oldest

[wiki trix]

OK. What is the oldest gene in the human genome?

[Ron O]

On Mar 7, 9:56�pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK. What is the oldest gene in the human genome?

Oldest existing genes? Probably tRNA genes.

Ron Okimoto

[wiki trix]

Would they go back 3 billion years?

Actually, my question is not clear, as the same gene goes through
mutations, and then is it still the same gene? But I am thinking that
all genes are over 3 billion years old.

I also wonder what would be the oldest cells in a human. Neural?
Something else?

[Ron O]

None of the original genetic material exists in current lifeforms (pre
DNA and RNA self replicators). There was likely a transition to RNA
and DNA as the genetic material sometime after the first self
replicating molecules came into being. So if any of those
transitional genes still exist, my guess is that they are RNA genes
that could have directly transferred to the new genetic mechanism.
Transfer RNA was probably needed before there were any genes to
translate, and my guess is that ribosomal RNA replaced an existing
mechanism that used tRNAs in translation of information from RNA to
protein. I just see tRNAs being used to make peptides before there
was a genetic code. Since they are RNA they could have survived the
transition to RNA and DNA being the genetic material.

In this scenario tRNAs would have existed over 3 billion years ago at
a time before there was a genetic code, or ribosomes to translate them
using the genetic code.

Ron Okimoto

[Steven L.]

On 3/8/2013 7:53 AM, Ron O wrote:
> On Mar 8, 6:15 am, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 7, 11:18 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 7, 9:56 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> OK. What is the oldest gene in the human genome?
>>
>>> Oldest existing genes? Probably tRNA genes.
>>
>>> Ron Okimoto
>>
>> Would they go back 3 billion years?
>>
>> Actually, my question is not clear, as the same gene goes through
>> mutations, and then is it still the same gene? But I am thinking that
>> all genes are over 3 billion years old.
>>
>> I also wonder what would be the oldest cells in a human. Neural?
>> Something else?
>
> None of the original genetic material exists in current lifeforms (pre
> DNA and RNA self replicators). There was likely a transition to RNA
> and DNA as the genetic material sometime after the first self
> replicating molecules came into being. So if any of those
> transitional genes still exist, my guess is that they are RNA genes
> that could have directly transferred to the new genetic mechanism.

But the new genetic mechanism would not have worked at all without the
mechanism of DNA replication. And that mechanism requires enzymes to
unstitch the double helix and assemble nucleotides onto the two halves
to make two new double helices.

I would have thought that the genes that code for all those enzymes
would come first. How else can DNA replicate itself?

We know that under the right conditions, some forms of RNA can
self-replicate autocatalytically, without enzymes. But I never heard any
scientists claim the same thing about DNA.



--
Steven L.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Friday, 8 March 2013 14:27:19 UTC, Steven L. wrote:
> We know that under the right conditions, some forms of RNA can
> self-replicate autocatalytically, without enzymes. But I never
> heard any scientists claim the same thing about DNA.

I'm not a scientist, but, try on for size the idea that DNA is[*]
a more sophisticated way for RNA to replicate itself.

[*] And so is Craigslist (in some but not all cases).

[Robert Carnegie]

On Friday, 8 March 2013 12:15:43 UTC, wiki trix wrote:
> Actually, my question is not clear, as the same gene goes through
> mutations, and then is it still the same gene? But I am thinking
> that all genes are over 3 billion years old.

Only - perhaps - if you assume that there is a 3 billion year old
common ancestor of life and that all genes are counted as descending
from cthat ancestor's genes.

For instance, colour vision is supported by different genes to
produce sensitivity in the human eye to different colours. Those
may be variations on the same original gene, but their individual
effects are distinct. So if you count them as different, then at
least one of them is relatively young as a distinct gene, and
animals outside our near lineage don't have it. Let's see - is it
that most mammal eyes are sensitive to two distinct colours, versus
our three? Something like that.

On the other hand, a gene that an organism fundamentally relies on
in order to exist at all is "conserved" as long as it's needed.
You'd expect that this also will be a gene that is substantially
the same in a wide range of living things.

For instance, there is a gene for the production of vitamin C in the
body, that humans and closely related primates do /not/ have.
We have what appears to be a broken veesion of it. This seems to
be because we have or had a diet that includes vitamin C, and we
don't need to make it inside our bodies, and so the gene /wasn't/
"conserved".

> I also wonder what would be the oldest cells in a human. Neural?
> Something else?

Maybe something fairly fundamental like blood cells...

Or, do we have much in common with a sponge? (the animal... sort of)

[Stephen Wolstenholme]

On Fri, 8 Mar 2013 06:53:13 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

>I'm not a scientist, but, try on for size the idea that DNA is[*]
>a more sophisticated way for RNA to replicate itself.
>
>[*] And so is Craigslist (in some but not all cases).

What's "Craigslist"?

Steve

--
EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus. http://www.easynn.com
SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks. http://www.swingnn.com
JustNN. Just Neural Networks. http://www.justnn.com

[Burkhard]

:o)

[Robert Carnegie]

On Friday, 8 March 2013 15:22:55 UTC, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Mar 2013 06:53:13 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> > I'm not a scientist, but, try on for size the idea that DNA is[*]
> > a more sophisticated way for RNA to replicate itself.
> >
> > [*] And so is Craigslist (in some but not all cases).
>
> What's "Craigslist"?

See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craigslist#Personals>. But:

"The site has been found to be particularly appealing to help connect
lesbians, and gay men with one another"

Well, what's the point of that?? *shrug*

Still, apparently it's popular!

[Desertphile]

On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 19:56:15 -0800 (PST), wiki trix
<wiki...@gmail.com> wrote:

> OK. What is the oldest gene in the human genome?

No.


--
Nemo me impune lacessit.
"Your use of the scientific method in an argument is juvenile
at best and idiotic at worst." -- Larry Jones

[David Iain Greig]

wiki trix <wiki...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK. What is the oldest gene in the human genome?
>

Paul Eugene Gans.

--D.

[wiki trix]

On Mar 8, 12:11 pm, David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:

> wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > OK. What is the oldest gene in the human genome?
>
> Paul Eugene Gans.

Sounds like a retrovirus.

[Bob Berger]

In article <cabal-khd64p$1ph6$3...@darwin.ediacara.org>, David Iain Greig says...

If you don't stop making unkindly comments about us ancients, I'll report you to
the moderator.

[Ron O]

On Mar 8, 11:11�am, David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:

> wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > OK. What is the oldest gene in the human genome?
>
> Paul Eugene Gans.
>
> --D.

Do eugenes count as old genes or just old new genes?

Ron Okimoto

[Earle Jones]

In article <e63dc6c7-c373-4bdb...@googlegroups.com>,

*
There are developments that must have occurred long before cells came
into being. For example, the amphiphilic molecule had to evolve. An
amphiphilic molecule has an affinity for oil (lipid) on one end and
water on the other. It's what allows stable mixtures of oil and water
(mayonnaise, for example.) Such molecules must exist in the cell wall,
which must support oil on one side and water on the other.

There is a little book (fascinating book) by Harold Morowitz called
"Mayonnaise and the Origin of Life" (Amazon $9.00 paperback) where he
talks about all this.

The most common example around the house is lecithin, which you will see
on the labels of a lot of food products. Eggyolks are also full of
amphiphilic molecules, which is why we add them to oil and water (weak
acetic acid) to make mayonnaise.

earle
*
Another entertaining book by Morowitz: "The Thermodynamics of Pizza."
Morowitz has a PhD from Yale in Bioenergetics and teaches Biology at
George Mason University.

[Earle Jones]

In article <7f0kj859jga3jtt26...@4ax.com>,

Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@npsl1.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 8 Mar 2013 06:53:13 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >I'm not a scientist, but, try on for size the idea that DNA is[*]
> >a more sophisticated way for RNA to replicate itself.
> >
> >[*] And so is Craigslist (in some but not all cases).
>
> What's "Craigslist"?
>
> Steve

*
It is, like "eharmony" and "match.com" a convenient way to replicate DNA.

earle
*

[Ron O]

All of this is just speculation. When everything is said and done the
most implausible explanation could be the one that was used because we
are only dealing with one chance occurrence. I don't follow origin of
life research so this is only my opinion. I have not seen this model
published, so if I am stealing someone else's idea it is just out of
ignorance.

A lot of things have to happen before DNA can replicate. One hint is
that DNA replication requires an RNA primer to be laid down before
initiation of DNA replication.

The current thinking is that RNA came before DNA. You still need a
lot of things to make RNA even if RNA could be a genetic material.
Something made the nucleotides to make the first polymers of RNA.
These somethings were likely not RNA polymers. I don't think that
anyone knows what the first self replicating molecules were made of.
They had to make more copies of themselves, and do it with some
accuracy, but inaccurately enough to create a diversity of self
replicating entities.

We know that such complex molecules would have had a complex three
dimensional surface. This surface could have served multiple
catalytic functions, so my notion is that groups of self replicating
units would evolve so that each had secondary functions such as making
purines or pyrimidines from whatever was available as well as making
more copies of themselves. Once something like a lipid bilayer could
form (you probably need self replicators with the secondary function
of making lipids) you can get bags of self replicators that would
likely just bleb off when the bags (proto cells) got too large.

Somewhere in this type of mess of bags of independent self replicators
with multiple secondary functions you would evolve the first RNA
producing bags of self replicators. An RNA polymer has the property
that it can be used to make a copy of RNA or DNA that can be used to
make an exact copy of what was copied. DNA may be a better template
to make RNA from, so there could have been a fairly rapid evolution to
making DNA templates for RNA production.

tRNAs come in because they can be used to make peptides. So if the
first self replicators used peptides to make themselves or do
something useful, crafty self replicators might evolve a means to use
tRNAs to make peptides more efficiently. The original tRNAs would
likely replicate as RNAs, but probably lacked the anticodon and were
just used to make peptides using some other template (probably the
surface of some other self replicator). If these tRNAs were made off
a set template they could evolve in their sequence and specific tRNA
sequences could have been acylated with specific amino acids expanding
the kinds of peptides that might be made with some degree of
specificity.

Ribosomal RNA likely evolved as a more efficient means of using tRNAs
to make peptides. My guess is that once DNA had appeared on the scene
to be used as a template to make RNA polymers like tRNAs that the DNA
could mutate and increase in size, and some of the RNA made might not
serve any function, but could be used as random template. The genetic
code could start evolving as tRNA might have one part of themselves
coopted as an anticodon that could be used to make peptides based on
RNA nucleotide sequence template. It looks like the first code was
two bases instead of three, but there was either a spacer nucleotide
or there was an expansion phase from two to three nucleotide codons.
Making peptides off these crude templates would be going on in the
background of the bag of multiple self replicators with secondary
functions, and the peptide making machinery might be selected for
because they made raw material for the self replicators or did useful
things in the proto cells.

The important part of this scenario is that it is the bunch of self
replcators with secondary functions that are heart of the proto cell.
Once DNA arrives and RNA templates can be made that do things like
tRNAs or ribosomal RNA. They could also be used as mRNA templates to
make larger more complex polypeptide proteins. Once longer
polypeptides could be replicated with accuracy the polypeptides could
evolve functions that replace the secondary functions of the original
self replicators. This creates a path from the original self
replicators to genetic information in the form of DNA.

1. Self replicators evolve that also have secondary functions due to
their complex surfaces.
2. Groups of such self replicators evolve the ability to make
glucose, amino acids, RNA nucleotides and RNA polymers etc.
3. Short RNA polymers could be replicated off RNA or possibly DNA
templates and set sequence tRNAs could evolve. It is the start of
nucleotide genetic material. The original RNA and DNA polymerases
could be self replicating units with that secondary function.
4. The first tRNAs would not have anticodons, but be used by the
protocells self replicators to make peptides. They would start out as
acylated RNA molecules that were used to transfer amino acids to
peptide chains.
5. With stable but not perfect replication tRNA sequences could be
selected for that could be charged with specific amino acids and could
be used to more accurately reproduce needed peptides. My guess is
that it could be part of the recognition sequence to specifically
acylate a tRNA that might be coopted as the initial anticodon.
6. Ribosomal RNA evolves that can be replicated off a stable RNA or
DNA template that can use the tRNAs to make peptides. These ribosomal
RNAs would likely begin to replace some of the original self
replicators that had been doing the same thing.
7. RNA would start to be used as mRNAs to more accurately replicate
polypeptides that would be selected to have functions already being
done by self replicating units with those secondary functions. The
existing specifically charge tRNAs could evolve anticodons used to
read the mRNA template. The RNA/DNA genetic templates would likely
become a more accurate means of storing needed information.
8. The genetic code would evolve in this fashion replacing the
functions of the individual self replicators as proteins evolve that
duplicate the existing functions. With the self replicators as backup
the genetic code could evolve in steps until it was good enough to not
just produce useful peptides for the cell, but replace the individual
self replicators with more efficiently stored instructions to do what
needs to be done using protein polypeptides instead of the original
self replicators.

Things would be much more complex than this summary, but it is a way
that the proto cell could slowly evolve the functions it needs to be a
viable reproducing cell, and evolve the means to switch over from the
original self replicators to DNA an RNA based genetics. It doesn't
have to be linear. Different bags of self replicators could be fusing
and blebbing off as the genetic code was evolving bringing in their
own templates and tRNA anticodons. The code could evolve as different
protocells contributed what had evolved in their little part of the
biosphere and contribute what RNAs and peptides that they could
accurately code for.

Ron Okimoto

[wiki trix]

Wow. Thanks for your full answer.
OK. So was the first self-replicator a mono-culture, or was it more
competitive? High probability given required resources?
Has this been shown in vitro? I assume not.

[J. J. Lodder]

I would give you my full support,
if only I could remember his name,

Jan

[Nashton]

<snip>

Yep, just like the bulk of the ToE, which serves no purposes with zero
applications in modern medicine, other than to further a specific
metaphysical world view.

[Burkhard]

On Mar 9, 12:43�pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> On 13-03-08 10:23 PM, Ron O wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 8, 8:27 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> On 3/8/2013 7:53 AM, Ron O wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 8, 6:15 am, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Mar 7, 11:18 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Mar 7, 9:56 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> OK. What is the oldest gene in the human genome?
>

> >>>>> Oldest existing genes? �Probably tRNA genes.

>
> >>>>> Ron Okimoto
>
> >>>> Would they go back 3 billion years?
>
> >>>> Actually, my question is not clear, as the same gene goes through
> >>>> mutations, and then is it still the same gene? But I am thinking that
> >>>> all genes are over 3 billion years old.
>
> >>>> I also wonder what would be the oldest cells in a human. Neural?
> >>>> Something else?
>
> >>> None of the original genetic material exists in current lifeforms (pre

> >>> DNA and RNA self replicators). �There was likely a transition to RNA

> >>> and DNA as the genetic material sometime after the first self

> >>> replicating molecules came into being. �So if any of those

> >>> transitional genes still exist, my guess is that they are RNA genes
> >>> that could have directly transferred to the new genetic mechanism.
>
> >> But the new genetic mechanism would not have worked at all without the

> >> mechanism of DNA replication. �And that mechanism requires enzymes to

> >> unstitch the double helix and assemble nucleotides onto the two halves
> >> to make two new double helices.
>
> >> I would have thought that the genes that code for all those enzymes

> >> would come first. �How else can DNA replicate itself?

>
> >> We know that under the right conditions, some forms of RNA can
> >> self-replicate autocatalytically, without enzymes. But I never heard any
> >> scientists claim the same thing about DNA.
>
> >> --
> >> Steven L.
>
> > All of this is just speculation.
>
> <snip>
>
> Yep, just like the bulk of the ToE, which serves no purposes with zero
> applications in modern medicine

Apart from cancer prevention
Peto's Paradox: evolution's prescription for cancer prevention ,
Aleah F. Caulin, Carlo C. Maley Trends in Ecology & Evolution - 1
April 2011 (Vol. 26, Issue 4, pp. 175-182)

Or developing better nutrition and exercise regimes
Leonard W. R. 2008 Lifestyle, diet, and disease: comparative
perspectives on the determinants of chronic health risks. In Evolution
in health and disease (eds Stearns S. C., Koella J. C.), pp. 265�277,
2nd edn. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Developing better diagnostic tools to identify genetic diseases
Kidd K. K., Kidd J. R. 2008 Human genetic variation of medical
significance. In Evolution in health and disease (eds Stearns S. C.,
Koella J. C.), pp. 51�62, 2nd edn. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.

Better disgnostic tools to identify people at risk of cardiovascular
diseases
Leonard W. R. 2008 Lifestyle, diet, and disease: comparative
perspectives on the determinants of chronic health risks. In Evolution
in health and disease (eds Stearns S. C., Koella J. C.), pp. 265�277,
2nd edn. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Developing new cures for autoimmune diseses by understanding the co -
evolution of bacteria and our immune system (old friend hypothesis)
Fleming J. O. 2011 Helminths and multiple sclerosis: will old friends
give us new treatments for MS? J. Neuroimmunol. 233, 3�5. doi:10.1016/
j.jneuroim.2011.01.003 (doi:10.1016/j.jneuroim.2011.01.003)

Cancer risk prediction
Frank S. A. 2010 Somatic evolutionary genomics: mutations during
development cause highly variable genetic mosaicism with risk of
cancer and neurodegeneration. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 107, 1725�
1730. doi:10.1073/pnas.0909343106 (doi:10.1073/pnas.0909343106)

And countless others

[Ron O]

It would not be a monoculture because the proto cells would be
selected for diversity over time as the self replicators made mistakes
in self replication. They would be expected to evolve just like a DNA
molecule that is not perfectly replicated. The less competitive would
lose out in the resource department. The ones that evolved new ways
to utilize resouces would do better, just like today. There just
would not be the genetic code as we know it today. In the beginning
there wouldn't be DNA or RNA.

If they could do this in vitro it wouldn't be a secret.

Ron Okimoto

[Ron O]

Hey, NashT you aren't dead. Mentally disabled, but still kicking.

NashT explain why modern medical research is using the other great ape
genomes to determine what the ancestral sequence was so that they can
determine the mutations that occur in our population, and estimate
their effects so that they can determine the genetic basis of some
diseases? Why does that work if there never was an ancestral
sequence? Really, just because 95% of the population have a certain
sequence doesn't mean that the 5% are the mutants. 95% could have the
mutant allele due to evolution of the population. So why does it
work?

Ron Okimoto

[Nashton]

What ever made you think I was dead? I have a life outside of the
Usenet, unlike you. How many thousands of posts do you post every year,
Rony boy?

Mentally disabled, but still kicking.

Lash out, Rony. I'll be your punching board.

>
> NashT explain why modern medical research is using the other great ape
> genomes to determine what the ancestral sequence was so that they can
> determine the mutations that occur in our population, and estimate
> their effects so that they can determine the genetic basis of some
> diseases? Why does that work if there never was an ancestral
> sequence? Really, just because 95% of the population have a certain
> sequence doesn't mean that the 5% are the mutants. 95% could have the
> mutant allele due to evolution of the population. So why does it
> work?

You're ranting. Fact of the matter, Rony boy, is that the ToE is not
even an afterthought in most of modern medicine and pharma.



>
> Ron Okimoto
>

[Nashton]

On 13-03-09 9:07 AM, Burkhard wrote:

> On Mar 9, 12:43 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>> On 13-03-08 10:23 PM, Ron O wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 8, 8:27 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>> On 3/8/2013 7:53 AM, Ron O wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Mar 8, 6:15 am, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 7, 11:18 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 7, 9:56 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> OK. What is the oldest gene in the human genome?
>>

>>>>>>> Oldest existing genes? Probably tRNA genes.

>>
>>>>>>> Ron Okimoto
>>
>>>>>> Would they go back 3 billion years?
>>
>>>>>> Actually, my question is not clear, as the same gene goes through
>>>>>> mutations, and then is it still the same gene? But I am thinking that
>>>>>> all genes are over 3 billion years old.
>>
>>>>>> I also wonder what would be the oldest cells in a human. Neural?
>>>>>> Something else?
>>
>>>>> None of the original genetic material exists in current lifeforms (pre

>>>>> DNA and RNA self replicators). There was likely a transition to RNA

>>>>> and DNA as the genetic material sometime after the first self

>>>>> replicating molecules came into being. So if any of those

>>>>> transitional genes still exist, my guess is that they are RNA genes
>>>>> that could have directly transferred to the new genetic mechanism.
>>
>>>> But the new genetic mechanism would not have worked at all without the

>>>> mechanism of DNA replication. And that mechanism requires enzymes to

>>>> unstitch the double helix and assemble nucleotides onto the two halves
>>>> to make two new double helices.
>>
>>>> I would have thought that the genes that code for all those enzymes

>>>> would come first. How else can DNA replicate itself?

>>
>>>> We know that under the right conditions, some forms of RNA can
>>>> self-replicate autocatalytically, without enzymes. But I never heard any
>>>> scientists claim the same thing about DNA.
>>
>>>> --
>>>> Steven L.
>>
>>> All of this is just speculation.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Yep, just like the bulk of the ToE, which serves no purposes with zero
>> applications in modern medicine

<snip>

>
> And countless others

But of course there are countless others. ;)
For the exception of antibiotic resistance (can you say
micro-evolution?), virulence and super-bugs, it *is* useless.

But then again what would you know on this subject, you're a fanguuurl
layperson that can use Google without understanding the implications of
what you dig up and paste on the Usenet.

>
>
>
>
> , other than to further a specific
>> metaphysical world view.

Nothing to say on this point?
>
>

[jillery]

On Fri, 8 Mar 2013 18:23:30 -0800 (PST), Ron O <roki...@cox.net>
wrote:

The above is an excellent summary. It addresses the logical flaw
unstated in "what came first?" type questions. That cells use complex
protein machinery to build DNA to build complex protein machinery does
not suggest that such system must have had intelligent designers.
Biology is chemistry is physics. Complex organic compounds form in
interstellar space and in laboratory beakers. The creation of all of
the basic building blocks for life on Earth have known natural
chemical pathways. The incorporation of complex molecules within
self-organizing lipid "bubbles" has been observed. So many specific
steps in the process of "goo to you by way of the zoo" have been
identified, that's it's perverse for anybody to continue to deny its
reality.

[Burkhard]

Snipping of all the evidence that once again shows Nashton can' cope
with reality noted

>
>
> > And countless others
>
> But of course there are countless others. ;)

Here a few more,for you to snip as they threaten your worldview:

Faster analysis of newly emerging diseases and hence faster reaction
to epidemics
Smith G., Vijaykrishna D., Bahl J., Lycett S. 2009 Origins and
evolutionary genomics of the 2009 swine-origin H1N1 influenza A
epidemic. Nature 459, 1122–1126.

Informing the optimal way for Health systems to respond to them
Althouse B. M., Bergstrom T. C., Bergstrom C. T. 2010 A public choice
framework for controlling transmissible and evolving diseases. Proc.
Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 1696–1701.

Finding sustainable anti-microbial intervention
Levin B., Bull J. 2004 Population and evolutionary dynamics of phage
therapy. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2, 166–173. doi:10.1038/nrmicro822 (doi:
10.1038/nrmicro822)

Developing better Hormonal treatment of anxiety and stress
Lacreuse A., King H. M., Kurdziel L. B., Partan S. R., Caldwell K. M.,
Chiavetta M. R., Millette M. M., Meyer J. S., Grow D. R. 2010
Testosterone may increase selective attention to threat in young male
macaques. Horm. Behav. 58, 854–863.

> For the exception of antibiotic resistance (can you say
> micro-evolution?), virulence and super-bugs, it *is* useless.
>
> But then again what would you know on this subject, you're a fanguuurl
> layperson that can use Google without understanding the implications of
> what you dig up and paste on the Usenet.
>
>
>
> > , other than to further a specific
> >> metaphysical world view.
>
> Nothing to say on this point?
>
>

Not really no. If I felt the need to respond to every inanity posted
on the net, I'd never get any work done

>
>
>
>

[Ron O]

Still mentally disabled and can't count too.

>
> > NashT explain why modern medical research is using the other great ape
> > genomes to determine what the ancestral sequence was so that they can
> > determine the mutations that occur in our population, and estimate
> > their effects so that they can determine the genetic basis of some
> > diseases?  Why does that work if there never was an ancestral
> > sequence?  Really, just because 95% of the population have a certain
> > sequence doesn't mean that the 5% are the mutants.  95% could have the
> > mutant allele due to evolution of the population.  So why does it
> > work?
>
> You're ranting. Fact of the matter, Rony boy, is that the ToE is not
> even an afterthought in most of modern medicine and pharma.

You keep making this claim, but you can't say how your option is any
better? Even what you call an afterthought is better than nothing.
When is something nothing? Only to you.

Ron Okimoto
>
> > Ron Okimoto

[wiki trix]

Applications specifically in modern medicine is important to you? How
strange....

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 8 Mar 2013 16:00:39 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ron O
<roki...@cox.net>:

>On Mar 8, 11:11 am, David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
>> wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > OK. What is the oldest gene in the human genome?
>>
>> Paul Eugene Gans.

>Do eugenes count as old genes or just old new genes?

On a given Saturday night, and given enough beer, they
probably count as tight genes.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

[Paul J Gans]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>On Fri, 8 Mar 2013 16:00:39 -0800 (PST), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ron O
><roki...@cox.net>:

>>On Mar 8, 11:11?am, David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
>>> wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > OK. What is the oldest gene in the human genome?
>>>
>>> Paul Eugene Gans.

>>Do eugenes count as old genes or just old new genes?

>On a given Saturday night, and given enough beer, they
>probably count as tight genes.

I've got both kinds, depending on my current diameter.


--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Nashton]

And this coming from someone as angry and indignant as you?

LOL!

>
>>
>>> NashT explain why modern medical research is using the other great ape
>>> genomes to determine what the ancestral sequence was so that they can
>>> determine the mutations that occur in our population, and estimate
>>> their effects so that they can determine the genetic basis of some
>>> diseases? Why does that work if there never was an ancestral
>>> sequence? Really, just because 95% of the population have a certain
>>> sequence doesn't mean that the 5% are the mutants. 95% could have the
>>> mutant allele due to evolution of the population. So why does it
>>> work?
>>
>> You're ranting. Fact of the matter, Rony boy, is that the ToE is not
>> even an afterthought in most of modern medicine and pharma.
>
> You keep making this claim, but you can't say how your option is any
> better? Even what you call an afterthought is better than nothing.
> When is something nothing? Only to you.

I never said any option was better. I just stated that the ToE is
utterly useless.

So are you.


>
> Ron Okimoto
>>
>>> Ron Okimoto
>
>

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

On Mar 8, 3:56�am, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK. What is the oldest gene in the human genome?

I see you are still there and of course you were joking when you said
that you were going too, as John Wilkins.
Regarding your question �What is the oldest gene in the human genome?�
you admitted later on that it was not clear: I wonder what you are
looking for actually?

[jillery]

On Sat, 9 Mar 2013 09:26:36 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

This is a typical Nashton trolling tactic. He demands much, and
provides nothing in return.

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

For someone who admits that he doesn't follow origin of life research
you seem to have a quite preconceived and exhaustive opinion on the
question.

I think useful to specify the following about the RNA world
hypothesis:
“The most widely held theories regarding the origin of life have
usually assumed that life began with the spontaneous appearance of
large molecule” such as nucleic acids and proteins. “RNA, in
particular, has been favored because it combines the genetic
capabilities of nucleic acids with the catalytic abilities of a
protein” (Shapiro 2006). However “the problems associated with the RNA
world hypothesis are well known” (Benhardt 2012).

Actually “the de novo appearance of oligonucleotides on the primitive
earth would have been a near miracle” (Joyce and Orgel 1999). Then
“The idea that RNA was ‘invented’ by a simpler genetic system is now a
popular one, but no convincing precursor system has been
described” (Orgel 2004). “Therefore, the RNA-first hypothesis
continues to appear in many accounts of the origin of life” (Shapiro
2006).

“RNA is an extremely complex molecule, with four different nitrogen-
containing heterocycles hanging off a backbone of alternating
phosphate and D-ribose groups” (Benhardt 2012). For example, there is
some probability for the formation of sugars from formaldehyde under
alkaline conditions in the presence of divalent metal ions. This “has
been studied intensively, and the complexity of the product mixture is
notorious” (Orgel 2000). According to Leslie Orgel “the reactions
would constitute a simple autocatalytic metabolic cycle if they could
be accomplished with sufficient efficiency to permit exponential
growth; the input is formaldehyde, the intermediates are
glycolaldehyde, glyceraldehyde, dihydroxyacetone, and tetrose
sugars” (Orgel 2000). However “a closer look at this oversimplified
version of the simplest model of the formose reaction will reveal the
formidable difficulties facing the development of a complex,
nonenzymatic metabolic cycle in homogeneous aqueous solution (Orgel
2000). Moreover “the idea that a complex polymerization reaction such
as the formose reaction or the polymerization of hydrogen cyanide is
likely to simplify to a specific cycle under the influence of
autocatalysis in aqueous solution is implausible. It is not logically
impossible that such an autocatalytic cycle exists, but because it
seems very unlikely from what we already know about the chemistry of
aqueous solutions, the burden of proof lies with the proposers of such
cycles” (Orgel 2000).

There is also the problem of the emergence of the predominance of D-
sugars as to the question whether could any product of abiotic
polymerization of racemic oligonucleotides exhibit both catalytic and
genetic functions the response is negative according to Robert Shapiro
(Shapiro 2006). Unfortunately “ any process that led to the formation
of D-nucleotides on the early Earth would have produced L-nucleotides
as well (Shapiro 2006). Then this enantiomeric issue of the emergence
of the predominance of D-sugars (or alternatively of L-sugars) remains
unresolved without the intervention of specific catalytists (e.g.
peptides).

Besides very recent findings by Harish and Caetano-Anollés are
“arguments that support a peptide synthesis-first origin of
translation” (Harish and Caetano-Anollés 2012). Thus these authors
“earlier this year published a phylogenetic analysis of ribosomal RNA
and ribosomal proteins, concluding that the oldest region of the
ribosome is a helical stem of the small ribosomal subunit RNA and the
ribosomal protein that binds to it. As this helical stem has the
important roles in the modern ribosome of decoding the mRNA message
and in the movement of the two subunits relative to each other
(including translocation of the mRNA message and tRNAs), Harish and
Caetano-Anollés conclude that the original function of the ribosome
was as an RNA replicase. In addition, because RNA and protein
components of the ribosome apparently have similar ages, Harish and
Caetano-Anollés surmise that peptide synthesis has always been carried
out by RNA in association with proteins, as is the case with the
modern ribosome” (Benhardt 2012 from Harish and Caetano-Anollés
2012).

Finally RNA is inherently unstable. “RNA is particularly labile at
moderate to high temperatures (Benhardt 2012). “A further problem is
the susceptibility of RNA to base-catalyzed hydrolysis at pH >6
(Benhardt 2012). Then the presence of RNA would have been impossible,
for example, in the early Earth Lost City hydrothermal like-sites
because of the temperature and the alcalin pH.

In conclusion the hypothesis that the emergence of RNA would have
preceded the one of peptides is very unlikely (i.e. the RNA World
Hypothesis).

References:
Benhardt HS. The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of the early
evolution of life (except for all the others). Biol Direct 2012;7:23.
Harish A, Caetano-Anollés G: Ribosomal history reveals origins of
modern protein synthesis. PLoS One 2012;7:e32776.
Joyce GF, Orgel LE. Prospects for understanding the origin of the RNA
world. Pages 49-77 in The RNA World, Second Edition, 1999, edited by
RF Gesteland et al. Cold Spring Harbor (New York): Cold Spring Harbor
Laboratory Press.
Orgel LE. Self-organizing biochemical cycles. Proc Natl Acad Sci
2000;97:12503-12507.
Orgel LE. Prebiotic chemistry and the origin of the RNA world.
Critical Reviews in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 2004;39:99–
123.
Shapiro R. Small molecule interactions were central to the origin of
life. The Quarterly Review of Biology 2006;81:105-125.

[Richard Norman]

On Sat, 9 Mar 2013 13:47:58 -0800 (PST), marc.t...@wanadoo.fr
wrote:

Clearly the preferable alternative, as proposed by orgel, is that
some little green men on some distant solar system, no doubt under the
supervision of Jor-El, prepared a spacecraft with appropriate
chemicals and sent it on its way to the early planet Earth in order to
propagate their species since their own planet was doomed.

Sadly we turned out with only a puny muscular power and sensory
apparatus but nevertheless did manage to evolve a tolerance for
Kryptonite.

More seriously, lipid vesicles probably did play some intermediate
role but are hardly capable of spanning the entire gulf between
inorganic chemistry and the processes we (most of us, anyway) call
"life."

[Robert Carnegie]

No, the lack of applications is important, because
it implies that while evolution by natural selection
is the origin of human beings, and so religious
teachers who say otherwise are selling an untruth,
the fallback plan of not /telling/ anybody that
doesn't have to face any /practical/ objections.

[wiki trix]

On Mar 9, 3:08�pm, marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr wrote:

> On Mar 8, 3:56 am, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > OK. What is the oldest gene in the human genome?
>
> I see you are still there and of course you were joking when you said
> that you were going too, as John Wilkins.

Addiction is an ugly disease. I will try again some day.

> Regarding your question What is the oldest gene in the human genome?

> you admitted later on that it was not clear: I wonder what you are
> looking for actually?

The most interesting questions are sometimes not the clearest. The
challenge is to define what a gene is. Is it still the same gene if it
has changed? And so on.

[Nashton]

And you would know all about trolling, wouldn't you....

[wiki trix]

You missed my point. Let me put it this way... Are immediate
applications to medicine of any central importance for a scientific
theory? That would rule out cosmology, geology, etc.

[Ron O]

NashT do you know why I put up your name like that. What are you most
of the time? LOL yourself. What a loser.

>
>
> >>> NashT explain why modern medical research is using the other great ape
> >>> genomes to determine what the ancestral sequence was so that they can
> >>> determine the mutations that occur in our population, and estimate
> >>> their effects so that they can determine the genetic basis of some
> >>> diseases?  Why does that work if there never was an ancestral
> >>> sequence?  Really, just because 95% of the population have a certain
> >>> sequence doesn't mean that the 5% are the mutants.  95% could have the
> >>> mutant allele due to evolution of the population.  So why does it
> >>> work?
>
> >> You're ranting. Fact of the matter, Rony boy, is that the ToE is not
> >> even an afterthought in most of modern medicine and pharma.
>
> > You keep making this claim, but you can't say how your option is any
> > better?  Even what you call an afterthought is better than nothing.
> > When is something nothing?  Only to you.
>
> I never said any option was better. I just stated that the ToE is
> utterly useless.

And you lied, so why keep lying? Second rate is not totally useless.
What is it like when your option isn't even second rate by your own
standards?

>
> So are you.

And your mother wears army boots, so what? It doesn't matter when by
your own standards your option isn't even second rate.

Ron Okimoto
>
> > Ron Okimoto
>
> >>> Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 19:45:59 -0400, Nashton <na...@na.com> wrote:

>On 2013-03-09 5:14 PM, jillery wrote:
>> On Sat, 9 Mar 2013 09:26:36 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 9, 2:14 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>>>> On 13-03-09 9:07 AM, Burkhard wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 9, 12:43 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> On 13-03-08 10:23 PM, Ron O wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 8, 8:27 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2013 7:53 AM, Ron O wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 8, 6:15 am, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 7, 11:18 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:

Naughty Nashty, deleting relevant text without attribution. That's a
common troll tactic. Relevant part restored.

>>>>>> Yep, just like the bulk of the ToE, which serves no purposes with zero

>>>>>> applications in modern medicine, other than to further a specific

>>>>>> metaphysical world view.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing to say on this point?
>>>

>>> Not really no. If I felt the need to respond to every inanity posted
>>> on the net, I'd never get any work done
>>
>>
>> This is a typical Nashton trolling tactic. He demands much, and
>> provides nothing in return.

What did I do to deserve you taking me out of your killfile?

>And you would know all about trolling, wouldn't you....

No, it doesn't take much to recognize your superficial, repetitive
tripe as trollbait.

Let me know if you ever have anything intelligent to contribute.

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

On Mar 9, 10:26 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 9, 3:08 pm, marc.tess...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> > On Mar 8, 3:56 am, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > OK. What is the oldest gene in the human genome?
> > I see you are still there and of course you were joking when you said
> > that you were going too, as John Wilkins.
> Addiction is an ugly disease. I will try again some day.

Don't worry, I am happy you are still among us.

> > Regarding your question What is the oldest gene in the human genome?
> > you admitted later on that it was not clear: I wonder what you are
> > looking for actually?
> The most interesting questions are sometimes not the clearest. The
> challenge is to define what a gene is. Is it still the same gene if it
> has changed? And so on.

Nowadays the concept of 'gene' has become questionable. "While
sequencing of the human genome surprised us with how many protein-
coding genes there are, it did not fundamentally change our
perspective on what a gene is. In contrast, the complex patterns of
dispersed regulation and pervasive transcription uncovered by the
ENCODE project, together with non-genic conservation and the abundance
of noncoding RNA genes, have challenged the notion of the
gene" (Gerstein et al. 2007). Actually there are several different
definitions of “gene”. Moreover "the concept that genes are clearly
delimited is also being eroded. There is evidence for fused proteins
stemming from two adjacent genes that can produce two separate protein
products. While it is not clear whether these fusion proteins are
functional, the phenomenon is more frequent than previously thought.
Even more ground-breaking than the discovery of fused genes is the
observation that some proteins can be composed of exons from far away
regions and even different chromosomes" (Wikipedia "gene").

Reference:
Gerstein et al. What is a gene, post-ENCODE? History and updated
definition. Genome Res. 2007 17: 669-681.

[marc.t...@wanadoo.fr]

On Mar 9, 10:06 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:

<snip for focus>

> More seriously, lipid vesicles probably did play some intermediate
> role but are hardly capable of spanning the entire gulf between
> inorganic chemistry and the processes we (most of us, anyway) call
> "life."

Surely lipid vesicles only are not sufficient to explain the origin on
early Earth and the entire story which led to present organisms.
But lipid vesicles + Darwinian evolution, yes.

[Robert Carnegie]

Oh, we don't need those either. And they make the bible
look stupid as well. Come to think, so does medicine, too.
So, a lot of churches are opposed to /that/.

[Burkhard]

It also rules out of course the history, literature, paintings,
generally the artsandtheir study, philosophy,...

That 's nashton's utopia, where everybody is only educated to the
degree that they can perform economically, which for most will means
ability to count and write their names. Just as it was in the good
old pre- enlightenment times before that newfangled learning put ideas
into people' head above their God sanctioned station.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 19:45:59 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Nashton <na...@na.com>:

>On 2013-03-09 5:14 PM, jillery wrote:

>> On Sat, 9 Mar 2013 09:26:36 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
>> wrote:

<snip irrelevant attributions>

>>> ...If I felt the need to respond to every inanity posted

>>> on the net, I'd never get any work done

>> This is a typical Nashton trolling tactic. He demands much, and
>> provides nothing in return.

>And you would know all about trolling, wouldn't you....

Sure. If one sees enough of your posts, Shrimpie's posts,
Jabbers' posts, et al, the characteristics are hard to
miss...

[pnyikos]

Sorry, I don't agree that "Darwinian" evolution is going to get life
from lipid vesicles even to "life as we know it" [bacteria and above]
with any high probability in the useful lifetime of a planet like ours
[ca. 9 billion years].

For that, a lot of "hopeful polypeptide monsters" are needed -- too
many in my estimation.

By the way, Marc, I'm sorry to be so tardy in my replies to you. I
hope I can do better in the future. I've done two replies to a post
of yours on another thread today, with CCs to you also.

It would help if you can start participating in my new FAQ thread,
which I set up today. Then we can soon be on the same page on a
number of key issues, even if we disagree on many things.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Mar 10, 5:46�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 19:45:59 -0400, the following appeared

> in talk.origins, posted by Nashton <n...@na.com>:

>
> >On 2013-03-09 5:14 PM, jillery wrote:

> >> On Sat, 9 Mar 2013 09:26:36 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>

> >> wrote:
>
> <snip irrelevant attributions>
>
> >>> ...If I felt the need to respond to every inanity posted
> >>> on the net, I'd never get any work done
> >> This is a typical Nashton trolling tactic. �He demands much, and
> >> provides nothing in return.
> >And you would know all about trolling, wouldn't you....

Meaning, jillery does a lot of trolling. True: I've been the target
of a lot of it, and Harshman has had several doses of it too.

Your reply, Casanova, is a kind of Pee Wee Hermanism by proxy, of the
"I know you are, but what is jillery?" sort:

> Sure. If one sees enough of your posts, Shrimpie's posts,
> Jabbers' posts, et al, the characteristics are hard to
> miss...

"et al" includes UC posts. Also O'Shea posts, at least in reply to me
since the beginning of this year. And, if recent experience is any
guide, also raven1 posts.

Peter Nyikos

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 13:51:17 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

>On Mar 10, 5:46 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

>> On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 19:45:59 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Nashton <n...@na.com>:

>> >On 2013-03-09 5:14 PM, jillery wrote:

>> >> On Sat, 9 Mar 2013 09:26:36 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>
>> >> wrote:

>> <snip irrelevant attributions>

>> >>> ...If I felt the need to respond to every inanity posted
>> >>> on the net, I'd never get any work done

>> >> This is a typical Nashton trolling tactic.  He demands much, and
>> >> provides nothing in return.

>> >And you would know all about trolling, wouldn't you....

>Meaning, jillery does a lot of trolling.

Your interpretation is flawed; participation, despite
Nashton's charge, is not a requirement for recognition.

> True: I've been the target
>of a lot of it, and Harshman has had several doses of it too.
>
>Your reply, Casanova, is a kind of Pee Wee Hermanism by proxy, of the
>"I know you are, but what is jillery?" sort:

>> Sure. If one sees enough of your posts, Shrimpie's posts,
>> Jabbers' posts, et al, the characteristics are hard to
>> miss...

My statement was intended literally, and would likely be
confirmed by many others who know the history of those I
mentioned. I've seen enough serious posts by jillery to
recognize the fact that while she (?) may sometimes post
snarky replies, they're almost never in response to serious
posts, seriously expressed.

>"et al" includes UC posts.

Granted.

> Also O'Shea posts, at least in reply to me
>since the beginning of this year. And, if recent experience is any
>guide, also raven1 posts.

You may want to consider whether the posts by these two
(especially by raven1, who posts both seriously and
knowledgeably) you consider to be "trolling" might be a
direct result of the posts to which they responded. By
observation, you tend to go into "attack mode" when others
don't agree with your ideas, or accept your explanations of
those ideas in followup posts.

[jillery]

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 11:33:23 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

wrote:

>On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 13:51:17 -0700 (PDT), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
><nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>
>>On Mar 10, 5:46 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>>> On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 19:45:59 -0400, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by Nashton <n...@na.com>:
>
>>> >On 2013-03-09 5:14 PM, jillery wrote:
>
>>> >> On Sat, 9 Mar 2013 09:26:36 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>
>>> >> wrote:
>
>>> <snip irrelevant attributions>
>
>>> >>> ...If I felt the need to respond to every inanity posted
>>> >>> on the net, I'd never get any work done
>
>>> >> This is a typical Nashton trolling tactic.  He demands much, and
>>> >> provides nothing in return.
>
>>> >And you would know all about trolling, wouldn't you....
>
>>Meaning, jillery does a lot of trolling.
>
>Your interpretation is flawed; participation, despite
>Nashton's charge, is not a requirement for recognition.

Flawed as you say, but correct in the sense that's likely what Nashton
meant. An irony is that Nashton accuses me of trolling is because I
called his nearly complete reliance on juvenile drive-by rants, like
the one above, trolling. Which by rockhead's expressed standard makes
Nashton's comment a Pee-Wee Hermanism.

One might expect rockhead would tire of all his petard hoisting, but I
suppose some people are into self-abuse.

I can only imagine why rockhead picked up on your month-old comment in
the first place.

>> True: I've been the target
>>of a lot of it, and Harshman has had several doses of it too.
>>
>>Your reply, Casanova, is a kind of Pee Wee Hermanism by proxy, of the
>>"I know you are, but what is jillery?" sort:
>
>>> Sure. If one sees enough of your posts, Shrimpie's posts,
>>> Jabbers' posts, et al, the characteristics are hard to
>>> miss...
>
>My statement was intended literally, and would likely be
>confirmed by many others who know the history of those I
>mentioned. I've seen enough serious posts by jillery to
>recognize the fact that while she (?) may sometimes post
>snarky replies, they're almost never in response to serious
>posts, seriously expressed.
>
>>"et al" includes UC posts.
>
>Granted.

Of course, everybody knows rockhead didn't always feel that way about
UC.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 18:36:33 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 11:33:23 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 13:51:17 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos
>><nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>>
>>>On Mar 10, 5:46�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 19:45:59 -0400, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by Nashton <n...@na.com>:
>>
>>>> >On 2013-03-09 5:14 PM, jillery wrote:
>>
>>>> >> On Sat, 9 Mar 2013 09:26:36 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>
>>>> <snip irrelevant attributions>
>>
>>>> >>> ...If I felt the need to respond to every inanity posted
>>>> >>> on the net, I'd never get any work done
>>
>>>> >> This is a typical Nashton trolling tactic. �He demands much, and
>>>> >> provides nothing in return.
>>
>>>> >And you would know all about trolling, wouldn't you....
>>
>>>Meaning, jillery does a lot of trolling.
>>
>>Your interpretation is flawed; participation, despite
>>Nashton's charge, is not a requirement for recognition.
>
>
>Flawed as you say, but correct in the sense that's likely what Nashton
>meant.

Granted, but my comment assumed, given the context, that
Peter agreed with Nashie and was attempting to clarify
Nashie's comment. If that's not the case I expect Peter will
correct me.

> An irony is that Nashton accuses me of trolling is because I
>called his nearly complete reliance on juvenile drive-by rants, like
>the one above, trolling. Which by rockhead's expressed standard makes
>Nashton's comment a Pee-Wee Hermanism.
>
>One might expect rockhead would tire of all his petard hoisting, but I
>suppose some people are into self-abuse.
>
>I can only imagine why rockhead picked up on your month-old comment in
>the first place.

I suspect he gets a bit behind on his responses, although he
seems to post nearly every day. So bottom line - damfino.

[jillery]

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 10:30:37 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

I agree he appears to agree with Nashton. I agree he appears to think
Nashton's comment require, or deserve, clarification. The veracity of
our follow-up comments isn't affected by what Rockhead actually
thinks.

>> An irony is that Nashton accuses me of trolling is because I
>>called his nearly complete reliance on juvenile drive-by rants, like
>>the one above, trolling. Which by rockhead's expressed standard makes
>>Nashton's comment a Pee-Wee Hermanism.
>>
>>One might expect rockhead would tire of all his petard hoisting, but I
>>suppose some people are into self-abuse.
>>
>>I can only imagine why rockhead picked up on your month-old comment in
>>the first place.
>
>I suspect he gets a bit behind on his responses, although he
>seems to post nearly every day. So bottom line - damfino.

That's the point. He wasn't involved in the thread until that moment.
There was no obligation for him to reply. His post is just as much a
gratuitous drive-by as Nashton's. Rockhead would have less trouble
keeping up if he stopped replying to month-old posts that don't
involve him in the first place.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:07:04 -0400, the following appeared

No argument here.

>>> An irony is that Nashton accuses me of trolling is because I
>>>called his nearly complete reliance on juvenile drive-by rants, like
>>>the one above, trolling. Which by rockhead's expressed standard makes
>>>Nashton's comment a Pee-Wee Hermanism.
>>>
>>>One might expect rockhead would tire of all his petard hoisting, but I
>>>suppose some people are into self-abuse.
>>>
>>>I can only imagine why rockhead picked up on your month-old comment in
>>>the first place.
>>
>>I suspect he gets a bit behind on his responses, although he
>>seems to post nearly every day. So bottom line - damfino.
>
>
>That's the point. He wasn't involved in the thread until that moment.
>There was no obligation for him to reply. His post is just as much a
>gratuitous drive-by as Nashton's. Rockhead would have less trouble
>keeping up if he stopped replying to month-old posts that don't
>involve him in the first place.

Agreed; his tactics(?) can only leave one to wonder what,
aside from his unsupported belief in DP and his persecution
complex, he's on about.

[pnyikos]

On Apr 4, 1:30�ｿｽpm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 18:36:33 -0400, the following appeared

> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 11:33:23 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
> >wrote:
>
> >>On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 13:51:17 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >>appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos

> >><nyik...@bellsouth.net>:

>
> >>>On Mar 10, 5:46 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 19:45:59 -0400, the following appeared
> >>>> in talk.origins, posted by Nashton <n...@na.com>:
>
> >>>> >On 2013-03-09 5:14 PM, jillery wrote:
>
> >>>> >> On Sat, 9 Mar 2013 09:26:36 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>
> >>>> >> wrote:
>
> >>>> <snip irrelevant attributions>
>
> >>>> >>> ...If I felt the need to respond to every inanity posted
> >>>> >>> on the net, I'd never get any work done
>
> >>>> >> This is a typical Nashton trolling tactic. He demands much, and
> >>>> >> provides nothing in return.
>
> >>>> >And you would know all about trolling, wouldn't you....
>
> >>>Meaning, jillery does a lot of trolling.
>
> >>Your interpretation is flawed; participation, despite
> >>Nashton's charge, is not a requirement for recognition.
>
> >Flawed as you say, but correct in the sense that's likely what Nashton
> >meant.
>
> Granted, but my comment assumed, given the context, that
> Peter agreed with Nashie and was attempting to clarify
> Nashie's comment. If that's not the case I expect Peter will
> correct me.
>

> > �ｿｽAn irony is that Nashton accuses me of trolling is because I

> >called his nearly complete reliance on juvenile drive-by rants, like
> >the one above, trolling.

The existence of the alleged "nearly complete reliance" is unknown to
me, and certainly not to be discovered by a reading of this thread.

> �ｿｽWhich by rockhead's expressed standard makes

> >Nashton's comment a Pee-Wee Hermanism.

For "expressed" read "implicit." A Pee Wee Hermanism is a *tu
quoque* that is unsupported and is either known to be false or else
is artificially brought on a par with the statement that it is
mirroring by a snipping of support for the mirrored statement.

I have never expressed this standard before, although parts of it can
be inferred from statements I have posted in the past.

> >One might expect rockhead would tire of all his petard hoisting,

That's a kind of generic Pee Wee Hermanism, apparently in retaliation
for my accusing jillery of trolling.

> >but I
> >suppose some people are into self-abuse.

That's the puerile dirty-mindedness of jillery coming to the fore.
She has exhibited it quite frequently of late.

> >I can only imagine why rockhead picked up on your month-old comment in
> >the first place.
>
> I suspect he gets a bit behind on his responses, although he
> seems to post nearly every day. So bottom line - damfino.

I'm not familiar with that term, Bob, but you're right: sometimes a
number of threads I am in see a lot of heavy traffic.

Two examples are the latest FAQ thread on directed panspermia, in
which you participated heavily and were itching for me to make timely
replies to you, and the "Turtle genome and ancestry" thread where I am
too busy making on-topic replies to spare any time for the massive off-
topic defamation campaign jillery and Ron O have been waging against
me.

Another example is the thread in abiogenesis where I started posting
heavily yesterday,
"Subject: Re: Abiogenesis: Where is the model?"

Now I've started another thread in directed panspermia, and it's nice
to see that you have joined in. I think I can squeeze out a few
minutes to reply now.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> �ｿｽTrue: I've been the target

> >>>of a lot of it, and Harshman has had several doses of it too.
>
> >>>Your reply, Casanova, is a kind of Pee Wee Hermanism by proxy, of the
> >>>"I know you are, but what is jillery?" sort:
>
> >>>> Sure. If one sees enough of your posts, Shrimpie's posts,
> >>>> Jabbers' posts, et al, the characteristics are hard to
> >>>> miss...
>
> >>My statement was intended literally, and would likely be
> >>confirmed by many others who know the history of those I
> >>mentioned. I've seen enough serious posts by jillery to
> >>recognize the fact that while she (?) may sometimes post
> >>snarky replies, they're almost never in response to serious
> >>posts, seriously expressed.
>
> >>>"et al" includes UC posts.
>
> >>Granted.
>
> >Of course, everybody knows rockhead didn't always feel that way about
> >UC.

Knowing next to nothing about him when I remarked that he seemed to
have the better of the argument, I naturally gave him the benefit of
the doubt.

This is something Paul Gans and O'Shea want desperately for people to
disbelieve.

Bob, I think you may recall one thing O'Shea said that makes it next
to impossible for people to believe that I give *anyone* the benefit
of the doubt.

Peter Nyikos

>>> Also O'Shea posts, at least in reply to me

> >>>since the beginning of this year. �ｿｽAnd, if recent experience is any

[jillery]

That's because you act as if willful ignorance is a virtue. It would
be a trivial thing for you to look at Nashton's posts, but you haven't
done that.

>> �ｿｽWhich by rockhead's expressed standard makes
>> >Nashton's comment a Pee-Wee Hermanism.
>
>For "expressed" read "implicit." A Pee Wee Hermanism is a *tu
>quoque* that is unsupported and is either known to be false or else
>is artificially brought on a par with the statement that it is
>mirroring by a snipping of support for the mirrored statement.
>
>I have never expressed this standard before, although parts of it can
>be inferred from statements I have posted in the past.

Unless you're denying the implicit meaning, your paragraphs above are
just semantic noise. It is what you do.

>> >One might expect rockhead would tire of all his petard hoisting,
>
>That's a kind of generic Pee Wee Hermanism, apparently in retaliation
>for my accusing jillery of trolling.

That is what you do.

>> >but I
>> >suppose some people are into self-abuse.
>
>That's the puerile dirty-mindedness of jillery coming to the fore.
>She has exhibited it quite frequently of late.

They are appropriate replies to your noise.

>> >I can only imagine why rockhead picked up on your month-old comment in
>> >the first place.
>>
>> I suspect he gets a bit behind on his responses, although he
>> seems to post nearly every day. So bottom line - damfino.
>
>I'm not familiar with that term, Bob, but you're right: sometimes a
>number of threads I am in see a lot of heavy traffic.
>
>Two examples are the latest FAQ thread on directed panspermia, in
>which you participated heavily and were itching for me to make timely
>replies to you, and the "Turtle genome and ancestry" thread where I am
>too busy making on-topic replies to spare any time for the massive off-
>topic defamation campaign jillery and Ron O have been waging against
>me.
>
>Another example is the thread in abiogenesis where I started posting
>heavily yesterday,
>"Subject: Re: Abiogenesis: Where is the model?"
>
>Now I've started another thread in directed panspermia, and it's nice
>to see that you have joined in. I think I can squeeze out a few
>minutes to reply now.

Pitiful evasion.

>> >>> �ｿｽTrue: I've been the target
>> >>>of a lot of it, and Harshman has had several doses of it too.
>>
>> >>>Your reply, Casanova, is a kind of Pee Wee Hermanism by proxy, of the
>> >>>"I know you are, but what is jillery?" sort:
>>
>> >>>> Sure. If one sees enough of your posts, Shrimpie's posts,
>> >>>> Jabbers' posts, et al, the characteristics are hard to
>> >>>> miss...
>>
>> >>My statement was intended literally, and would likely be
>> >>confirmed by many others who know the history of those I
>> >>mentioned. I've seen enough serious posts by jillery to
>> >>recognize the fact that while she (?) may sometimes post
>> >>snarky replies, they're almost never in response to serious
>> >>posts, seriously expressed.
>>
>> >>>"et al" includes UC posts.
>>
>> >>Granted.
>>
>> >Of course, everybody knows rockhead didn't always feel that way about
>> >UC.
>
>Knowing next to nothing about him when I remarked that he seemed to
>have the better of the argument, I naturally gave him the benefit of
>the doubt.

Of course. You naturally inject yourself into topics about which you
know nothing. It is what you do.

[pnyikos]

On Apr 17, 4:07�pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 11:54:26 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> >> > �An irony is that Nashton accuses me of trolling is because I

> >> >called his nearly complete reliance on juvenile drive-by rants, like
> >> >the one above, trolling.
>
> >The existence of the alleged "nearly complete reliance" is unknown to
> >me, and certainly not to be discovered by a reading of this thread.
>
> That's because you act as if willful ignorance is a virtue.

You are working a favorite scam of several of your fellow
unMagnificent Seven members: pretending that one can quickly determine
what someone is like by reading a small sample of his posts.

You've hit Earle Jones with it recently, where the "someone" is
myself.

> �It would

> be a trivial thing for you to look at Nashton's posts, but you haven't
> done that.

I've looked at a few in the past, but not all support your allegation
about him.

Here, for instance, is a post of his from a thread where you
participated, where he hung around for quite some time:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.bio.paleontology/msg/4b0f84757e4342d1?dmode=source
Excerpt, with names added in brackets:
:
>>>[Nashton:] Very nice. Another species that went extinct. Surely,
>>>evolutionists will jump on it
>>> proclaiming that it is phylogenetic to such and such a
>>> species, because they cannot interpret anything without the narrow
>>> vision of their beloved ToE, amplifying even more their confirmation
>>> bias.

>>[jillery] And don't you just hate it when they do that. Feel free to
>> interpret anything within your narrow vision whenever you feel
>> yourself capable.

> [Harshman] Actually, I'd be interested in Nashton's views on Diania. What is his
> explanation? Why don't we find them around these days? Why only in the
> Cambrian?

I have no views on yet another insignificant fossil of an extinct
species.
It only becomes significant when the confirmation bias from the belief
that the ToE has any credence that is renewed and amplified. In that
case, it takes on new life as a member of some imaginary clade.

Why are so many resources wasted on this? Are there not cures for
diseases that need to be elucidated? Can we not use the money to send
pre-treated tents to regions in the world plagued with malaria?

OTOH, what a cool looking animal.
=================== end of excerpt

> >> �Which by rockhead's expressed standard makes

> >> >Nashton's comment a Pee-Wee Hermanism.
>
> >For "expressed" read "implicit." �A Pee Wee Hermanism is a *tu
> >quoque* �that is unsupported and is either known to be false or else
> >is artificially brought on a par with the statement that it is
> >mirroring by a snipping of support for the mirrored statement.
>
> >I have never expressed this standard before, although parts of it can
> >be inferred from statements I have posted in the past.
>
> Unless you're denying the implicit meaning, your paragraphs above are
> just semantic noise. �It is what you do.

Sounds like another Pee Wee Hermanism, but let that pass.

Nashton's implicit accusation that you are a troll is not KNOWN to be
false. In fact, I have a great deal of evidence for it and perhaps
Nashton does too. In fact, your comments in the above excerpt could
be construed as trolling.

Moreover, if you look carefully at what you restored when you made an
accusation of "a typical trolling tactic" you will see that there is
precious little from him in the restored text indicative of trolling.
He used the expression "the bulk of the ToE". Given his "Can you say
microevolution?" elsewhere in the thread, the logical way to interpret
"the bulk of" is to have it designate what his kind terms
"macroevolution."

The rest of what you wrote this time around reads like pure trolling,
and is therefore deleted.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

Not even wrong. If you knew anything about Nashton's posts, you would
know how ludicrous your claim is. Yammering on and on about a point
you know nothing about is what you do.

>> �It would
>> be a trivial thing for you to look at Nashton's posts, but you haven't
>> done that.
>
>I've looked at a few in the past, but not all support your allegation
>about him.

You admit again your argument is based on willful ignorance, as I
said.

<snip for trolling>

>The rest of what you wrote this time around reads like pure trolling,
>and is therefore deleted.

I just returned the favor.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 11:54:26 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by pnyikos

<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

>On Apr 4, 1:30�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

<snip all "piggyback" responses; in the 2 weeks since my
post everything has moved on>

[Regarding Peter]:

>> I suspect he gets a bit behind on his responses, although he
>> seems to post nearly every day. So bottom line - damfino.

>I'm not familiar with that term, Bob, but you're right: sometimes a
>number of threads I am in see a lot of heavy traffic.

"Damned if I know". Seems obvious to me...

>Two examples are the latest FAQ thread on directed panspermia, in
>which you participated heavily and were itching for me to make timely
>replies to you, and the "Turtle genome and ancestry" thread where I am
>too busy making on-topic replies to spare any time for the massive off-
>topic defamation campaign jillery and Ron O have been waging against
>me.

Actually, the "latest" thread (it's now 18 April) saw only
minor participation by me, and that participation is nearly
complete, as noted below.

>Another example is the thread in abiogenesis where I started posting
>heavily yesterday,
>"Subject: Re: Abiogenesis: Where is the model?"
>
>Now I've started another thread in directed panspermia, and it's nice
>to see that you have joined in. I think I can squeeze out a few
>minutes to reply now.

You did, and I responded to your reply. And barring some new
revelation by you, that response is sufficient to make my
point.

<snip remaining "piggybacking">