, your arguments are very
similar to those from Discotut and other cdesign proponentsists as >>>>>>>>> well as from other Biblical Creationists.
else - except Michael Denton's book "crisis".
It demonstrates the obvious flaws and defects in evolution is >>>>>>>> obvious to anyone who dares
examine the evidence and question the claims in respect to evolution.
Except you don't know any of those "obvious" flaws and defects, at >>>>>>> least not well enough to state them yourself.
My conclusion, based on available data, is that you became convinced >>>>>>> that evolution was false solely because you *wanted* to be.
very reluctantly read, "Evolution a Theory in Crisis" by Dr. Michael >>>>>> Denton. Then I read books by S.J. Gould and N. Eldredge. This is why I
changed my mind. Have you read Denton etc? If not what books, critical
of evolution have you read? Frankly, I doubt you know any evidence >>>>>> contrary to evolution. I strongly suspect you just accept evolution >>>>>> without question?
I've read Denton. It was quite forgettable. As I've said before, it's >>>>> notorious for its refutation of Lamarckism ("the great chain of being")
misrepresented as a refutation of evolution.
understand why he would.
As I said, I suspect you just accept evolution without question. Have >>>> you ever?
https://ncse.ngo/review-evolution-theory-crisis
PS: From your posts here, I doubt that you know any evidence contrary to
evolution; if you do you're signally bad at presenting it.
I looked for evidence supporting evolution. If this is questioning. In
fact, it was searching for assurance in the face of doubt. I knew of no >> evidence claimed by anti-evolutionist which was contrary to evolution.
Do you?
If you looked for evidence supporting evolution and did not find it, why were you ever a "committed Darwinist"? If you accepted evolution without any evidence, then you did not understand it.
Looking for supporting evidence for evolution is only half. If this is
what you are suggesting then this is allowing oneself to become
brainwashed. Testing also requires questioning and challenging evolution
ie looking at contrary evidence. In a courtroom, if the judge disallows
the prosecutor and allows only the defense to present its case, then proclaims I've heard enough..... I see this as the same as searching
only for supporting evidence for evolution. I suspect this describes
you. I doubt you know of any arguments against evolution by
intelligent designers.
And it's a bad sign that you were willing to believe something in the absence of evidence. All you've done is switch to believing in
intelligent design in the absence of evidence for a designer.
and cannot remember the arguments against it that you say you found convincing in Denton's book......That's why you are so unfamiliar with the evidence supporting it. And >>> when you read a book like Denton's you also do not ask for the evidence >>> or evaluate the arguments. That's one reason you cannot actually
remember any of the arguments in his book. You went from unquestioningly >>> accepting evolution without understanding the evidence or arguments
supporting it, to unquestioningly accepting ID. But please stop
projecting that lack of questioning onto everybody else.
I'm sorry, but I doubt you are familiar with any evidence contrary to
evolution. In which case you're not questioning.
There's a logical fallacy there; I wonder if you can recognize it.
[Side note, what you did when you were reluctant to read Denton's book was not "questioning ID," you were simply slow to trade in one idea you didn't really understand for another].
You seem to think that claiming to have once believed firmly in evolution and then rejected will somehow add credibility to your arguments. It won't, especially since you show no evidence of ever having understood the evidence supporting evolution
broger...@gmail.com wrote:own accounts, firmly believed in evolution without ever questioning it.
On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 1:03:06 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 4:03:03 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote: >>>> Ernest Major wrote:
You keep asking this question. The answer is, yes, all of us on the "accept evolution" side questioned (and question) evolution. We always ask for the evidence supporting a given claim, look at alternative explanations, etc. You, however, by yourOn 07/02/2024 06:26, Ron Dean wrote:I do not have access to this book at the present, so I cannot confirm >>>> anything, but I do not recall Denton taking issue with Lamarck, nor do I
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 2/6/24 3:26 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Quite the contrary! I accepted evolution without question, during my >>>>>> years at the university. However, later, on a challenge by a friend, I
jillery wrote:
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 20:12:53 -0500, Ron DeanI did not know that! I made a bad assumption, driven because of the >>>>>>>> bad press I see at TO.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
RonO wrote:
When the Top Six were first put out by the ID perps at the DiscoveryYou are confusing me with someone else. I knew nothing of Discovery
Institute you started putting them up one at a time in individual
threads, just as they had previously been presented by the >>>>>>>>>>> scientific
creationists, and then the ID perps that came later. You were not
dealing with them as related to each other.
Institute until you introduced it. In fact, it's not a site [I] >>>>>>>>>> would []
have referenced, because it's Biblical creationism, which I do not
accept. Nor is it the same as Intelligent D[]esign.
The folks at Discotut explicitly say the promote Intelligent Design.
That you don't "reference" Discotut doesn't inform this discussion.
Not that I believe you, but if what you say were true, since I >>>>>>>> arrived at my arguments and conclusions independently of any and all
The point you continue to misunderstand is, your arguments are very
similar to those from Discotut and other cdesign proponentsists as >>>>>>>>> well as from other Biblical Creationists.
else - except Michael Denton's book "crisis".
It demonstrates the obvious flaws and defects in evolution is >>>>>>>> obvious to anyone who dares
examine the evidence and question the claims in respect to evolution.
Except you don't know any of those "obvious" flaws and defects, at >>>>>>> least not well enough to state them yourself.
My conclusion, based on available data, is that you became convinced >>>>>>> that evolution was false solely because you *wanted* to be.
very reluctantly read, "Evolution a Theory in Crisis" by Dr. Michael >>>>>> Denton. Then I read books by S.J. Gould and N. Eldredge. This is why I
changed my mind. Have you read Denton etc? If not what books, critical
of evolution have you read? Frankly, I doubt you know any evidence >>>>>> contrary to evolution. I strongly suspect you just accept evolution >>>>>> without question?
I've read Denton. It was quite forgettable. As I've said before, it's >>>>> notorious for its refutation of Lamarckism ("the great chain of being")
misrepresented as a refutation of evolution.
understand why he would.
As I said, I suspect you just accept evolution without question. Have >>>> you ever?
https://ncse.ngo/review-evolution-theory-crisis
PS: From your posts here, I doubt that you know any evidence contrary to
evolution; if you do you're signally bad at presenting it.
I looked for evidence supporting evolution. If this is questioning. In
fact, it was searching for assurance in the face of doubt. I knew of no >> evidence claimed by anti-evolutionist which was contrary to evolution.
Do you?
If you looked for evidence supporting evolution and did not find it, why were you ever a "committed Darwinist"? If you accepted evolution without any evidence, then you did not understand it.
Looking for supporting evidence for evolution is only half. If this is
what you are suggesting then this is allowing oneself to become
brainwashed. Testing also requires questioning and challenging evolution
ie looking at contrary evidence. In a courtroom, if the judge disallows
the prosecutor and allows only the defense to present its case, then proclaims I've heard enough..... I see this as the same as searching
only for supporting evidence for evolution. I suspect this describes
you. I doubt you know of any arguments against evolution by
intelligent designers.
And it's a bad sign that you were willing to believe something in the absence of evidence. All you've done is switch to believing inand cannot remember the arguments against it that you say you found convincing in Denton's book.
intelligent design in the absence of evidence for a designer.
.....That's why you are so unfamiliar with the evidence supporting it. And >>> when you read a book like Denton's you also do not ask for the evidence >>> or evaluate the arguments. That's one reason you cannot actually
remember any of the arguments in his book. You went from unquestioningly >>> accepting evolution without understanding the evidence or arguments
supporting it, to unquestioningly accepting ID. But please stop
projecting that lack of questioning onto everybody else.
I'm sorry, but I doubt you are familiar with any evidence contrary to
evolution. In which case you're not questioning.
There's a logical fallacy there; I wonder if you can recognize it.
[Side note, what you did when you were reluctant to read Denton's book was not "questioning ID," you were simply slow to trade in one idea you didn't really understand for another].
You seem to think that claiming to have once believed firmly in evolution and then rejected will somehow add credibility to your arguments. It won't, especially since you show no evidence of ever having understood the evidence supporting evolution
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:28:33 -0500, Ron DeanMaybe I've confuse you with someone else. If so, I sincerely apologize
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 16:13:46 -0500, Ron DeanYou are wrong, this was not my position that was referenced. IOW I never >>> argued "if we descended from monkeys Why are there monkeys". So to lay
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Jim Jackson wrote:
On 2024-02-07, Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:I understand. This happens when someone response to some aspect of a >>>>> comment, but removes or deletes the preceding or related statement.
Jim Jackson wrote:
On 2024-02-07, Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:This was _not_ my statement, but rather a quote from the Jillery >>>>>>> referenced video. So, you asked: "was it a serious question?" I
Jim Jackson wrote:
On 2024-02-07, Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> I watched this entire video. There was very little here that >>>>>>>>>>> describedAccording to the video, that was referenced, it was an woman >>>>>>>>> evolutionist "representing" intelligent design/creation, or rather >>>>>>>>> misrepresenting.
my position. I've never argued humans descended from monkeys, >>>>>>>>>>> then why
are there still monkeys.
Is that serious question? Genuine question?
You said (see above) "I've never argued humans descended from
monkeys,
then why are there still monkeys."
I asked if that was a serious question?
You didn't answer.
don't
know, I cannot read the mind of the lady in the video.
Sorry. It wasn't obvious that were quoting the video. I thought it >>>>>> was
your thoughts.
This
places people who join in at some point during the thread at a
disadvantage.
Incorrect. Instead, this happens when someone doesn't know what
they're talking about, and so lies about what was actually said.
this on me is lying.
You are wrong. Nowhere did I say you argued that point. YOU made
that up. Yet despite unambiguous evidence contradicting your lie, you
continue to repeat your lie. Why is that?
Once again, the cited video:Ok, you proved your point. I'm just not familiar with Biblical
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQOQgDHISh8>
The question in question is a common Creationist PRATT, which not too
long ago became news when Herschel Walker repeated it during a
political rally to become Georgia's senator:
<https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/16/politics/herschel-walker-geogia-senate-candidate-evolution-apes/index.html>
Awhile ago, fellow right-wing retard Rush Limbaugh asked the same
question using other words:
<https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2016/06/rush-limbaugh-w.html>
So the question in question is in fact a common Creationist PRATT,
RDean's claims to the contrary.
Creationism as you seem to be. But it's a nonsensical statement. As an >>> IDest, it's not my argument.
One more time; I never said it was your argument. YOU made that up.
Stop lying.
And since you mention it, it's a nonsensical statement based on a
nonsensical understanding of evolution.
More to the point, the question in question is NOT a question jillery
said Ron Dean argued. Once again, here is jillery's list of what
RDean has argued:
That you don't acknowledge the above affirms your lies.
**********************************I have argued this, my position again it's a matter pf interpretation
There are no transitional fossils.
such evidence in accordance with the evolutionist paradigm.
Your position is meaningless, one that you repeatedly fail to clarify.
More to the point, it doesn't alter the fact that you have repeatedly
denied the existence of transitional forms.
Use of "evolutionist" as epithet.Why not?
Why not what?
Why humans exist.Never asked this question!
You have at least twice lied in this thread about what you have
posted, despite cited posts unambiguously showing your lies false.
Even if my recollection on this one is incorrect, you have zero
credibility.
2LoT.Have argued that the slot applies to more than just closed systems, even >>> though it was regionally made to describe closed systems IE steam
engines.
I have no idea how you think the above informs the PRATT in question.
There are no beneficial mutations.There may be few beneficial mutations, but they are far exceeded by
deleterious mutations.
Technically correct but entirely irrelevant. Deleterious mutations
are removed, while beneficial mutations are amplified. Not sure how
even you *still* don't understand this.
Common design not common descent.This is my position.
I know. That's what I said.
*********************************Again I arrived at my position independently of Biblical creationism.
So RDean completely misrepresents what jillery said, and what "the
lady in the video" said, RDean's claims to the contrary.
And I defend my own positions not Biblical creationism.
Again, to arrive at similar correct conclusions independently is
likely, as they are based on reality. To arrive are so many nonsense
PRATTS independently stretches credulity. Far more likely you
conveniently forgot where you heard them and only imagine you came to
them independently.
The doppelganger using RDean's account is blatantly dishonest.As an atheist, for you to bear false witness against someone has no
consequence for you.
Yet another willfully stupid ad-hominem. Bearing false witness
carries practical consequences, "worldview" notwithstanding. OTOH
your post above shows you have no problem lying for the sake of it.
to you. Please forgive me.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
Öö Tibet wrote:own accounts, firmly believed in evolution without ever questioning it.
On Monday 12 February 2024 at 06:28:07 UTC+2, Ron Dean wrote:<snip>
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, Februa
You keep asking this question. The answer is, yes, all of us on the "accept evolution" side questioned (and question) evolution. We always ask for the evidence supporting a given claim, look at alternative explanations, etc. You, however, by yourI do not have access to this book at the present, so I cannot confirm >>>>>> anything, but I do not recall Denton taking issue with Lamarck, nor do IQuite the contrary! I accepted evolution without question, during myI did not know that! I made a bad assumption, driven because of theRonO wrote:
When the Top Six were first put out by the ID perps at the DiscoveryYou are confusing me with someone else. I knew nothing of Discovery
Institute you started putting them up one at a time in individual
threads, just as they had previously been presented by the >>>>>>>>>>>>> scientific
creationists, and then the ID perps that came later. You were not
dealing with them as related to each other.
Institute until you introduced it. In fact, it's not a site [I] >>>>>>>>>>>> would []
have referenced, because it's Biblical creationism, which I do not
accept. Nor is it the same as Intelligent D[]esign.
The folks at Discotut explicitly say the promote Intelligent Design.
That you don't "reference" Discotut doesn't inform this discussion.
bad press I see at TO.
Not that I believe you, but if what you say were true, since I >>>>>>>>>> arrived at my arguments and conclusions independently of any and all
The point you continue to misunderstand is, your arguments are very
similar to those from Discotut and other cdesign proponentsists as
well as from other Biblical Creationists.
else - except Michael Denton's book "crisis".
It demonstrates the obvious flaws and defects in evolution is >>>>>>>>>> obvious to anyone who dares
examine the evidence and question the claims in respect to evolution.
Except you don't know any of those "obvious" flaws and defects, at >>>>>>>>> least not well enough to state them yourself.
My conclusion, based on available data, is that you became convinced
that evolution was false solely because you *wanted* to be. >>>>>>>>>
years at the university. However, later, on a challenge by a friend, I
very reluctantly read, "Evolution a Theory in Crisis" by Dr. Michael
Denton. Then I read books by S.J. Gould and N. Eldredge. This is why I
changed my mind. Have you read Denton etc? If not what books, critical
of evolution have you read? Frankly, I doubt you know any evidence >>>>>>>> contrary to evolution. I strongly suspect you just accept evolution >>>>>>>> without question?
I've read Denton. It was quite forgettable. As I've said before, it's
notorious for its refutation of Lamarckism ("the great chain of being")
misrepresented as a refutation of evolution.
understand why he would.
As I said, I suspect you just accept evolution without question. Have >>>>>> you ever?
https://ncse.ngo/review-evolution-theory-crisis
PS: From your posts here, I doubt that you know any evidence contrary to
evolution; if you do you're signally bad at presenting it.
But these "evidences" are said out lot of times. Basically theory of evolution does not explain:Looking for supporting evidence for evolution is only half. If this isI looked for evidence supporting evolution. If this is questioning. In >>>> fact, it was searching for assurance in the face of doubt. I knew of no >>>> evidence claimed by anti-evolutionist which was contrary to evolution. >>>> Do you?
If you looked for evidence supporting evolution and did not find it, why were you ever a "committed Darwinist"? If you accepted evolution without any evidence, then you did not understand it.
what you are suggesting then this is allowing oneself to become
brainwashed. Testing also requires questioning and challenging evolution >> ie looking at contrary evidence. In a courtroom, if the judge disallows >> the prosecutor and allows only the defense to present its case, then
proclaims I've heard enough..... I see this as the same as searching
only for supporting evidence for evolution. I suspect this describes
you. I doubt you know of any arguments against evolution by
intelligent designers.
And it's a bad sign that you were willing to believe something in the
absence of evidence. All you've done is switch to believing in
intelligent design in the absence of evidence for a designer.
* what is good or evil, moral or immoral,
I agree, but it does reduce human beings to _animal_ status: since,
we're nothing, but animals, no better than other animals and gen-etically different by only 1% from chimps.
* origins of universe,
Of course not by Biological evolution, but there is evolutionary
change in the universe from the big bang to star/solar systems.
* universe's suitability for life,
* origins of life on this planet,
No knows exactly how life originated on this planet. Or if it did: Spenserian-F. Crick
* details of formation of some biomolecules,
Yes, some bio molecules coming to earth are found from space.
* details of evolution of some species,
New DNA information is required. There are many different breeds of
dogs, but these breeds are expressed from the same gene pool, but which genes are subdued and which genes are not explains obvious differences.
No new information is present.
* good mental capabilities of humans,
This is what makes humans different. Our brains! We have built civilizations, communications, transportation systems and sent people
to the moon and space vehicles to Mars, Venus and past other planets. If
the human species becomes extinct later in the next decade. How many millions of years in the future would be necessary or required for
Chimps or some other animal to reach our levels of accomplishment?
* possibilities of afterlife and salvation.
This subject is never part of any discussion, in which I'm willing to participate I have no need for organized religion or religious
discussions. But, I think the _scientific_ evidence implies a designer.
I see evolution as an _alternative_ explanation for what we observe in nature. Evolution came secondly in a historical context. Design was the initial universal view, championed by William Paley.
However, he went one step too far and attributed the design he observed,
in the science of his day, to his God. While he saw evidence of design, there was no evidence pointing to his God.
This was based strictly upon his faith, not scientific evidence. He read Paley and expressed admiration for the man's work in a letter he wrote
to a friend, but I personally think Darwin, after some thought, set as
his _objective_ to re-write Paley, but to write Paley's God out of the picture, by removing design and replacing design with what was to become re-named, "random mutations and natural selection". And this as I see
it, places evolution as an alternative to design.
Sorry, but all of these "evidences" are about gaps in our knowledge.
No, this is exactly backwards! In the gaps is where we fine evolution,
just one example of this is the _gap_ between lifeless matter and life.
It's here we find evolutionist, trying to uncover how life originated
from lifeless matter - It's _after_ this gap, where we found the
designer who has just completed the task it set itself up out to do - IE
to create life from non-life.
Also there are some other lesser gaps plus random mutations are mostly
bad so good God would not choose such aggravatingly inefficient, slow, tedious and damaging tool for making something. Therefore evolution
is wrong. Really?
Are you asking this of me? Why?
.....That's why you are so unfamiliar with the evidence supporting it. And >>>>> when you read a book like Denton's you also do not ask for the evidence
or evaluate the arguments. That's one reason you cannot actually
remember any of the arguments in his book. You went from unquestioningly
accepting evolution without understanding the evidence or arguments >>>>> supporting it, to unquestioningly accepting ID. But please stop
projecting that lack of questioning onto everybody else.
I'm sorry, but I doubt you are familiar with any evidence contrary to >>>> evolution. In which case you're not questioning.
There's a logical fallacy there; I wonder if you can recognize it.
Missed this: In your mind the logical fallacy is: contrary evidence
where there can be no contrary evidence.
evolution and cannot remember the arguments against it that you say you found convincing in Denton's book.
[Side note, what you did when you were reluctant to read Denton's book was not "questioning ID," you were simply slow to trade in one idea you didn't really understand for another].
You seem to think that claiming to have once believed firmly in evolution and then rejected will somehow add credibility to your arguments. It won't, especially since you show no evidence of ever having understood the evidence supporting
On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 20:53:30 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
嘱 Tibet wrote:
[...]
The "status" that you refer to seems to be based on your personalBasically theory ofI agree, but it does reduce human beings to _animal_ status: since,
evolution does not explain:
* what is good or evil, moral or immoral,
we're nothing, but animals, no better than other animals and genetically >different by only 1% from chimps.
difficulty in coping with the idea of there being no significant *biological* difference between humans and other animals. It's a
foolish point to get hung up on. The *biological* difference between
humans and other animals is irrelevant, the significant difference
lies in *intellect*.
Some people will argue that intellect is also a product of evolution
but that is pure speculation at this point in time as there is no
direct evidence to show an evolutionary path for the development of
the unique aspects of human intellect.
[...]
jillery wrote:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 16:13:46 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Jim Jackson wrote:
On 2024-02-07, Ron Dean <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:I understand. This happens when someone response to some aspect of a
Jim Jackson wrote:
On 2024-02-07, Ron Dean <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:This was _not_ my statement, but rather a quote from the Jillery
Jim Jackson wrote:
On 2024-02-07, Ron Dean <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:According to the video, that was referenced, it was an woman
I watched this entire video. There was very little here that described
my position. I've never argued humans descended from monkeys, then why
are there still monkeys.
Is that serious question? Genuine question?
evolutionist "representing" intelligent design/creation, or rather >>>>>> misrepresenting.
You said (see above) "I've never argued humans descended from monkeys, >>>>> then why are there still monkeys."
I asked if that was a serious question?
You didn't answer.
referenced video. So, you asked: "was it a serious question?" I don't >>>> know, I cannot read the mind of the lady in the video.
Sorry. It wasn't obvious that were quoting the video. I thought it was >>> your thoughts.
comment, but removes or deletes the preceding or related statement. This >> places people who join in at some point during the thread at a
disadvantage.
Incorrect. Instead, this happens when someone doesn't know what
they're talking about, and so lies about what was actually said.
You are wrong, this was not my position that was referenced. IOW I never argued "if we descended from monkeys Why are there monkeys". So to lay
this on me is lying.
Once again, the cited video:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQOQgDHISh8>
The question in question is a common Creationist PRATT, which not too
long ago became news when Herschel Walker repeated it during a
political rally to become Georgia's senator:
<https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/16/politics/herschel-walker-geogia-senate-candidate-evolution-apes/index.html>
Awhile ago, fellow right-wing retard Rush Limbaugh asked the same
question using other words:
<https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2016/06/rush-limbaugh-w.html>
So the question in question is in fact a common Creationist PRATT,
RDean's claims to the contrary.
Ok, you proved your point. I'm just not familiar with Biblical
Creationism as you seem to be. But it's a nonsensical statement. As an IDest, it's not my argument.
More to the point, the question in question is NOT a question jillery
said Ron Dean argued. Once again, here is jillery's list of what
RDean has argued:
**********************************
There are no transitional fossils.
I have argued this, my position again it's a matter pf interpretation
such evidence in accordance with the evolutionist paradigm.
Use of "evolutionist" as epithet.
Why not?
Why humans exist.
Never asked this question!
2LoT.
Have argued that the slot applies to more than just closed systems, even though it was regionally made to describe closed systems IE steam engines.
There are no beneficial mutations.
There may be few beneficial mutations, but they are far exceeded by deleterious mutations.
Common design not common descent.
This is my position.
*********************************
So RDean completely misrepresents what jillery said, and what "the
lady in the video" said, RDean's claims to the contrary.
Again I arrived at my position independently of Biblical creationism.
And I defend my own positions not Biblical creationism.
The doppelganger using RDean's account is blatantly dishonest.
As an atheist, for you to bear false witness against someone has no consequence for you.
--
As an atheist, for you to bear false witness against someone has no consequence for you.
Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 5:33:06?PM UTC, Ron Dean wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 16:13:46 -0500, Ron DeanYou are wrong, this was not my position that was referenced. IOW I never >>> argued "if we descended from monkeys Why are there monkeys". So to lay
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Jim Jackson wrote:
On 2024-02-07, Ron Dean <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:I understand. This happens when someone response to some aspect of a >>>>> comment, but removes or deletes the preceding or related statement. This >>>>> places people who join in at some point during the thread at a
Jim Jackson wrote:
On 2024-02-07, Ron Dean <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:This was _not_ my statement, but rather a quote from the Jillery >>>>>>> referenced video. So, you asked: "was it a serious question?" I don't >>>>>>> know, I cannot read the mind of the lady in the video.
Jim Jackson wrote:
On 2024-02-07, Ron Dean <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:According to the video, that was referenced, it was an woman >>>>>>>>> evolutionist "representing" intelligent design/creation, or rather >>>>>>>>> misrepresenting.
I watched this entire video. There was very little here that described
my position. I've never argued humans descended from monkeys, then why
are there still monkeys.
Is that serious question? Genuine question?
You said (see above) "I've never argued humans descended from monkeys, >>>>>>>> then why are there still monkeys."
I asked if that was a serious question?
You didn't answer.
Sorry. It wasn't obvious that were quoting the video. I thought it was >>>>>> your thoughts.
disadvantage.
Incorrect. Instead, this happens when someone doesn't know what
they're talking about, and so lies about what was actually said.
this on me is lying.
Ok, you proved your point. I'm just not familiar with Biblical
Once again, the cited video:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQOQgDHISh8>
The question in question is a common Creationist PRATT, which not too
long ago became news when Herschel Walker repeated it during a
political rally to become Georgia's senator:
<https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/16/politics/herschel-walker-geogia-senate-candidate-evolution-apes/index.html>
Awhile ago, fellow right-wing retard Rush Limbaugh asked the same
question using other words:
<https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2016/06/rush-limbaugh-w.html>
So the question in question is in fact a common Creationist PRATT,
RDean's claims to the contrary.
Creationism as you seem to be. But it's a nonsensical statement. As an
IDest, it's not my argument.
I have argued this, my position again it's a matter pf interpretation
More to the point, the question in question is NOT a question jillery
said Ron Dean argued. Once again, here is jillery's list of what
RDean has argued:
**********************************
There are no transitional fossils.
such evidence in accordance with the evolutionist paradigm.
Why not?
Use of "evolutionist" as epithet.
Why humans exist.Never asked this question!
2LoT.Have argued that the slot applies to more than just closed systems, even >>> though it was regionally made to describe closed systems IE steam engines. >>>> There are no beneficial mutations.
There may be few beneficial mutations, but they are far exceeded by
deleterious mutations.
Common design not common descent.This is my position.
*********************************Again I arrived at my position independently of Biblical creationism.
So RDean completely misrepresents what jillery said, and what "the
lady in the video" said, RDean's claims to the contrary.
And I defend my own positions not Biblical creationism.
As an atheist, for you to bear false witness against someone has no
The doppelganger using RDean's account is blatantly dishonest.
consequence for you.
--
Leaving aside yet another extreme example of bigotry by you,
I can only go on my own_personal_ experence, not what you say.
how exactlyI never deliberately lie. For me there are severe consequences for lying.
does in your belief system the fact that an unknown entity billion of
years ago did a bit of bioengineering and designed some basic structures
that we share with bacteria before moving on to other projects/dying now >> compels you to be more truthful? (that is, if you were more truthful, which >> I'd say is highly debatable giving your posting record)
Burkhard wrote:
On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 5:33:06 PM UTC, Ron Dean wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 16:13:46 -0500, Ron DeanYou are wrong, this was not my position that was referenced. IOW I never >> argued "if we descended from monkeys Why are there monkeys". So to lay
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Jim Jackson wrote:
On 2024-02-07, Ron Dean <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:I understand. This happens when someone response to some aspect of a >>>> comment, but removes or deletes the preceding or related statement. This
Jim Jackson wrote:
On 2024-02-07, Ron Dean <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:This was _not_ my statement, but rather a quote from the Jillery >>>>>> referenced video. So, you asked: "was it a serious question?" I don't >>>>>> know, I cannot read the mind of the lady in the video.
Jim Jackson wrote:
On 2024-02-07, Ron Dean <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:According to the video, that was referenced, it was an woman >>>>>>>> evolutionist "representing" intelligent design/creation, or rather >>>>>>>> misrepresenting.
I watched this entire video. There was very little here that described
my position. I've never argued humans descended from monkeys, then why
are there still monkeys.
Is that serious question? Genuine question?
You said (see above) "I've never argued humans descended from monkeys,
then why are there still monkeys."
I asked if that was a serious question?
You didn't answer.
Sorry. It wasn't obvious that were quoting the video. I thought it was >>>>> your thoughts.
places people who join in at some point during the thread at a
disadvantage.
Incorrect. Instead, this happens when someone doesn't know what
they're talking about, and so lies about what was actually said.
this on me is lying.
Ok, you proved your point. I'm just not familiar with Biblical
Once again, the cited video:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQOQgDHISh8>
The question in question is a common Creationist PRATT, which not too >>> long ago became news when Herschel Walker repeated it during a
political rally to become Georgia's senator:
<https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/16/politics/herschel-walker-geogia-senate-candidate-evolution-apes/index.html>
Awhile ago, fellow right-wing retard Rush Limbaugh asked the same
question using other words:
<https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2016/06/rush-limbaugh-w.html>
So the question in question is in fact a common Creationist PRATT,
RDean's claims to the contrary.
Creationism as you seem to be. But it's a nonsensical statement. As an
IDest, it's not my argument.
I have argued this, my position again it's a matter pf interpretation
More to the point, the question in question is NOT a question jillery >>> said Ron Dean argued. Once again, here is jillery's list of what
RDean has argued:
**********************************
There are no transitional fossils.
such evidence in accordance with the evolutionist paradigm.
Why not?
Use of "evolutionist" as epithet.
Why humans exist.Never asked this question!
2LoT.Have argued that the slot applies to more than just closed systems, even >> though it was regionally made to describe closed systems IE steam engines.
There are no beneficial mutations.There may be few beneficial mutations, but they are far exceeded by
deleterious mutations.
Common design not common descent.This is my position.
*********************************Again I arrived at my position independently of Biblical creationism.
So RDean completely misrepresents what jillery said, and what "the
lady in the video" said, RDean's claims to the contrary.
And I defend my own positions not Biblical creationism.
As an atheist, for you to bear false witness against someone has no
The doppelganger using RDean's account is blatantly dishonest.
consequence for you.
--
Leaving aside yet another extreme example of bigotry by you,
I can only go on my own_personal_ experence, not what you say.
how exactly
does in your belief system the fact that an unknown entity billion of years ago did a bit of bioengineering and designed some basic structures that we share with bacteria before moving on to other projects/dying now compels you to be more truthful? (that is, if you were more truthful, which
I'd say is highly debatable giving your posting record)
I never deliberately lie. For me there are severe consequences for lying.
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 04:20:26 -0800 (PST), Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
On Tuesday, February 13, 2024 at 9:43:08?AM UTC, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 20:53:30 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
? Tibet wrote:
[...]
The "status" that you refer to seems to be based on your personalBasically theory ofI agree, but it does reduce human beings to _animal_ status: since,
evolution does not explain:
* what is good or evil, moral or immoral,
we're nothing, but animals, no better than other animals and genetically >> >different by only 1% from chimps.
difficulty in coping with the idea of there being no significant
*biological* difference between humans and other animals. It's a
foolish point to get hung up on. The *biological* difference between
humans and other animals is irrelevant, the significant difference
lies in *intellect*.
What makes us human is obviously the ability to identify all traffic lights >in a collection of photosDo I detect the same frustration as myself with some of these
captchas, especially those with items that are met with in everyday
life *in the USA*?
Some people will argue that intellect is also a product of evolution
but that is pure speculation at this point in time as there is no
direct evidence to show an evolutionary path for the development of
the unique aspects of human intellect.
That would be quite a radical claim. It seems obvious"Seems obvious" sounds a bit like Ron Dean and Intelligent Design.
that our
intelligence requires a biological substratum - hence the impact
of brain damage, drugs etc on intelligence. So you'd have to argue
that our brain is not evolved. And you'd also have to discard the >observation of intelligent behaviour by the other apes
You seem to be reducing *intellect* to *intelligent* but I think there
is a significant difference - by intellect, I mean the ability to
reason, to figure things out, to imagine things that don't exist as
opposed to motor functions which have to do with things like muscle
movement and memory.
This difference is illustrated in the work of Wilder Penfield who is
regarded as the pioneer in surgery for epilepsy and developed the
process of carrying out surgery on fully alert patients which allowed
him to observe and record the effect of stimulating various parts of
the brain. In the many thousands of stimulations that he carried out,
he found that all the stimulations were concrete things - moving an
arm or feeling a tingling or sometimes a concrete memory - but there
was never any abstract thought stimulated. He found the same in
observations of patients suffering epileptic seizures - it was always
motor functions that were affected, never the ability to reason. His experience turned Penfield from a convinced materialist at the start
of his career to a convinced dualist at the end of it.
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 04:20:26 -0800 (PST), Burkhard
<b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
On Tuesday, February 13, 2024 at 9:43:08?AM UTC, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 20:53:30 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
? Tibet wrote:
[...]
The "status" that you refer to seems to be based on your personalBasically theory ofI agree, but it does reduce human beings to _animal_ status: since,
evolution does not explain:
* what is good or evil, moral or immoral,
we're nothing, but animals, no better than other animals and genetically >>>> different by only 1% from chimps.
difficulty in coping with the idea of there being no significant
*biological* difference between humans and other animals. It's a
foolish point to get hung up on. The *biological* difference between
humans and other animals is irrelevant, the significant difference
lies in *intellect*.
What makes us human is obviously the ability to identify all traffic lights >> in a collection of photos
Do I detect the same frustration as myself with some of these
captchas, especially those with items that are met with in everyday
life *in the USA*?
Some people will argue that intellect is also a product of evolution
but that is pure speculation at this point in time as there is no
direct evidence to show an evolutionary path for the development of
the unique aspects of human intellect.
That would be quite a radical claim. It seems obvious
"Seems obvious" sounds a bit like Ron Dean and Intelligent Design.
that our
intelligence requires a biological substratum - hence the impact
of brain damage, drugs etc on intelligence. So you'd have to argue
that our brain is not evolved. And you'd also have to discard the
observation of intelligent behaviour by the other apes
You seem to be reducing *intellect* to *intelligent* but I think there
is a significant difference - by intellect, I mean the ability to
reason, to figure things out, to imagine things that don't exist as
opposed to motor functions which have to do with things like muscle
movement and memory.
This difference is illustrated in the work of Wilder Penfield who is
regarded as the pioneer in surgery for epilepsy and developed the
process of carrying out surgery on fully alert patients which allowed
him to observe and record the effect of stimulating various parts of
the brain. In the many thousands of stimulations that he carried out,
he found that all the stimulations were concrete things - moving an
arm or feeling a tingling or sometimes a concrete memory - but there
was never any abstract thought stimulated. He found the same in
observations of patients suffering epileptic seizures - it was always
motor functions that were affected, never the ability to reason. His experience turned Penfield from a convinced materialist at the start
of his career to a convinced dualist at the end of it.
And in any case, you now also fall back, at best, to a
"this has not been explained in sufficient detail for my liking" argument - >> and I'd say the evolution of intelligence is as much analysed and
discussed as the evolution of other cognitive traits, such as
colour perception
Here a by now somewhat dated overview: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.5034.pdf
An interesting paper but it reflects what I said about speculation -
lots of 'may' and 'probable' and 'proposed that' in it but little if
any hard evidence. It's also not all that particularly dated, not a
lot has really changed.
I've just finished reading Matthew Cobb's "The Idea of the Brain", a
book I thoroughly recommend to anyone interested in the area of consciousness.
In the book, he refers back to a meeting of 20 scientists in Quebec in
1953 for a 5-day symposium on 'Brain Mechanisms and Consciousness'.
Opening the symposium, Horace "Tid" Winchell Magoun, regarded as one
of the fathers of neuroscience, warned his colleagues of 'the
head-shaking sympathy with which future investigators will probably
look back upon the groping efforts of the mid-twentieth century, for
there is every indication that the neural basis of consciousness is a
problem that will not be solved quickly'. Cobb observes that "Tid
would probably have been amused to learn that nearly seventy years
later the neural basis of consciousness is still not understood, nor,
the optimism of Science magazine notwithstanding, is there any sign of
an answer on the horizon."
The problem as Cobb sees it is that with the development of technology
like fMRI (functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging), we now have
exponential growth in the mass of raw data available to us but we
don't have a conclusive framework into which we can fit this data. He
points out some of the issues that are still hotly debated such as localisation of brain function vs distributed; add to that the growing evidence that 'the mind', however you define it, may exist beyond the
brain as for example with research into the relationship between the
brain and the gut microbiome.
This lack of progress has led to some researchers looking to move
beyond neurology despite a great reluctance to abandon materialist
beliefs - panpsychism, for example, has been attracting growing
attention.
Cobb himself remains a totally convinced materialist who believes we
will eventually figure it all out. He is, however, brutally honest
about how far short of that we currently are:
"For those trying to investigate the question from a strictly
materialist point of view, the gulf between physical and mental
phenomena remains as yawning as it was to Leibniz in the eighteenth
century or to du Bois-Reymond and Tyndall a hundred and fifty years
later. But the fact that there is a gap does not mean it cannot be
bridged."
He admits that whilst he is sure we will find the answers somewhere,
he doesn't really have a clue where that 'somewhere' is or how long it
will take to get there:
Now, I'd grant you that there are methodological difficulties that make this >> research particularly challenging, including disagreement on what intelligence is
and how one can measure it, but that is a different issue altogether and simply
shows why we should not expect easy answers.
[...]
On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 20:40:08 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2024-02-15 4:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 04:20:26 -0800 (PST), BurkhardThis sounds very much like Michael Egnor's take on Penfield. The
<b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
On Tuesday, February 13, 2024 at 9:43:08?AM UTC, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 20:53:30 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
? Tibet wrote:
[...]
The "status" that you refer to seems to be based on your personalBasically theory ofI agree, but it does reduce human beings to _animal_ status: since, >>>>>> we're nothing, but animals, no better than other animals and genetically >>>>>> different by only 1% from chimps.
evolution does not explain:
* what is good or evil, moral or immoral,
difficulty in coping with the idea of there being no significant
*biological* difference between humans and other animals. It's a
foolish point to get hung up on. The *biological* difference between >>>>> humans and other animals is irrelevant, the significant difference
lies in *intellect*.
What makes us human is obviously the ability to identify all traffic lights
in a collection of photos
Do I detect the same frustration as myself with some of these
captchas, especially those with items that are met with in everyday
life *in the USA*?
Some people will argue that intellect is also a product of evolution >>>>> but that is pure speculation at this point in time as there is no
direct evidence to show an evolutionary path for the development of
the unique aspects of human intellect.
That would be quite a radical claim. It seems obvious
"Seems obvious" sounds a bit like Ron Dean and Intelligent Design.
that our
intelligence requires a biological substratum - hence the impact
of brain damage, drugs etc on intelligence. So you'd have to argue
that our brain is not evolved. And you'd also have to discard the
observation of intelligent behaviour by the other apes
You seem to be reducing *intellect* to *intelligent* but I think there
is a significant difference - by intellect, I mean the ability to
reason, to figure things out, to imagine things that don't exist as
opposed to motor functions which have to do with things like muscle
movement and memory.
This difference is illustrated in the work of Wilder Penfield who is
regarded as the pioneer in surgery for epilepsy and developed the
process of carrying out surgery on fully alert patients which allowed
him to observe and record the effect of stimulating various parts of
the brain. In the many thousands of stimulations that he carried out,
he found that all the stimulations were concrete things - moving an
arm or feeling a tingling or sometimes a concrete memory - but there
was never any abstract thought stimulated. He found the same in
observations of patients suffering epileptic seizures - it was always
motor functions that were affected, never the ability to reason. His
experience turned Penfield from a convinced materialist at the start
of his career to a convinced dualist at the end of it.
Wikipedia article is not quite so ,,,umm... biased.
Or are hallucinations and feelings of Deja Vu 'concrete?
Whilst Wikipedia is generally reliable, it is not an authoritative
source. I prefer to check original material. From Penfield himself:
===============================
"For my own part, after years of striving to explain the
mind on the basis of brain-action alone, I have come to
the conclusion that it is simpler (and far easier to be
logical) if one adopts the hypothesis that our being does
consist of two fundamental elements. If that is true, it
could still be true that energy required comes to the mind
during waking hours through the highest brain-mechanism.
Because it seems to me certain that it will always be
quite impossible to explain the mind on the basis of
neuronal action within the brain, and because it seems
to me that the mind develops and matures independently
throughout an individual's life as though it were a continuing
element, and because a computer (which the
brain is) must be programmed and operated by an
agency capable of independent understanding, I am
forced to choose the proposition that our being is to be
explained on the basis of two fundamental elements. This,
to my mind, offers the greatest likelihood of leading us
to the final understanding toward which so many stalwart
scientists strive."
[Penfield, W. (2015) Mystery of the Mind: A Critical Study of
Consciousness and the Human Brain, Princeton University Press, p80 (Originally published 1975)]
================================
My own summary does to some extent reflect the views of Michael Egnor
but I would have hoped that at this stage you might have given me some
credit for not taking at face value anything written by an ID
proponent.
original essay by Egnor which pointed me to Penfield's own writing and
Cobb's book, both of which show that whilst there might have been a
bit of excessive enthusiasm on Egnor's part, what he says about
Penfield is well founded. A reminder that just because ID'ers come up
with some rubbish conclusions, the material they use to reach those conclusions is not necessarily rubbish.
An interesting paper but it reflects what I said about speculation -
And in any case, you now also fall back, at best, to a
"this has not been explained in sufficient detail for my liking" argument -
and I'd say the evolution of intelligence is as much analysed and
discussed as the evolution of other cognitive traits, such as
colour perception
Here a by now somewhat dated overview: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.5034.pdf >>>
lots of 'may' and 'probable' and 'proposed that' in it but little if
any hard evidence. It's also not all that particularly dated, not a
lot has really changed.
I've just finished reading Matthew Cobb's "The Idea of the Brain", a
book I thoroughly recommend to anyone interested in the area of
consciousness.
In the book, he refers back to a meeting of 20 scientists in Quebec in
1953 for a 5-day symposium on 'Brain Mechanisms and Consciousness'.
Opening the symposium, Horace "Tid" Winchell Magoun, regarded as one
of the fathers of neuroscience, warned his colleagues of 'the
head-shaking sympathy with which future investigators will probably
look back upon the groping efforts of the mid-twentieth century, for
there is every indication that the neural basis of consciousness is a
problem that will not be solved quickly'. Cobb observes that "Tid
would probably have been amused to learn that nearly seventy years
later the neural basis of consciousness is still not understood, nor,
the optimism of Science magazine notwithstanding, is there any sign of
an answer on the horizon."
The problem as Cobb sees it is that with the development of technology
like fMRI (functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging), we now have
exponential growth in the mass of raw data available to us but we
don't have a conclusive framework into which we can fit this data. He
points out some of the issues that are still hotly debated such as
localisation of brain function vs distributed; add to that the growing
evidence that 'the mind', however you define it, may exist beyond the
brain as for example with research into the relationship between the
brain and the gut microbiome.
This lack of progress has led to some researchers looking to move
beyond neurology despite a great reluctance to abandon materialist
beliefs - panpsychism, for example, has been attracting growing
attention.
Cobb himself remains a totally convinced materialist who believes we
will eventually figure it all out. He is, however, brutally honest
about how far short of that we currently are:
"For those trying to investigate the question from a strictly
materialist point of view, the gulf between physical and mental
phenomena remains as yawning as it was to Leibniz in the eighteenth
century or to du Bois-Reymond and Tyndall a hundred and fifty years
later. But the fact that there is a gap does not mean it cannot be
bridged."
He admits that whilst he is sure we will find the answers somewhere,
he doesn't really have a clue where that 'somewhere' is or how long it
will take to get there:
Now, I'd grant you that there are methodological difficulties that make this
research particularly challenging, including disagreement on what intelligence is
and how one can measure it, but that is a different issue altogether and simply
shows why we should not expect easy answers.
[...]
--
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 12:01:51 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 02:43:31 -0500, Ron DeanI cannot leave this misunderstanding and misrepresentation, by Jill. I
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
The main argument that I was taking issue was this. "If we descended >>> >from monkeys why are there still monkeys." The very fact that, she
addressed this video in a response to me, right or wrong, I _assumed_ >>>> she thought it represented my position - it never did, it's something >>>> that I've never said or posted.
One more time: Nobody said or implied that was your position; not me, >>> not the person speaking in the video, and not the parties who made it. >>> To the contrary, I explicitly identified the PRATTs you have
expressed, and "why are there still monkeys" was not among them. In
other words, you made all that up, a lie you continue to repeat.
However, this got blown totally out of
proportion
YOU, Ron Dean, are the one who blew it out of proportion, and continue >>> to do so, just to avoid admitting you are inspired by pseudoskeptic
sources.
and I'm accused of lying, dishonesty and deceit.
Apparently you want to leave a legacy of dishonesty, deception, and
incompetence. Not the choice I would have made, but suit yourself.
said just above, I _assumed_, this was her representing my position,
since the video was addressed to me in a response; _not_ that I claimed >> it to actually be the case. Again I said I _assumed...... Furthermore,
I'm not going to allow one person to drive me from TO, a newsgroup that >> I've participated in for years - more than a decade.
You identify no misunderstanding or misrepresentation by jillery.
You fail to acknowledge that your _assumption_ is factually incorrect.
Okay, what I assumed was wrong. She did not purposely or intentionally
lay this on me.
If in fact you don't claim that the speaker in the video was
representing your position, then you have zero basis for your _assumption_, which is how you blew it out of proportion.
The video speaker? She don't know I exist: furthermore she was _not_ referring to Intelligent Design. So, admittedly I misunderstood Jill's intent. I was wrong.
Furthermore, nobody is trying to drive you from TO, and I am not the
only one who identifies your misunderstandings and misrepresentations.
You are not the victim here.
To the contrary, you are the one who repeatedly and falsely and
baselessly accuses me of bearing false witness against you.
I admitted I was mistaken regarding Jill's intent. For this I apologize.
As to being inspired by pseudo skeptics, perhaps this has been the case. >> If there is common views between my views and opinions and these "pseudo >> skeptics", it's because of common observations of flaws and common
observations of failures.
Once again, if your common views were based on valid observations,
then you could have derived similar conclusions from them. Instead,
your common views are based on common misrepresentations and misunderstandings of those observations, which is best explained by
your exposure to their views. Not sure how even you *still* don't understand this.
I realize they, G&E attempted to explain what they observed in the
fossil record _within_ the_ _contest_ of evolution.
Not that I haven't read books primarily by
pseudo skeptic Dr. Denton and pseudo skeptics Dr. Stephen J. Gould and
Dr Niles Eldredge.
The above is a good example of your misrepresentations and misunderstandings. To say Gould and Eldredge are evolution
pseudoskeptics is completely contrary to what they have repeatedly and publicly stated.
I was just being cynical here. I _knew_ both G&E were dedicated and convinced evolutionist. And they strongly opposed and resented the opposition using their words in support of their views. But they pointed
out facts that were virtually ignored since Darwin. The prevailing
absence of gradualism in the appearance of _most_ species and the
unchanged (stasis) nature of these species during their tenure on earth which they explained by punctuated equilibrium.
If anyone were to seriously question the claims of
evolutionist, such difficulties should be obvious. So, it followers
that, there has to be acceptance without questioning in many cases: and >> this is an unscientific approach.
To the contrary, based on your posts, you have no idea what are the
claims of evolutionists, nor how to seriously question them.
I realize that Gould and Eldredge were serious, dedicated and unwavering >> evolution who resented their opposition, skeptics who appealed to their >> works in support of their positions. But G & E were sincere and _honest_ >> enough to draw attention to some of main shortcomings and flaws of
modern evolution.
The one claim you mention from G&E is punctuated equilibrium. This is neither a flaw nor a shortcoming of modern evolution.
Stasis was _not_ what was expected. In the two books, that I have on
hand at this moment, "The Panda's Thumb" copyright: 1980 by Stephen J.
Gould and another book entitled "Punctuated Equilibrium", written by
Gould and copyright: 2007 by the President and fellows of Harvard University.
In Pandas Thumb although written 40+ years Gould points out that "in
most species appear in suddenly in the fossil record with no
intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same region.
[pg-180] "but punctuation may only record an absence of intermediary
data" [pg 124] Punctuated Equilibrium.
The reality of stasis in the fossil record was ignored, although it was brought to Darwin's attention stasis was ignored or seen by
paleontologist as "no data for evolution". But Gould insisted that
"Stasis is data" pg 20-26 Punctuated Equilibrium.
It's quite understandable as to why stasis (no change) was ignored or
seen as no data. But this is exactly what both ID proponents and
scientific creationism would expect.
This has been explained to you many times by many posters. That'swhat makes it a PRATT.
Please explain the abrupt appearance of most species in the rocks with
no intermediate links in earlier strata followed by the no data
nomenclature for stasis in the fossil record.
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
jillery wrote:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 20:06:52 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 12:01:51 -0500, Ron DeanOkay, what I assumed was wrong. She did not purposely or intentionally
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 02:43:31 -0500, Ron DeanI cannot leave this misunderstanding and misrepresentation, by Jill. I >>>> said just above, I _assumed_, this was her representing my position, >>>> since the video was addressed to me in a response; _not_ that I claimed >>>> it to actually be the case. Again I said I _assumed...... Furthermore, >>>> I'm not going to allow one person to drive me from TO, a newsgroup that >>>> I've participated in for years - more than a decade.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
The main argument that I was taking issue was this. "If we descended >>>>> >from monkeys why are there still monkeys." The very fact that, she >>>>>> addressed this video in a response to me, right or wrong, I _assumed_ >>>>>> she thought it represented my position - it never did, it's something >>>>>> that I've never said or posted.
One more time: Nobody said or implied that was your position; not me, >>>>> not the person speaking in the video, and not the parties who made it. >>>>> To the contrary, I explicitly identified the PRATTs you have
expressed, and "why are there still monkeys" was not among them. In >>>>> other words, you made all that up, a lie you continue to repeat.
However, this got blown totally out of
proportion
YOU, Ron Dean, are the one who blew it out of proportion, and continue >>>>> to do so, just to avoid admitting you are inspired by pseudoskeptic >>>>> sources.
and I'm accused of lying, dishonesty and deceit.
Apparently you want to leave a legacy of dishonesty, deception, and >>>>> incompetence. Not the choice I would have made, but suit yourself. >>>>>
You identify no misunderstanding or misrepresentation by jillery.
You fail to acknowledge that your _assumption_ is factually incorrect. >>>
lay this on me.
The video speaker? She don't know I exist: furthermore she was _not_
If in fact you don't claim that the speaker in the video was
representing your position, then you have zero basis for your
_assumption_, which is how you blew it out of proportion.
referring to Intelligent Design.
The above contradicts your prior claims.
So, admittedly I misunderstood Jill's
intent. I was wrong.
Furthermore, nobody is trying to drive you from TO, and I am not theI admitted I was mistaken regarding Jill's intent. For this I apologize.
only one who identifies your misunderstandings and misrepresentations. >>> You are not the victim here.
To the contrary, you are the one who repeatedly and falsely and
baselessly accuses me of bearing false witness against you.
Not good enough. You repeatedly ignored jillery's explicitly expressed intent, accused jillery of bearing false witness against you, and of trying to drive you from TO. Those aren't just mistakes, but are
explicit lies and deceptions.
I realize they, G&E attempted to explain what they observed in theAs to being inspired by pseudo skeptics, perhaps this has been the case.
If there is common views between my views and opinions and these "pseudo
skeptics", it's because of common observations of flaws and common
observations of failures.
Once again, if your common views were based on valid observations,
then you could have derived similar conclusions from them. Instead,
your common views are based on common misrepresentations and
misunderstandings of those observations, which is best explained by
your exposure to their views. Not sure how even you *still* don't
understand this.
fossil record _within_ the_ _contest_ of evolution.
You continue to evade the point. If you claim 2+2=4, that's
consistent with arithmetic rules. OTOH if you claim evolution is
atheism, that's a claim contrary to any recognized definitions. When
you claim there are no transitional fossils, that's a claim contrary
to fact and isn't derived from actual observation.
I was just being cynical here. I _knew_ both G&E were dedicated andNot that I haven't read books primarily by
pseudo skeptic Dr. Denton and pseudo skeptics Dr. Stephen J. Gould and >>>> Dr Niles Eldredge.
The above is a good example of your misrepresentations and
misunderstandings. To say Gould and Eldredge are evolution
pseudoskeptics is completely contrary to what they have repeatedly and >>> publicly stated.
convinced evolutionist. And they strongly opposed and resented the
opposition using their words in support of their views. But they pointed >> out facts that were virtually ignored since Darwin. The prevailing
absence of gradualism in the appearance of _most_ species and the
unchanged (stasis) nature of these species during their tenure on earth >> which they explained by punctuated equilibrium.
NOTA says anything about evolution's flaws and failures. Your
repeated misrepresentations of G&E don't support your expressed lines
of reasoning.
You accuse me of misrepresentation G&E, but I quote them word for word,
so I fail to understand how this misrepresents them?
Stasis was _not_ what was expected. In the two books, that I have onIf anyone were to seriously question the claims of
evolutionist, such difficulties should be obvious. So, it followers >>>> that, there has to be acceptance without questioning in many cases: and >>>> this is an unscientific approach.
To the contrary, based on your posts, you have no idea what are the
claims of evolutionists, nor how to seriously question them.
I realize that Gould and Eldredge were serious, dedicated and unwavering
evolution who resented their opposition, skeptics who appealed to their >>>> works in support of their positions. But G & E were sincere and _honest_
enough to draw attention to some of main shortcomings and flaws of
modern evolution.
The one claim you mention from G&E is punctuated equilibrium. This is >>> neither a flaw nor a shortcoming of modern evolution.
hand at this moment, "The Panda's Thumb" copyright: 1980 by Stephen J.
Gould and another book entitled "Punctuated Equilibrium", written by
Gould and copyright: 2007 by the President and fellows of Harvard
University.
In Pandas Thumb although written 40+ years Gould points out that "in
most species appear in suddenly in the fossil record with no
intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same region.
[pg-180] "but punctuation may only record an absence of intermediary
data" [pg 124] Punctuated Equilibrium.
The reality of stasis in the fossil record was ignored, although it was >> brought to Darwin's attention stasis was ignored or seen by
paleontologist as "no data for evolution". But Gould insisted that
"Stasis is data" pg 20-26 Punctuated Equilibrium.
It's quite understandable as to why stasis (no change) was ignored or
seen as no data. But this is exactly what both ID proponents and
scientific creationism would expect.
Even if the fossil record was consistent with what ID and scientific creationism(?) expect, which it isn't, the fossil record is also consistent with what paleontologists expect.
OF course, stasis, stability and no change is what ID would expect.
to the contrary while stasis was brought up to Darwin, it was ignored
until except by E. Myer, and later stasis was revisited by G&E.
You insist Punctuated
Equilibrium is contrary to evolution because you have a perverse misunderstanding of what G&E and evolution say.
This has been explained to you many times by many posters. That'sPlease explain the abrupt appearance of most species in the rocks with
what makes it a PRATT.
no intermediate links in earlier strata followed by the no data
nomenclature for stasis in the fossil record.
Short answer: You have no idea what qualifies as "intermediate links"
an "no data". If you really want a longer answer, refer to replies to
your previous posts, or even better, read some authoritative books on
the subject.
I've read books by Gould and Eldredge, what I've written is from the
horse's mouth!
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
to believe and searching only for evidence to back up what you choose to believe is pushing yourself into being brainwashed.[]
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 16:29:31 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip stuff not commented>
You accuse me of misrepresentation G&E, but I quote them word for word, >> so I fail to understand how this misrepresents them?I was just being cynical here. I _knew_ both G&E were dedicated and >>>> convinced evolutionist. And they strongly opposed and resented theNot that I haven't read books primarily by
pseudo skeptic Dr. Denton and pseudo skeptics Dr. Stephen J. Gould and
Dr Niles Eldredge.
The above is a good example of your misrepresentations and
misunderstandings. To say Gould and Eldredge are evolution
pseudoskeptics is completely contrary to what they have repeatedly and >>>>> publicly stated.
opposition using their words in support of their views. But they pointed
out facts that were virtually ignored since Darwin. The prevailing
absence of gradualism in the appearance of _most_ species and the
unchanged (stasis) nature of these species during their tenure on earth >>>> which they explained by punctuated equilibrium.
NOTA says anything about evolution's flaws and failures. Your
repeated misrepresentations of G&E don't support your expressed lines >>> of reasoning.
The words they published are not the issue. Instead, the issue is
what they meant by them.
Really! Is it you position that G&E were incapable of expressing what
they meant!
G&E themselves say that your expressed
understanding of their words misrepresents what they meant. Not sureYou're telling me, that I'm wrong to accept the words of G&E, because
how even you still don't understand this. >
they misrepresented, by their own words, what they meant! So, you're
saying I'm wrong to trust Gould and Eldredge.
OF course, stasis, stability and no change is what ID would expect.Stasis was _not_ what was expected. In the two books, that I have on >>>> hand at this moment, "The Panda's Thumb" copyright: 1980 by Stephen J. >>>> Gould and another book entitled "Punctuated Equilibrium", written by >>>> Gould and copyright: 2007 by the President and fellows of HarvardIf anyone were to seriously question the claims of
evolutionist, such difficulties should be obvious. So, it followers >>>>>> that, there has to be acceptance without questioning in many cases: and
this is an unscientific approach.
To the contrary, based on your posts, you have no idea what are the >>>>> claims of evolutionists, nor how to seriously question them.
I realize that Gould and Eldredge were serious, dedicated and unwavering
evolution who resented their opposition, skeptics who appealed to their
works in support of their positions. But G & E were sincere and _honest_
enough to draw attention to some of main shortcomings and flaws of >>>>>> modern evolution.
The one claim you mention from G&E is punctuated equilibrium. This is >>>>> neither a flaw nor a shortcoming of modern evolution.
University.
In Pandas Thumb although written 40+ years Gould points out that "in >>>> most species appear in suddenly in the fossil record with no
intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same region.
[pg-180] "but punctuation may only record an absence of intermediary >>>> data" [pg 124] Punctuated Equilibrium.
The reality of stasis in the fossil record was ignored, although it was >>>> brought to Darwin's attention stasis was ignored or seen by
paleontologist as "no data for evolution". But Gould insisted that
"Stasis is data" pg 20-26 Punctuated Equilibrium.
It's quite understandable as to why stasis (no change) was ignored or >>>> seen as no data. But this is exactly what both ID proponents and
scientific creationism would expect.
Even if the fossil record was consistent with what ID and scientific
creationism(?) expect, which it isn't, the fossil record is also
consistent with what paleontologists expect.
Even if that is so, then you and other cdesign proponentsists are in
for a rude shock. The fossil record demonstrates abundant and often
abrupt change.
But
to the contrary while stasis was brought up to Darwin, it was ignored
until except by E. Myer, and later stasis was revisited by G&E.
Once again, G&E say their stasis is but a variation in time of
standard evolution. There are zero cases of species that have
remained completely unchanged since their origins. Even the record of so-called living fossils documents change.
You insist PunctuatedI've read books by Gould and Eldredge, what I've written is from the
Equilibrium is contrary to evolution because you have a perverse
misunderstanding of what G&E and evolution say.
This has been explained to you many times by many posters. That's >>>>> what makes it a PRATT.Please explain the abrupt appearance of most species in the rocks with >>>> no intermediate links in earlier strata followed by the no data
nomenclature for stasis in the fossil record.
Short answer: You have no idea what qualifies as "intermediate links" >>> an "no data". If you really want a longer answer, refer to replies to >>> your previous posts, or even better, read some authoritative books on >>> the subject.
horse's mouth!
Once again, the words they published are not the issue. Instead, the
issue is what they meant by them. By analogy, it's as if you read the Bible and conclude there should exist talking donkeys.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
jillery wrote:
[...]
Even if the fossil record was consistent with what ID and scientific
creationism(?) expect, which it isn't, the fossil record is also
consistent with what paleontologists expect.
OF course, stasis, stability and no change is what ID would expect.
But
to the contrary while stasis was brought up to Darwin, it was ignored
until except by E. Myer, and later stasis was revisited by G&E.
Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 20:06:52 -0500, Ron DeanBut when these species leave the record they look much the same with
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
In Pandas Thumb although written 40+ years Gould points out that
"(In) most species appear (in) suddenly in the fossil record with no
intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same region.
[pg-180]
But those abruptly appearing species themselves often constitute
intermediate forms between taxa above the species level.
little or no change when they first appeared.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 115:25:12 |
| Calls: | 6,701 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,235 |
| Messages: | 5,349,057 |