Evolutionary benchmarks from prebiotic soup to Homo sapiens

[pnyikos]

Originally I thought to use "milestones" instead of "benchmarks", but
that creates the impression that these benchmarks are about evenly
spaced, whereas I think the difficulties in getting between successive
benchmarks are very different quantitatively.

In fact, the first thing I'd appreciate reader feedback on is this.
Try ordering the various moves from one benchmark to the next, in
order of difficulty.

I'd like even creationists to play along here. Even if you don't
think evolution bridged the gap from one benchmark to the next, you
might at least have some idea as to which ones pose the biggest
obstacle to "abiogeneticists" and "evolutionists".

Here are the main benchmarks:

B0. Prebiotic soup, with amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, and
various other simple organic compounds that we know can be formed
spontaneously under early earth (before life) conditions, having
produced them in the lab and having found them in meteorites.

B1. prokaryotes (bacteria, archae)

B2. sexually reproducing eukaryotes

B3: metazoans

B4: lower chordates

B5: primitive tetrapods

B6: prosimians

B7: *Homo sapiens*

I'll designate as Move n (Mn) the evolutionary move from Bn-1 to the
next benchmark, Bn. I'll start the ball rolling with my present (very
tentative) idea of the order of difficulty, the most difficult first,
to the least difficult, last.

M1, M2, M3, M5, M7, M6, M4

Later, I will be giving some ideas as to why I rank these as I do.
Feel free to confine yourselves to individual comparisons, e.g. "I
think M1 is much easier than M2" [a widely shared sentiment] and to
give comparisons like these long before giving reasons for your
belief.

It would be nice to have at least "order-of-magnitude" estimates of
the relative difficulties in getting from one benchmark to the other,
but that's not what this thread is mainly about.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu

[pnyikos]

On Sep 6, 10:28�am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> Here are the main benchmarks:
>
> B0. �Prebiotic soup, with amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, and
> various other simple organic compounds that we know can be formed
> spontaneously under early earth (before life) conditions, having
> produced them in the lab and having found them in meteorites.
>
> B1. prokaryotes (bacteria, archae)
>
> B2. �sexually reproducing eukaryotes
>
> B3: metazoans
>
> B4: lower chordates
>
> B5: primitive tetrapods
>
> B6: prosimians
>
> B7: *Homo sapiens*
>
> I'll designate as Move n (Mn) the evolutionary move from Bn-1 to the
> next benchmark, Bn. �I'll start the ball rolling with my present (very
> tentative) idea of the order of difficulty, the most difficult first,
> to the least difficult, last.
>
> M1, �M2, M3, �M5, M7, M6, M4

As an aid to thinking about the relative difficulty of these moves, I
thought I'd repost a description of seven evolutionary stages from
another thread. Stage n gives what I believe to be the most important
features of Benchmark n, except for n=1.

Stage 2: A large genome, and sexual reproduction in at least part of
the life cycle. [Plants have alternation of generations, with one
generation asexually reproducing.] Sexual reproduction could take the
form of extensive conjugation as in *Paramecium*.

Stage 3: Well integrated and differentiated organisms which are
actively motile in at least part of the life cycle, with lots of scope
for variation.
The following do NOT qualify: plants, fungi, slime molds, sponges,
mesozoans. [Cellular slime molds do have a well integrated
multicellular motile stage, but it is not differentiated into organs.
Mesozoans have a set number of cells per adult individual and so are
an evolutionary dead end.]

Stage 4: Well developed nervous system and either internal or external
"skeleton" suitable for advance to the next stage. The lancelet
(*Branchiostoma*, a.k.a. amphioxus) is the canonical internal-skeleton
example; various arthopods and mollusks are
external-skeleton examples.

Stage 5: Ability to take in oxygen (or a very few alternatives) from
the air; skeleton sufficiently strong to enable the animal to move
freely on the land during some stage of its life cycle; sense organs
suitable for forming an integrated perception of the surroundings.
Includes mollusks, arthropods in addition to tetrapods.

Stage 6: Well developed brain; extended care of young; ability to
manipulate objects. Besides prosimians, raccoons qualify. Carl
Sagan,in _The Dragons of Eden_, makes a case for *Saurornithoides*
(identified with *Troodon* by some) being at this stage.

Stage 7: Sophisticated language suitable for expressing events and
abstract concepts; social organization; ability to make a wide variety
of tools for various purposes.

What I called Stage 1 actually began an unknown period of time before
Benchmark 1 and so might be termed Benchmark 1/2:

Stage 1: Efficient replicators and metabolizers.

DNA is not an efficient replicator all by itself, nor is RNA; these
require enzymes to replicate at a reasonable rate, but these enzymes
in turn need to be produced with the help of other enzymes or copies
of themselves. In "life as we know it" they are coded into the DNA
and, more immediately, into mRNA. On other worlds, they might be
ribozymes, but there should be an overall genome which functions as a
unit, such as our DNA.

Metabolization says that more than just a genome is involved. The
organism grows by taking nutrients from the environment and
incorporating them into its structure, which includes other things
besides the genome.

[John Harshman]

On 9/6/12 7:26 AM, pnyikos wrote:
> Originally I thought to use "milestones" instead of "benchmarks", but
> that creates the impression that these benchmarks are about evenly
> spaced, whereas I think the difficulties in getting between successive
> benchmarks are very different quantitatively.
>
> In fact, the first thing I'd appreciate reader feedback on is this.
> Try ordering the various moves from one benchmark to the next, in
> order of difficulty.
>
> I'd like even creationists to play along here. Even if you don't
> think evolution bridged the gap from one benchmark to the next, you
> might at least have some idea as to which ones pose the biggest
> obstacle to "abiogeneticists" and "evolutionists".
>
> Here are the main benchmarks:
>
> B0. Prebiotic soup, with amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, and
> various other simple organic compounds that we know can be formed
> spontaneously under early earth (before life) conditions, having
> produced them in the lab and having found them in meteorites.
>
> B1. prokaryotes (bacteria, archae)
>
> B2. sexually reproducing eukaryotes
>
> B3: metazoans
>
> B4: lower chordates
>
> B5: primitive tetrapods
>
> B6: prosimians
>
> B7: *Homo sapiens*

As far as I can tell, you have picked 5 random points along a particular
pathway from no life at all to one particular extant species. I see no
reason to suppose that these points are special, even along that
pathway, or that the particular pathway is in any way generalizable.
What is served by such an exercise?

[Nick Keighley]

also, didn't he do the same a few posts ago?

[Richard Norman]

To play the game as proposed, taking it seriously, I do think that
some form of B0, B1, B2, and a modified B3 (the origin of complex
multicellular organisms) are indeed major stages. Given that pretty
much all of evolution as ordinarily studied relates to plants and
animals, that most living things are really prokaryotes is important
biology but not what interests most of us.

I would separate the origin of eukaryotes from the origin of true
sexual reproduction (meiosis + fertilization/syngamy) as separate
steps. Once you have multicellularity, it seems the rest is pretty
easy to explain and even multicellularity doesn't seem to be that much
of a problem. The first step in particular encompasses all of what we
call abiogenesis and seems like an enormous leap compared with all the
rest.

[Nashton]

B0. The step from non living matter to the enormous complexity of the
cell is where all the important stuff occurred.

As an aside, I wonder how many posters, for the exception of the career
biologists have an inkling as to how complex even a "protocell" can be,
integrating a minimum of functions within and exploiting resources to
keep it alive from the outside.

[pnyikos]

Well, except for endosymbiosis, there is really only one path to our
extant species. As to "random", science proceeds by giving structure
to things, and without specific benchmarks, how do we even talk about
anything resembling the theme I'd like to talk about?

Anyway, here are two intermediate benchmarks that you might enjoy
thinking about:

B0.5: Stage 1 as described in my second post to this thread

B5.5: amniotes

I think the move from B0 to B0.5 is somewhat less huge than the move
from B0.5 to B1, and that either one dwarfs all the moves from B1 to
B7 put together as far as *intrinsic* difficulty is concerned.

In contrast, I think the move from B5.5 to B6 was the easiest of all,
considering that three different orders seem to have made it:
Coelurosauria, Carnivora, and Primates. The latter two branched off
from the first right about the very root of Amniota, so that's quite a
significant datum.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu

[pnyikos]

Yes, I put in the following benchmark between B0 and B1 in reply to
Harshman just a few minutes ago,
and the following comment:

B0.5: Stage 1 as described in my second post to this thread

I think the move from B0 to B0.5 is somewhat less huge than the move
from B0.5 to B1, and that either one dwarfs all the moves from B1 to
B7 put together as far as *intrinsic* difficulty is concerned.

> As an aside, I wonder how many posters, for the exception of the career
> biologists have an inkling as to how complex even a "protocell" can be,
> integrating a minimum of functions within and exploiting resources to
> keep it alive from the outside.

Sounds like something that even precedes Benchmark 0.5. Would you
like to expound on this further?

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

That's another good benchmark. Let's put it in:

B1.5 the first eukaryotes

I think the move from B1.5 to B2 was much more difficult than the move
from B1 to B1.5. How about you?

> Once you have multicellularity, it seems the rest is pretty
> easy to explain and even multicellularity doesn't seem to be that much
> of a problem.

Did you read what I wrote about Stage 3 in my second post? Metazoans
have far more going for them than mere multicellularity.


>�The first step in particular encompasses all of what we

> call abiogenesis and seems like an enormous leap compared with all the
> rest.

I fully agree. See my reply to Harshman a few minutes ago for more
details.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Sep 6, 12:08�pm, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Are you talking about my second post to this thread, where I gave a
generalization?

Yes, John seems to have jumped the gun here. I posted this reply to
my first post only a few minutes after I did the first post, but maybe
it hadn't propagated to John's Giganews server at the time he posted
his reply.

As to 'specialness', see my direct reply to John. Given the vagaries
of propagation, this one might get to your newsreader first.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

True, but hardly in need of saying and certainly not at issue.

> As to "random", science proceeds by giving structure
> to things, and without specific benchmarks, how do we even talk about
> anything resembling the theme I'd like to talk about?

So you agree that those benchmarks are randomly chosen?

> Anyway, here are two intermediate benchmarks that you might enjoy
> thinking about:
>
> B0.5: Stage 1 as described in my second post to this thread
>
> B5.5: amniotes
>
> I think the move from B0 to B0.5 is somewhat less huge than the move
> from B0.5 to B1, and that either one dwarfs all the moves from B1 to
> B7 put together as far as *intrinsic* difficulty is concerned.

How does adding more random points improve the analysis?

> In contrast, I think the move from B5.5 to B6 was the easiest of all,
> considering that three different orders seem to have made it:
> Coelurosauria, Carnivora, and Primates. The latter two branched off
> from the first right about the very root of Amniota, so that's quite a
> significant datum.

Another random point, containing three not particularly related and
ambiguously defined characteristics bundled together.

I repeat:

>> What is served by such an exercise?

What indeed?

[Richard Norman]

The real issue is as John pointed out: what is the purpose of this
analysis?

You can point to any number of "stages" in the development of life.
There is really nothing to be gained by searching for qualitative
features measuring the "difficulty" of any step. It is obvious that
at every branching point in evolution there is some "change", some
"development" -- this branch has such and such whereas that branch
lacks it or has some other. Follow the branching tree and you get a
series of "benchmarks".

There is no measure for how "difficult" any step might be. There is
only a measure of how much we know or understand about the processes
and stages and mechanisms that lead to each stop. It is clear that
the earliest steps are little understood where the more recent steps
are well documented.

[John Harshman]

No, I read it. I just didn't think it was relevant to my points.

[pnyikos]

Then spell out the issue broached by your first use of the word
"particular".

To paraphrase what you write below, what use is served by the word in
that sentence?

> > As to "random", science proceeds by giving structure
> > to things, and without specific benchmarks, how do we even talk about
> > anything resembling the theme I'd like to talk about?
>
> So you agree that those benchmarks are randomly chosen?

Komogoroff would have agreed, certainly. Even the set of flippings of
a two-headed coin is a probability space for a "random variable".
[Irrelevant aside: there's always a chance the coin will land on edge,
or be caught by a bird in mid-flip.]

> > Anyway, here are two intermediate benchmarks that you might enjoy
> > thinking about:
>
> > B0.5: Stage 1 as described in my second post to this thread
>
> > B5.5: amniotes
>
> > I think the move from B0 to B0.5 is somewhat less huge than the move
> > from B0.5 to B1, and that either one dwarfs all the moves from B1 to
> > B7 put together as far as *intrinsic* difficulty is concerned.
>
> How does adding more random points improve the analysis?

In somewhat the same way talking about "random fossils" improves
phylogenetic trees.

> > In contrast, I think the move from B5.5 to B6 was the easiest of all,
> > considering that three different orders seem to have made it:
> > Coelurosauria, Carnivora, and Primates. �The latter two branched off
> > from the first right about the very root of Amniota, so that's quite a
> > significant datum.
>
> Another random point, containing three not particularly related and
> ambiguously defined characteristics bundled together.

You are using "random" in close to the most general way possible,
which is Kolmogoroff's definition of "random variable".

> I repeat:
>
> >> What is served by such an exercise?
>
> What indeed?

Making Mark Isaak happy. He hates the idea of trying to estimate the
probability of getting from one benchmark to the next, and so I
decided to make it a more qualitiative topic.

You, of course, are made happy in another way. You get to apply your
naive idea of the Socratic Method, as above.

Those are two purposes. There are others, which I'll mention at the
appropriate time.

Peter Nyikos

QUOTE OF THE WEEK

Exercises 1.18 through 1.29 at the end of the chapter are of the
estimating, or "order-of-magnitude" variety. Some are silly, and most
require guesswork for the needed input data. Don't try to look up a
lot of data; make the best guesses you can. Even when they are off by
a factor of ten, the results can be useful and interesting.
...
1.27. How many pizzas are consumed each academic year by students at
your school?

-- _University Physics_, 12th edition,
by Hugh D. Young, Roger A. Freedman;
contributing author A. Lewis Ford
Pearson/Addison-Wesley, 2008 p. 11, p. 30

[Nashton]

Well, from the inside, it would require some sort of primitive
metabolism in order to utilize chemical energy for it to function,
replication material (DNA, RNA?) and obviously some type of container
(semi-permeable phospholipids).
It would also require some type of mechanism to acquire nutrients
(passively) from the "exterior" to maintain these functions, even though
this could be accomplished by osmosis via a semi-permeable membrane.

That's a lot of irreducible complexity there. I view it as a type of
minimal requirements for the first "units" to be considered alive. Take
any one of these away and no joy. It's mind boggling to think that all
this was created simultaneously in some unknown conditions (probably
very harsh, given the environment of an early Earth).

Is this what you meant when you asked me to expound on this further?


>
> Peter Nyikos
>

[prawnster]

On Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:28:19 AM UTC-7, pnyikos wrote:
>> Originally I thought to use "milestones" instead of "benchmarks", but that creates the impression that these benchmarks are about evenly spaced, whereas I think the difficulties in getting between successive benchmarks are very different quantitatively. In fact, the first thing I'd appreciate reader feedback on is this. Try ordering the various moves from one benchmark to the next, in order of difficulty. I'd like even creationists to play along here. Even if you don't think evolution bridged the gap from one benchmark to the next, you might at least have some idea as to which ones pose the biggest obstacle to "abiogeneticists" and "evolutionists". <<

Yes, and that's where creationists go so wrong so often. They think it's harmless to ponder which "evolutionary gap" poses the biggest obstacle to Darwinists. See, Homey don't play that, because Homey don't engage in no question begging.

I don't accept a single Darwinist assumption or assertion; the "evolutionary gaps" you refer to exist purely in the imaginations of Darwinists. So it is their burden to present observable evidence that a gap exists in the first place and then to demonstrate critters on one side of that supposed gap becoming the critters on the other side of that supposed gap.

So, no thank you, sir. It serves no purpose to assume facts not in evidence and then use that assumption to engage in an unobserved question-begging speculative phantasy.

Objection! Evolution assumes facts not in evidence.

Sustained. Case dismissed. Evolution isn't science.

[Richard Norman]

cOn Thu, 6 Sep 2012 13:20:36 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos

You, of course, must be fully aware that John's use of "random" is not
in any mathematical sense but rather in the ordinary language sense of
being "arbitrary" and "not selected by rational argument".

You, of course, must also be fully aware that the physics text is
attempting to train students in estimation of quantities that do in
fact have specific values whereas your demand for estimates of
evolutionary difficulty have absolutely no basis in any reasonable
metric.

[Richard Norman]

<snip remainder> about other topics.

Your second post emphasizes motility and emphasizes the orgin of
metazoans in particular whereas I emphasized the origin of complex
multicellularity which is a very different concept.

You seem not to realize that cellular motility is a very widespread
phenomenon. Typically, pretty much all the unicellular protists are
motile and motility, generally using a tubulin-based mechanism seems
to be a common eukaryote characteristic. Similarly actin-based
systems both in formation of the cytoskeleton or in cellular motility,
are also widespread. These both have prokaryote origins. It seems
that the sessile life form of larger multicellular plants and fungi is
a derived character which would seem to be a reasonable consequence of
their mode of acquiring nutrients: autotrophy or ingestive
heterotrophy. The development of an active, motile way of life is
what you would expect for an ingestive heterotroph that must locate
food sources. Think of the parallel in the origin of heterogamy --
the differentiation between an active motile sperm and a sessile
nutrient-filled egg when almost certainly the earliest form of sexual
reproduction involved isogamy: two seemingly identical gametes
(although possibly differing in mating class) coming together in what
is called "syngamy" because the word "fertilization" assumes that
sperm are different from ova. Plants and animals adopted very
different ways of feeding themselves and, from that, came the
differences in motility.

This is just one example of how you misidentify "key" or "critical"
benchmarks in trying to create an evolutionary "ladder."

[John Harshman]

The point is that your goal is any intelligent, tech-capable species,
yet you characterize only the pathway specifically leading to H. sapiens.

> To paraphrase what you write below, what use is served by the word in
> that sentence?
>
>>> As to "random", science proceeds by giving structure
>>> to things, and without specific benchmarks, how do we even talk about
>>> anything resembling the theme I'd like to talk about?
>>
>> So you agree that those benchmarks are randomly chosen?
>
> Komogoroff would have agreed, certainly. Even the set of flippings of
> a two-headed coin is a probability space for a "random variable".
> [Irrelevant aside: there's always a chance the coin will land on edge,
> or be caught by a bird in mid-flip.]

Was that a response? If so, was it a yes or a no?

>>> Anyway, here are two intermediate benchmarks that you might enjoy
>>> thinking about:
>>
>>> B0.5: Stage 1 as described in my second post to this thread
>>
>>> B5.5: amniotes
>>
>>> I think the move from B0 to B0.5 is somewhat less huge than the move
>>> from B0.5 to B1, and that either one dwarfs all the moves from B1 to
>>> B7 put together as far as *intrinsic* difficulty is concerned.
>>
>> How does adding more random points improve the analysis?
>
> In somewhat the same way talking about "random fossils" improves
> phylogenetic trees.

So not at all. Talking about random fossils doesn't in any way affect a
phylogenetic tree. Relevant fossils are another matter.

>>> In contrast, I think the move from B5.5 to B6 was the easiest of all,
>>> considering that three different orders seem to have made it:
>>> Coelurosauria, Carnivora, and Primates. The latter two branched off
>>> from the first right about the very root of Amniota, so that's quite a
>>> significant datum.
>>
>> Another random point, containing three not particularly related and
>> ambiguously defined characteristics bundled together.
>
> You are using "random" in close to the most general way possible,
> which is Kolmogoroff's definition of "random variable".

I wouldn't know. Feel free to substitute "chosen for no clear reason".

>> I repeat:
>>
>>>> What is served by such an exercise?
>>
>> What indeed?
>
> Making Mark Isaak happy. He hates the idea of trying to estimate the
> probability of getting from one benchmark to the next, and so I
> decided to make it a more qualitiative topic.
>
> You, of course, are made happy in another way. You get to apply your
> naive idea of the Socratic Method, as above.

I love it when you're condescending. And as an added bonus, you get to
avoid answering.

> Those are two purposes.

That was only one purpose: making Mark Isaak happy. A commendable
purpose, I'm sure, and one that reflects credit on your benevolence, but
not a particularly useful one.

> There are others, which I'll mention at the
> appropriate time.

I would have thought that answering a direct question would have been
the appropriate time, but maybe that's just me.

[pnyikos]

On Sep 6, 3:58锟絧m, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 9/6/12 11:29 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 6, 12:08 pm, Nick Keighley<nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:

> >> On Sep 6, 4:23 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> 锟絯rote:

>
> >>> On 9/6/12 7:26 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> >>>> Originally I thought to use "milestones" instead of "benchmarks", but
> >>>> that creates the impression that these benchmarks are about evenly
> >>>> spaced, whereas I think the difficulties in getting between successive
> >>>> benchmarks are very different quantitatively.
>
> >>>> In fact, the first thing I'd appreciate reader feedback on is this.
> >>>> Try ordering the various moves from one benchmark to the next, in
> >>>> order of difficulty.
>

> >>>> I'd like even creationists to play along here. 锟紼ven if you don't

> >>>> think evolution bridged the gap from one benchmark to the next, you
> >>>> might at least have some idea as to which ones pose the biggest
> >>>> obstacle to "abiogeneticists" and "evolutionists".
>
> >>>> Here are the main benchmarks:
>

> >>>> B0. 锟絇rebiotic soup, with amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, and

> >>>> various other simple organic compounds that we know can be formed
> >>>> spontaneously under early earth (before life) conditions, having
> >>>> produced them in the lab and having found them in meteorites.
>
> >>>> B1. prokaryotes (bacteria, archae)
>

> >>>> B2. 锟絪exually reproducing eukaryotes

>
> >>>> B3: metazoans
>
> >>>> B4: lower chordates
>
> >>>> B5: primitive tetrapods
>
> >>>> B6: prosimians
>
> >>>> B7: *Homo sapiens*
>
> >>> As far as I can tell, you have picked 5 random points along a particular
> >>> pathway from no life at all to one particular extant species. I see no
> >>> reason to suppose that these points are special, even along that
> >>> pathway, or that the particular pathway is in any way generalizable.
> >>> What is served by such an exercise?
>
> >> also, didn't he do the same a few posts ago?
>
> > Are you talking about my second post to this thread, where I gave a
> > generalization?
>

> > Yes, John seems to have jumped the gun here. 锟絀 posted this 锟絩eply to

> > my first post only a few minutes after I did the first post, but maybe
> > it hadn't propagated to John's Giganews server at the time he posted
> > his reply.
>
> No, I read it. I just didn't think it was relevant to my points

Then you are exhibiting a (momentary?) lapse in intelligence, or else
another one of your self-serving exhorbitant standards.

I gave a rather broad generalization of the pathway in my second post,
yet you claimed

"I see no reason to suppose that ... the particular pathway is in any
way generalizable." [See above.]

Let's see...I've caught you setting exhorbitant standards for a number
of expressions. Given enough time, I think I could remember three or
more prior to this one, where the possible culprit is "in any way".

To paraphrase the Cheshire Cat: all the "any ways" here are your "any
ways."

[That's in the Lewis Carroll book. In the Walt Disney film, it is the
Queen of Hearts herself who says "all the ways here are my ways."]

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

Richard, talk.origins is not a scientific research forum; we are here
to talk about evolution in various ways, and I thought this would be a
nice little intellectual excercise.

That said, I do have an application in mind, but I'd rather hold off
talking about it because that would distract others from the main
theme of this thread.

>�It is obvious that

> at every branching point in evolution there is some "change", some
> "development" -- this branch has such and such whereas that branch
> lacks it or has some other. �Follow the branching tree and you get a
> series of "benchmarks".

Sure, but the Stages 1 through 7 are levels that some branches may
attain, and others not. The number of branches that have gotten from
one stage to the next is surprisingly small.

In fact, I can't think of a single example of a set of four organisms
at one stage giving rise to an organism at the next stage unless two
or more of them are in a direct line of descent from each other.

> There is no measure for how "difficult" any step might be.

As I told John, my purposes on this thread are more qualitative than
quantitative. The main emhasis is just on comparing pairs of
successive benchmarks, and saying which "move" is the easier.

And you came through very nicely in your first post.

>�There is

> only a measure of how much we know or understand about the processes
> and stages and mechanisms that lead to each stop.

How would you measure (in the sense of "quantify") your knowledge or
understanding? It seems far harder than quantifying the difficulty of
getting from one step to the next.

I'm here to gather infomation about the processes; it is only in that
way that we can be confident about the comparisons we make about the
difficulty.

> It is clear that
> the earliest steps are little understood where the more recent steps
> are well documented.

We do know something about getting from prokaryotes (B1) to the most
primitive eukaryotes (B1.5).

In the textbook _Biology_, Eighth Edition, by Campbell et.al., there
is a section, "The Evolution of Mitosis" on page 237. It shows a
hypothetical pathway from the way bacteria reproduce to the mitosis
that occurs in most eukaryotes, including Plantae and Animalia.

There are two intermediate stages, representied by dinoflagellates,
then diatoms and yeasts. In the latter stage, the nuclear membrane
remains intact and the microtubules stay within the nucleus,
separating the chromosomes as in plant and animal cells, whereas the
microtubules in dinoflagellates anchor the nucleus to the cell wall
the way proteins are believed to anchor the daughter chromosomes to
the cell wall before fission is complete. In the mitosis you generally
see in textbooks, the nuclear envelope breaks down during mitosis.

One thing missing from this hypothesis is how the single chromosome of
bacteria might have become replaced by paired chromosomes. Might a
mechanism like polyploidy be involved?

[pnyikos]

No answer. So in my reply to another post of yours a few minutes ago,
I gave a reason why I think the first move isn't as difficult as some
might think. But on reflection, I am not so sure any more.

The evolution of paired chromosomes, such that somehow the pairs find
each other in sexual reproduction, and the evolution of meiosis seem
to be the two biggest ingredients in getting from B1 to B2, and paired
chromosomes are in all eukaryotes, including dinoflagellates, diatoms,
and yeasts, aren't they? So it is reasonable to assign the evolution
of paired chromosomes to the move from B1 to B1.5.

But there is still meiosis, and the "somehow the pairs find each
other" still to be hurdled. So on balance I still think the latter
move is the bigger.

> >> Once you have multicellularity, it seems the rest is pretty
> >> easy to explain and even multicellularity doesn't seem to be that much
> >> of a problem.
>
> >Did you read what I wrote about Stage 3 in my second post? �Metazoans
> >have far more going for them than mere multicellularity.
>
> <snip remainder> about other topics.
>
> Your second post emphasizes motility and emphasizes the orgin of
> metazoans in particular whereas I emphasized the origin of complex
> multicellularity which is a very different concept.
>
> You seem not to realize that cellular motility is a very widespread
> phenomenon. �Typically, pretty much all the unicellular protists are
> motile and motility,

I was referring specifically to organized motility in multicellular
organisms, with distinct multicellular parts. That is a whole new
issue. You get unicellular motility in the sperm of bryophytes and
pteridophytes, but the multicellular organisms that result lack
motility even in the earliest stages.

> generally using a tubulin-based mechanism seems
> to be a common eukaryote characteristic. �Similarly actin-based
> systems both in formation of the cytoskeleton or in cellular motility,
> are also widespread. �These both have prokaryote origins. �It seems
> that the sessile life form of larger multicellular plants and fungi is
> a derived character which would seem to be a reasonable consequence of
> their mode of acquiring nutrients: �autotrophy or ingestive
> heterotrophy.

A derived character due to multicellularity alone, isn't it?

>�The development of an active, motile way of life is

> what you would expect for an ingestive heterotroph that must locate
> food sources. �Think of the parallel in the origin of heterogamy --
> the differentiation between an active motile sperm and a sessile
> nutrient-filled egg when almost certainly the earliest form of sexual
> reproduction involved isogamy: �two seemingly identical gametes
> (although possibly differing in mating class) coming together in what
> is called "syngamy" because the word "fertilization" assumes that
> sperm are different from ova.

Syngamy is included in my idea of "sexual reproduction" as is
conjugation in paramecia.

> �Plants and animals adopted very

> different ways of feeding themselves and, from that, came the
> differences in motility.
>
> This is just one example of how you misidentify "key" or "critical"
> benchmarks in trying to create an evolutionary "ladder."

If any fault is mine, it is in not spelling out the description of
the stages more. But I already was criticized on the other thread for
making the description of the stages "too long."

Peter Nyikos

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/6/12 7:26 AM, pnyikos wrote:

> Originally I thought to use "milestones" instead of "benchmarks", but
> that creates the impression that these benchmarks are about evenly
> spaced, whereas I think the difficulties in getting between successive
> benchmarks are very different quantitatively.
>
> In fact, the first thing I'd appreciate reader feedback on is this.
> Try ordering the various moves from one benchmark to the next, in
> order of difficulty.
>
> I'd like even creationists to play along here. Even if you don't
> think evolution bridged the gap from one benchmark to the next, you
> might at least have some idea as to which ones pose the biggest
> obstacle to "abiogeneticists" and "evolutionists".
>
> Here are the main benchmarks:
>
> B0. Prebiotic soup, with amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, and
> various other simple organic compounds that we know can be formed
> spontaneously under early earth (before life) conditions, having
> produced them in the lab and having found them in meteorites.
>
> B1. prokaryotes (bacteria, archae)
>
> B2. sexually reproducing eukaryotes
>
> B3: metazoans
>
> B4: lower chordates
>
> B5: primitive tetrapods
>
> B6: prosimians
>
> B7: *Homo sapiens*
>

> [...]

> It would be nice to have at least "order-of-magnitude" estimates of
> the relative difficulties in getting from one benchmark to the other,
> but that's not what this thread is mainly about.

I assume this is in reference to the origin of something capable of
launching life into the galaxy. (If not, then the whole exercise
appears pointless.) Here, then, more or less off the top of my head,
are what I see as major benchmarks:

C0: Prebiotic soup, with water; carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus
compounds; mineral substrate; a host of trace minerals; and some
continuous energy sources.

C1: Self-replicating genetics.

C2: Prokaryotes; i.e. self-contained self-replicating genetics.
Possibly C1 and C2 could be simultaneous.

C3: Organelles.

C4: Multicellularity with some cellular differentiation. Possibly C4
could come before C3 (though it seems unlikely).

C5: Tool use.

C6: Technological control of whole ecosystems.

My estimates of relative difficulties of transitions (expressed as
probability of the second given the first):
C0->C1 (replication): 10^-10 to 0.3
C1->C2 (prokaryotes): 10^-4 to 1
C2->C3 (organelles) : 10^-8 to 1
C3->C4 (multi-cell) : 0.01 to 1
C4->C5 (tool use) : 0.001 to 1
C5->C6 (high tech.) : 0.01 to 1
Total: somewhere between 10^-29 and 0.3. Of course, my estimates could
be way off.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Glenn]

"pnyikos" <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:995c9485-be45-476b...@h4g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...

I think elephants are bigger.

[John Harshman]

On 9/6/12 4:49 PM, pnyikos wrote:

> On Sep 6, 3:58 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On 9/6/12 11:29 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 6, 12:08 pm, Nick Keighley<nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:

>>>> On Sep 6, 4:23 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 9/6/12 7:26 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Originally I thought to use "milestones" instead of "benchmarks", but
>>>>>> that creates the impression that these benchmarks are about evenly
>>>>>> spaced, whereas I think the difficulties in getting between successive
>>>>>> benchmarks are very different quantitatively.
>>
>>>>>> In fact, the first thing I'd appreciate reader feedback on is this.
>>>>>> Try ordering the various moves from one benchmark to the next, in
>>>>>> order of difficulty.
>>

>>>>>> I'd like even creationists to play along here. Even if you don't

>>>>>> think evolution bridged the gap from one benchmark to the next, you
>>>>>> might at least have some idea as to which ones pose the biggest
>>>>>> obstacle to "abiogeneticists" and "evolutionists".
>>
>>>>>> Here are the main benchmarks:
>>

>>>>>> B0. Prebiotic soup, with amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, and

>>>>>> various other simple organic compounds that we know can be formed
>>>>>> spontaneously under early earth (before life) conditions, having
>>>>>> produced them in the lab and having found them in meteorites.
>>
>>>>>> B1. prokaryotes (bacteria, archae)
>>

>>>>>> B2. sexually reproducing eukaryotes

>>
>>>>>> B3: metazoans
>>
>>>>>> B4: lower chordates
>>
>>>>>> B5: primitive tetrapods
>>
>>>>>> B6: prosimians
>>
>>>>>> B7: *Homo sapiens*
>>
>>>>> As far as I can tell, you have picked 5 random points along a particular
>>>>> pathway from no life at all to one particular extant species. I see no
>>>>> reason to suppose that these points are special, even along that
>>>>> pathway, or that the particular pathway is in any way generalizable.
>>>>> What is served by such an exercise?
>>
>>>> also, didn't he do the same a few posts ago?
>>
>>> Are you talking about my second post to this thread, where I gave a
>>> generalization?
>>

>>> Yes, John seems to have jumped the gun here. I posted this reply to

>>> my first post only a few minutes after I did the first post, but maybe
>>> it hadn't propagated to John's Giganews server at the time he posted
>>> his reply.
>>
>> No, I read it. I just didn't think it was relevant to my points
>
> Then you are exhibiting a (momentary?) lapse in intelligence, or else
> another one of your self-serving exhorbitant standards.
>
> I gave a rather broad generalization of the pathway in my second post,
> yet you claimed
>
> "I see no reason to suppose that ... the particular pathway is in any
> way generalizable." [See above.]

You consider it a broad generalization. I don't. It's just a restatement
of some arbitrarily chosen bits of the pathway we happened to follow.

> Let's see...I've caught you setting exhorbitant standards for a number
> of expressions. Given enough time, I think I could remember three or
> more prior to this one, where the possible culprit is "in any way".
>
> To paraphrase the Cheshire Cat: all the "any ways" here are your "any
> ways."
>
> [That's in the Lewis Carroll book. In the Walt Disney film, it is the
> Queen of Hearts herself who says "all the ways here are my ways."]

Thanks. That's relevant.

[jillery]

But certainly well within the error bars.

[Richard Norman]

On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 17:51:35 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:


>>
>> >I think the move from B1.5 to B2 was much more difficult than the move
>> >from B1 to B1.5. �How about you?
>
>No answer. So in my reply to another post of yours a few minutes ago,
>I gave a reason why I think the first move isn't as difficult as some
>might think. But on reflection, I am not so sure any more.
>

No answer because I think there is no way to quantify "degree of
difficulty" in the evolution of such massive changes.

[pnyikos]

Thanks for playing. [Is this old Usenet expression still in common
use?]

Don't worry, Harsman wouldn't dream of suggesting that YOUR benchmarks
are random. :-)

> My estimates of relative difficulties of transitions (expressed as
> probability of the second given the first):
> C0->C1 (replication): 10^-10 to 0.3
> C1->C2 (prokaryotes): 10^-4 to 1
> C2->C3 (organelles) : 10^-8 to 1
> C3->C4 (multi-cell) : 0.01 to 1
> C4->C5 (tool use) � : 0.001 to 1
> C5->C6 (high tech.) : 0.01 to 1
> Total: somewhere between 10^-29 and 0.3. �Of course, my estimates could
> be way off.

What do you include under organelles, and why the very small lower
bound for C2->C3? why so much lower than the one for C4->C5?

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

Excellent. I suggest that in future you put a smiley after all of your
facetious remarks, just to identify them properly.

[Burkhard]

On Sep 7, 2:08�am, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> On 9/6/12 7:26 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>
>
>

(snip)

>
> I assume this is in reference to the origin of something capable of
> launching life into the galaxy. �(If not, then the whole exercise
> appears pointless.) �Here, then, more or less off the top of my head,
> are what I see as major benchmarks:

You are missing a few, I think:

>
> C0: Prebiotic soup, with water; carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus
> compounds; mineral substrate; a host of trace minerals; and some
> continuous energy sources.
>
> C1: Self-replicating genetics.
>
> C2: Prokaryotes; i.e. self-contained self-replicating genetics.
> Possibly C1 and C2 could be simultaneous.
>
> C3: Organelles.
>
> C4: Multicellularity with some cellular differentiation. �Possibly C4
> could come before C3 (though it seems unlikely).

C4.5: Penguins

>
> C5: Tool use.

C5.1. B&Q


C5.999: Diana Rigg

[Ernest Major]

In message <k2bhcr$s5i$1...@dont-email.me>, Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> writes

That's "unlikely" with a posterior probability of 1. (See Anabaena -
pace arguments about's what's a colony and what's and organism.)

>
>C5: Tool use.
>
>C6: Technological control of whole ecosystems.
>
>My estimates of relative difficulties of transitions (expressed as
>probability of the second given the first):
>C0->C1 (replication): 10^-10 to 0.3
>C1->C2 (prokaryotes): 10^-4 to 1
>C2->C3 (organelles) : 10^-8 to 1
>C3->C4 (multi-cell) : 0.01 to 1
>C4->C5 (tool use) : 0.001 to 1
>C5->C6 (high tech.) : 0.01 to 1
>Total: somewhere between 10^-29 and 0.3. Of course, my estimates could
>be way off.
>

--

alias Ernest Major

[Ron O]

Not really. They don't encompass the low estimates touted by a lot of
IDiot/Creationists that range lower than 10^-100 and the optimists
that have their high estimate at 1.0.

Ron Okimoto

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 00:18:28 -0400, John Harshman wrote
(in article <yfCdnWeN0uY...@giganews.com>):

We need a marker when Peter thinks that he's being funny, just so we can tell
that he's joking. Thanks to his (lack of a) sense of humor there's no other
way to determine that.

>
>>> My estimates of relative difficulties of transitions (expressed as
>>> probability of the second given the first):
>>> C0->C1 (replication): 10^-10 to 0.3
>>> C1->C2 (prokaryotes): 10^-4 to 1
>>> C2->C3 (organelles) : 10^-8 to 1
>>> C3->C4 (multi-cell) : 0.01 to 1
>>> C4->C5 (tool use) : 0.001 to 1
>>> C5->C6 (high tech.) : 0.01 to 1
>>> Total: somewhere between 10^-29 and 0.3. Of course, my estimates could
>>> be way off.
>>
>> What do you include under organelles, and why the very small lower
>> bound for C2->C3? why so much lower than the one for C4->C5?
>>
>> Peter Nyikos
>>
>

--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

[Glenn]

"J.J. O'Shea" <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 09:08:25 -0400, Glenn wrote
(in article <glennsheldon-k2crqg$b1m$1...@dont-email.me>):

Yes!

[jillery]

On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 03:33:29 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <roki...@cox.net>
wrote:

I had Mark's error bars in mind, but I readily agree that the error
bars of IDeologically driven individuals can be much wider.

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/6/12 9:13 PM, pnyikos wrote:

Organelles are significant organization of functionality within the
cell. On earth, a lot of this involved symbiosis, which, for primitive
organisms, is probably rare; impossible to say how rare when we don't
know what we're working with.

Multicellularity seems to me to be a fairly natural progression. Cells
will often clump together naturally -- if for no other reason, then
because forces don't always disperse them after reproduction. From
there, it is advantageous to evolve differentiation, adapting to work
either at the edge or in the middle. From there to true multicellular
organism is more relatively small and evolutionarily advantageous steps.

I am still being unduly earth-centric in assuming cells. Just because
that is pretty much all we know does not make cellularity necessary for
life. There probably has to be some kind of multi-level organization
for complex functionality, though, so cells are, at least, a useful
proxy for a basic unit of that organization.

[Ernest Major]

In message <k2d6m7$g3b$1...@dont-email.me>, Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> writes

There appear to be more organelles of non-symbiotic origin than
organelles of symbiotic origin. Moreover some prokaryotes have
organelles (e.g. the chlorosomes of green sulfur bacteria).

Another observation of relevance is the existence of polyploid bacteria.

>
>Multicellularity seems to me to be a fairly natural progression. Cells
>will often clump together naturally -- if for no other reason, then
>because forces don't always disperse them after reproduction. From
>there, it is advantageous to evolve differentiation, adapting to work
>either at the edge or in the middle. From there to true multicellular
>organism is more relatively small and evolutionarily advantageous steps.
>
>I am still being unduly earth-centric in assuming cells. Just because
>that is pretty much all we know does not make cellularity necessary for
>life. There probably has to be some kind of multi-level organization
>for complex functionality, though, so cells are, at least, a useful
>proxy for a basic unit of that organization.
>

--

alias Ernest Major

[pnyikos]

On Sep 6, 4:43�pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:28:19 AM UTC-7, pnyikos wrote:
> >> Originally I thought to use "milestones" instead of "benchmarks", but that creates the impression that these benchmarks are about evenly spaced, whereas I think the difficulties in getting between successive benchmarks are very different quantitatively. In fact, the first thing I'd appreciate reader feedback on is this. Try ordering the various moves from one benchmark to the next, in order of difficulty. I'd like even creationists to play along here. Even if you don't think evolution bridged the gap from one benchmark to the next, you might at least have some idea as to which ones pose the biggest obstacle to "abiogeneticists" and "evolutionists". <<
>
> Yes, and that's where creationists go so wrong so often. �They think it's harmless to ponder which "evolutionary gap" poses the biggest obstacle to Darwinists.

Not only is it harmless, it is beneficial from their POV because it
helps them to play to the weaknesses of Darwinists, rather than their
strengths.

Specifically, their greatest weakness is the gulf between Benchmark 0
and Benchmark 1, especially the first half, the gulf between prebiotic
soup and efficient replicators, commonly referred to as "abiogenesis".

By the way, what is your definition of "Darwinist"? Assuming you read
my benchmarks, it incorporates belif in abiogenesis.

Does it also incorporate atheism? Does it include evolution from the
first efficient replicator to Homo sapiens by small steps, fueled by
mutations and natural selection?

>�See, Homey don't play that, because Homey don't engage in no question begging.

What is your definition of question begging? I can't see how the
usual definition applies here.

> I don't accept a single Darwinist assumption or assertion; the "evolutionary gaps" you refer to exist purely in the imaginations of Darwinists.

So call them "gaps that evolution cannot bridge" if that is your
opinion. Let's not get too hung up on terminology.

> So it is their burden to present observable evidence that a gap exists in the first place

Does this mean that you think that creationists who talk about
"missing links" are spouting nonsense?

>and then to demonstrate critters on one side of that supposed gap becoming the critters on the other side of that supposed gap.

Creationists often assume there is a gap between Hyracotherium and
Equus, but evolutionists have demonstrated a fine gradation of fossils
between them.

Do you have some personal idea of "critters becoming other critters"
that isn't affected by that fact?

>
> So, no thank you, sir. �It serves no purpose to assume facts not in evidence

Begging the question in the usual sense: what definition of "gap"
allows you to claim that it is a "fact not in evidence"?

>and then use that assumption to engage in an unobserved question-begging speculative phantasy.
>
> Objection! �Evolution assumes facts not in evidence.

Can you be a little more clear about what you mean by those "facts"?

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Sep 6, 5:48�pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> cOn Thu, 6 Sep 2012 13:20:36 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos

Yes to the first, but there are lots of terms that he does not use in
the ordinary language sense, but in a "rising bar" way which allows
him, for instance, to claim that a generalization is not "in any way"
a generalization. Did you see how high he set the bar for "in any way"
right on this thread?

As it turned out, it also allows him to label every attempt at
rational explanation as inadequate. He gave the game away by out and
out claiming, without a smidgin of evidence, that the numerous
properties of organisms in the descriptions of Stage 1 through 7 were
"arbitrary".

I have had lots of experience with Harshman, so I strongly suspected I
would just be wasting my time if I tried to explain TO HIM why this
and that benchmark was selected for very good reasons. So I just
decided to remind him that there are other uses of "random" which
depart from the ordinary, English language senses of the word. [There
are several incompatible ones, by the way. Each has its own
mathematical counterpart.]

However, if you are willing to read with an open mind, I will show YOU
the rational basis for why I chose "sexually reproducing" for one of
my benchmarks.

> You, of course, must also be fully aware that the physics text is
> attempting to train students in estimation of quantities that do in
> fact have specific values

Have you actually looked at the problems? Yes, the one I chose does
have a specific value for each student, but not the following:

1.26 You are using water to dilute small amounts of chemicals in the
laboratory, drop by drop. How many drops of water are there in a 1.0L
bottle? (*Hint*: Start by estimating the diameter of a drop of water.)

As you are undoubtedly aware, the sizes of drops of water are
influenced by a host of factors, including temperature, impurities,
and tendency to adhere to the pipette opening, and hence the material
composition of the pipette, shape and size of the opening, etc.

>whereas your demand for estimates of
> evolutionary difficulty have absolutely no basis in any reasonable
> metric.

Which is why I didn't ask for a metric in the first place, and my only
mention of such a thing had to do with ratios, not absolute measures
of difficulty.

[pnyikos]

That was your second use of "particular." I specifically referred to
the first.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

It was both uses. The double-particular was just for emphasis. Stop
reading like a mathematician and start reading like a speaker of English.

[pnyikos]

On Sep 6, 4:38�pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> On 09-06-12 3:20 PM, pnyikos wrote:

> > On Sep 6, 1:33 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:

> >> On 09-06-12 11:26 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> >>> Originally I thought to use "milestones" instead of "benchmarks", but
> >>> that creates the impression that these benchmarks are about evenly
> >>> spaced, whereas I think the difficulties in getting between successive
> >>> benchmarks are very different quantitatively.
>
> >>> In fact, the first thing I'd appreciate reader feedback on is this.
> >>> Try ordering the various moves from one benchmark to the next, in
> >>> order of difficulty.
>
> >>> I'd like even creationists to play along here. �Even if you don't
> >>> think evolution bridged the gap from one benchmark to the next, you
> >>> might at least have some idea as to which ones pose the biggest
> >>> obstacle to "abiogeneticists" and "evolutionists".
>
> >>> Here are the main benchmarks:
>
> >>> B0. �Prebiotic soup, with amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, and
> >>> various other simple organic compounds that we know can be formed
> >>> spontaneously under early earth (before life) conditions, having
> >>> produced them in the lab and having found them in meteorites.
>
> >>> B1. prokaryotes (bacteria, archae)
>
> >>> B2. �sexually reproducing eukaryotes
>
> >>> B3: metazoans
>
> >>> B4: lower chordates
>
> >>> B5: primitive tetrapods
>
> >>> B6: prosimians
>
> >>> B7: *Homo sapiens*
>

> >>> I'll designate as Move n (Mn) the evolutionary move from Bn-1 to the
> >>> next benchmark, Bn. �I'll start the ball rolling with my present (very
> >>> tentative) idea of the order of difficulty, the most difficult first,
> >>> to the least difficult, last.
>
> >>> M1, �M2, M3, �M5, M7, M6, M4
>
> >>> Later, I will be giving some ideas as to why I rank these as I do.
> >>> Feel free to confine yourselves to individual comparisons, e.g. "I
> >>> think M1 is much easier than M2" [a widely shared sentiment] and to
> >>> give comparisons like these long before giving reasons for your
> >>> belief.

>
> >>> It would be nice to have at least "order-of-magnitude" estimates of

> >>> the relative difficulties �in getting from one benchmark to the other,

> >>> but that's not what this thread is mainly about.
>

> >> B0. The step from non living matter to the enormous complexity of the
> >> cell is where all the important stuff occurred.
>
> > Yes, I put in the following benchmark between B0 and B1 in reply to
> > Harshman just a few minutes ago,
> > and the following comment:

>
> > B0.5: Stage 1 as described in my second post to this thread
>

> > I think the move from B0 to B0.5 is somewhat less huge than the move
> > from B0.5 to B1, and that either one dwarfs all the moves from B1 to
> > B7 put together as far as *intrinsic* difficulty is concerned.
>

> >> As an aside, I wonder how many posters, for the exception of the career
> >> biologists have an inkling as to how complex even a "protocell" can be,
> >> integrating a minimum of functions within and exploiting resources to
> >> keep it alive from the outside.
>
> > Sounds like something that even precedes Benchmark 0.5. �Would you
> > like to expound on this further?
>
> � Well, from the inside, it would require some sort of primitive
> metabolism in order to utilize chemical energy for it to function,
> replication material (DNA, RNA?) and obviously some type of container
> (semi-permeable phospholipids).

Thanks, that does clarify it somewhat. You didn't include powerful
enzymes to speed up replication and improve fidelity, so we are well
below Stage 1. Also, "replication material...and...container"
suggests nothing more than a "bag of loose molecules" including lots
of individual RM [replication material] molecules.

Then when a "protocell" divides, all the copies of one RM molecule
might go to just one of the daughter protocells, and cell division
might occur when there is still only one copy of many RM molecules.
This could make for very haphazard "evolution", with all the gains of
one generation going to pot in the next generation.

A number of RM alternatives to RNA have been proposed to hurdle the
huge obstacle described here:

Scientists interested in the origins of life seem to
divide neatly into two classes. The first, usually
but not always molecular biologists, believe that
RNA must have been the first replicating molecule
and that chemists are exaggerating the difficulty
of nucleotide synthesis. ... The second group
of scientists is much more pessimistic. They believe
that the de novo appearance of oligonucleotides on
the primitive earth would have been a near miracle.
(The authors subscribe to this latter view). Time
will tell which is correct.
--G. F. Joyce and Leslie E. Orgel, "Prospects
for understanding the origin of the RNA
world," in: _The RNA World_, ed. R. F.
Gesteland and J. F. Atkins, Cold Spring
Harbor Press, 1993, p. 19.

Orgel himself proposed PNA instead of RNA. Another alternative, which
seems to dovetail nicely with your idea of protocells, is PAH:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAH_world_hypothesis

Another idea is Shapiro's "small molecules" idea, which suffers from
the drawback that there seems to be no proposed bridge from it to the
the first prokaryote or even an organism using RNA as its reproductive
material.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-simpler-origin-for-life&offset=7

He even undermines "RNA world" beyond where Joyce and Orgel did in the
short excerpt above.

> It would also require some type of mechanism to acquire nutrients
> (passively) from the "exterior" to maintain these functions, even though
> this could be accomplished by osmosis via a semi-permeable membrane.

An interesting question is what role RNA could play besides that of
ribozymes. I've been told that they are no good as replacement for
proteins in the lining of pores.

Presumably there is no genetic code as yet, so what could they
produce copies of besides themselves?

> That's a lot of irreducible complexity there.

Where exactly? Any set of RM molecules could do their thing, and none
seems essential. Also, IC as described by Behe specifically calls for
"a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts
that contribute to the basic function." [_Darwin's Black Box_, page
39.] You need to specify a system and its basic function, and explain
how the parts interact.


> I view it as a type of
> minimal requirements for the first "units" to be considered alive. Take
> any one of these away and no joy.

"These" presumably refers to the four "parts": RM, the membrane, the
metabolic material, and the means of bringing in material from the
outside. But you'd need to show how the RM interacts with the other
things, and how they can be "well-matched" when some of the RM does
not do anything besides replicate, and its replication might be
unconnected with the rest.

Also, what is the basic function supposed to be? "being alive" is not
a function, it is simply a description, and an ill-defined one at
that.

>It's mind boggling to think that all
> this was created simultaneously in some unknown conditions (probably
> very harsh, given the environment of an early Earth).

There is no reason why it would have to be simultaneously. There
could have been an ocean of loose molecules floating around, until a
bunch finally came together to form a protocell.

> Is this what you meant when you asked me to expound on this further?

Yes, but I'd be glad if you elaborated still further.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Sep 7, 11:28�am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 09:08:25 -0400, Glenn wrote

> (in article <glennsheldon-k2crqg$b1...@dont-email.me>):
>
>
>
> > "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote

>
> >> We need a marker when Peter thinks that he's being funny, just so we can
> >> tell
> >> that he's joking. Thanks to his (lack of a) sense of humor there's no other
> >> way to determine that.
>
> Yes!

Don't worry, I seriously doubt Harshman will accuse you of talking to
yourself. In my experience, he reserves that sort of thing for those
who do not belong to what might be called "the talk.origins village of
anti-ID regulars," like myself.

Peter Nyikos

[Richard Norman]

I seem to observe you engaged in extended arguments, sometimes quite
intemperate, with people about what I think are side issues. Your
analysis of what John might mean by "random" or "arbitrary" is one of
those. I do not wish to get embroiled in such a discussion.

I agree that a number of your earlier "benchmarks" are reasonable and
I gave a slightly modified set of my own. I also believe that all of
your later ones, the ones specifically relating to the evolution of
humans, are quite arbitrary. There are any number of other equally
justifiable markers you could pick on that one line and the selection
of human evolution out of all of biology is another problem when
discussing the general concept of evolution of life.

The notion of "drop" as varying in size is part of what the physics
exercise is trying to force students to attempt. Were I to grade such
a homework set, for example, I would accept drop from, say, 1 to 10
mm, with correspondingly one thousand-fold variation in size but still
expect a proper estimate of the drops in a bottle. In my own General
Chemistry lab, on the first day we learned some glass blowing and made
droppers to calibrate. The standard was 20 to 30 drops per ml. It is
very unusual to find in the everyday world drops that differ by more
than an order of magnitude from that.

You should also know that ratios are exceptionally hard to evaluate
and demand a metric that has a definite zero and is uniform along its
range. When one of those values (the denominator in the ratio) is
very close to zero, then even tiny uncertainties in its value produce
enormous variation in the ratio. And I have no idea what
"difficulty" even means for evolution.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 15:27:52 -0400, pnyikos wrote
(in article
<cd9a22d4-5757-4df7...@h5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>):

> On Sep 7, 11:28ï¿œam, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 09:08:25 -0400, Glenn wrote
>> (in article <glennsheldon-k2crqg$b1...@dont-email.me>):
>>
>>
>>
>>> "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote
>>
>>>> We need a marker when Peter thinks that he's being funny, just so we can
>>>> tell
>>>> that he's joking. Thanks to his (lack of a) sense of humor there's no
>>>> other
>>>> way to determine that.
>>
>> Yes!
>
> Don't worry, I seriously doubt Harshman will accuse you of talking to
> yourself.

Mostly because I was talking to _Glenn_, thou liar of liars.

> In my experience, he reserves that sort of thing for those
> who do not belong to what might be called "the talk.origins village of
> anti-ID regulars," like myself.

Bloody hell, boy, is there no limit to your ego?

And, btw, thanks so much for proving my point. You _have_ no sense of humor.
None whatsoever.

>
> Peter Nyikos
who is the single most dishonest creationist to ever post on t.o.

[John Harshman]

On 9/7/12 12:58 PM, J.J. O'Shea wrote:
>> Peter Nyikos
> who is the single most dishonest creationist to ever post on t.o.

I find at least two problems with that:

1) The bar is extremely high; I seem to recall that even William Dembski
has posted here, and it would be hard for anyone to be more dishonest
than that.

2) Peter doesn't appear to be a creationist by any reasonable or useful
definition of the word.

3) He doesn't seem dishonest at all, just opinionated, not too good at
understanding his opponents, and paranoid.

4) And lovely red uniforms. I'll come in again.

[pnyikos]

The first two sentences would have sufficed. The third one makes
gratuitous assumptions.

Peter Nyikos

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 16:31:35 -0400, John Harshman wrote
(in article <RoydnfxwK-E...@giganews.com>):

> On 9/7/12 12:58 PM, J.J. O'Shea wrote:
>>> Peter Nyikos
>> who is the single most dishonest creationist to ever post on t.o.
>
> I find at least two problems with that:
>
> 1) The bar is extremely high; I seem to recall that even William Dembski
> has posted here, and it would be hard for anyone to be more dishonest
> than that.

Point. I had forgotten him. I'll back off of that part.

>
> 2) Peter doesn't appear to be a creationist by any reasonable or useful
> definition of the word.

Oh, he's a creationist, alright. Look at the totality of his positions wrt ID
and panspermia. He's just not a _religious_ creationist.

>
> 3) He doesn't seem dishonest at all, just opinionated, not too good at
> understanding his opponents, and paranoid.

He _loves_ to post quarter-truths. In particular, he _loves_ to shade those
quarter-truths... and to vanish when called on that shading. (See further his
prattling about my being a 'shill' for assorted people, and/or my being a
sock-puppet for assorted people, including the ones that I'm shilling for.)
That right there is massively dishonest. He knows it. He keeps doing it. He
has done it for years. I'm tired of it.

As for his being paranoid, I agree totally. He also has a massively inflated
ego, though that might just be part of the whole 'delusions of grandeur'
thing that can affect paranoids.

And then there's the 'opinionated' part, which I also agree with. He has
stated that anyone who doesn't agree with him is not merely an idiot, but
insane. (His exact words were: "My words would have produced understanding in
a sane person with an IQ of 50. Your talk of Ph.D. exams below is thus full
of unintended irony." He posted 'em in article
<916fe1f2-6fa7-4aaf...@l14g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>. See
above, re the massively inflated ego.

>
> 4) And lovely red uniforms. I'll come in again.
>

[pnyikos]

On Sep 7, 4:03�pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 15:27:52 -0400, pnyikos wrote
> (in article

> <cd9a22d4-5757-4df7-84f7-f88cab3e6...@h5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>):

> > On Sep 7, 11:28�am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 09:08:25 -0400, Glenn wrote
> >> (in article <glennsheldon-k2crqg$b1...@dont-email.me>):
>
> >>> "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote
>
> >>>> We need a marker when Peter thinks that he's being funny, just so we can
> >>>> tell
> >>>> that he's joking. Thanks to his (lack of a) sense of humor there's no
> >>>> other
> >>>> way to determine that.
>
> >> Yes!
>
> > Don't worry, I seriously doubt Harshman will accuse you of talking to
> > yourself.
>
> Mostly because I was talking to _Glenn_, thou liar of liars.

Nothing above is due to Glenn, except the attribution line to your
preceding post, from which emanated all the text to which you were
replying.

> > �In my experience, he reserves that sort of thing for those

> > who do not belong to what might be called "the talk.origins village of
> > anti-ID regulars," like myself.

NOTE TO READERS OTHER THAN O'SHEA:

O'shea has repeatedly claimed that I amuse him, and has also claimed
not to dislike me. The following line from him would therefore seem
to be facetious, despite the lack of smileys.

> Bloody hell, boy, is there no limit to your ego?

What is supposed to be egoistical about pointing out that I am not one
of the anti-ID regulars?

Other than that, I was talking about John, not myself, and I would
have been dishonest if I had left out "In my experience," because that
would have been claiming clairvoyance, which I certainly do not have.

> And, btw, thanks so much for proving my point. You _have_ no sense of humor.
> None whatsoever.

Thanks for admitting it was your point, not Glenn's. Other than
that...

What I wrote was irrelevant to the issue of whether I have a sense of
humor or not, inasmuch as I wasn't trying to be facetious this time.
Note the lack of a smiley this time around.

[usual unsupported allegation about dishonesty deleted]

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Sep 7, 4:33�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 9/7/12 12:58 PM, J.J. O'Shea wrote:
>
> >> Peter Nyikos
> > who is the single most dishonest creationist to ever post on t.o.
>
> I find at least two problems with that:
>
> 1) The bar is extremely high; I seem to recall that even William Dembski
> has posted here, and it would be hard for anyone to be more dishonest
> than that.
>
> 2) Peter doesn't appear to be a creationist by any reasonable or useful
> definition of the word.
>
> 3) He doesn't seem dishonest at all,

And O'Shea hasn't come within a country mile of showing otherwise.

>just opinionated, not too good at
> understanding his opponents, and paranoid.

Your original claim that my "paranoia ascends to the skies" was based
on the false premise that I had claimed that n people were Howard
Hershey, where n was a number considerably above 1, where in fact n
was and still is no greater than 1.

Have you come up with any valid examples of paranoia by me? I can
recall none.

> 4) And lovely red uniforms. I'll come in again.

Is that an allusion to some film or book?

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Sep 7, 3:28�pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 11:10:20 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos

> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Sep 6, 5:48�pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> cOn Thu, 6 Sep 2012 13:20:36 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>
> >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

i

> >I have had lots of experience with Harshman, so I strongly suspected I
> >would just be wasting my time if I tried to explain TO HIM why this
> >and that benchmark was selected for very good reasons. �So I just
> >decided to remind him that there are other uses of "random" which
> >depart from the ordinary, English language senses of the word. �[There
> >are several incompatible ones, by the way. Each has its own
> >mathematical counterpart.]
>
> >However, if you are willing to read with an open mind, I will show YOU
> >the rational basis for why I chose "sexually reproducing" for one of
> >my benchmarks.

You made no direct reply to this, and I'm holding off explaining until
someone shows interest.

> >> You, of course, must also be fully aware that the physics text is
> >> attempting to train students in estimation of quantities that do in
> >> fact have specific values
>
> >Have you actually looked at the problems? �Yes, the one I chose does
> >have a specific value for each student, but not the following:
>
> >1.26 You are using water to dilute small amounts of chemicals in the
> >laboratory, drop by drop. How many drops of water are there in a 1.0L
> >bottle? (*Hint*: Start by estimating the diameter of a drop of water.)
>
> >As you are undoubtedly aware, the sizes of drops of water are
> >influenced by a host of factors, including temperature, impurities,
> >and tendency to adhere to the pipette opening, and hence the material
> >composition of the pipette, shape and size of the opening, etc.
>
> >>whereas your demand for estimates of
> >> evolutionary difficulty have absolutely no basis in any reasonable
> >> metric.
>
> >Which is why I didn't ask for a metric in the first place, and my only
> >mention of such a thing had to do with ratios, not absolute measures
> >of difficulty.
>
> I seem to observe you engaged in extended arguments, sometimes quite
> intemperate, with people about what I think are side issues. �Your
> analysis of what John might mean by "random" or �"arbitrary" is one of
> those. �I do not wish to get embroiled in such a discussion.

OK by me, as long as you are consistent about it.

> I agree that a number of your earlier "benchmarks" are reasonable and
> I gave a slightly modified set of my own. �I also believe that all of
> your later ones, the ones specifically relating to the evolution of
> humans, are quite arbitrary.

I chose them because they seemed to match Stages 4 through 7 quite
well. Do you have any ideas for "less arbitrary" stages than those?

>�There are any number of other equally

> justifiable markers you could pick on that one line and the selection
> of human evolution out of all of biology is another problem when
> discussing the general concept of evolution of life.

We are the only known species capable of understanding the deep facts
about the universe, from the smallest subatomic particle to the
universe itself, and of discussing them like we do here. Is it not a
worthwhile thing to contemplate how easy or how hard it is for
evolution to come to produce such an organism?

Concluded in next reply.

[pnyikos]

On Sep 7, 3:28�pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 11:10:20 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos

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

Richard, as you may know, I almost never post on weekends, and this
may be the last post I do on this thread today, but I'll be back here
on Monday.

You wrote, about the Quote of the Week, repeated at the end:

> >> You, of course, must also be fully aware that the physics text is
> >> attempting to train students in estimation of quantities that do in
> >> fact have specific values
>
> >Have you actually looked at the problems? �Yes, the one I chose does
> >have a specific value for each student, but not the following:
>
> >1.26 You are using water to dilute small amounts of chemicals in the
> >laboratory, drop by drop. How many drops of water are there in a 1.0L
> >bottle? (*Hint*: Start by estimating the diameter of a drop of water.)
>
> >As you are undoubtedly aware, the sizes of drops of water are
> >influenced by a host of factors, including temperature, impurities,
> >and tendency to adhere to the pipette opening, and hence the material
> >composition of the pipette, shape and size of the opening, etc.

[snip]

> The notion of "drop" as varying in size is part of what the physics
> exercise is trying to force students to attempt.

That is very unclear from the way either the problem or the entire
(very short) section in the text about these rough estimates is
worded. Here is everything that preceded the Quote of the Day in that
section.

_______________ begin excerpt________________
We have stressed the importance of knowing the accuracy of numbers
that represent physical quantities. But even a very crude estimate of
a quantity often gives us useful information. Sometimes we know how
to calculate a certain quantity, but we have to guess at the data we
need for the calculation. Or the calculation might be too complicated
to carry out exactly, so we make some rough approximations. In either
case our result is also a guess, but such a guess can be useful even
if it is uncertain by a factor of two, ten, or more.

Such calculations are often called*order-of-magnitude* *estimates*.
The great Italian-American nuclear physicist Enrico Fermi
(1901 - 1954) called them "back-of-the-envelope calculations."
============ end of excerpt from pp. 10-11=======

Unless you count the problems at the end of the chapter, the section
ends with the part before the ellipsis in the Quote of the Week.

Perhaps somewhere else in the text, there is a follow-up discussion,
but I haven't found one yet.

> Were I to grade such
> a homework set, for example, I would accept drop from, say, 1 to 10
> mm, with correspondingly one thousand-fold variation in size but still
> expect a proper estimate of the drops in a bottle. In my own General
> Chemistry lab, on the first day we learned some glass blowing and made
> droppers to calibrate. The standard was 20 to 30 drops per ml. It is
> very unusual to find in the everyday world drops that differ by more
> than an order of magnitude from that.
>
> You should also know that ratios are exceptionally hard to evaluate
> and demand a metric that has a definite zero and is uniform along its
> range.

Again, I am not asking for ratios, but a simple comparison of whether
one step is easier or harder than another. Of course, if people want
to estimate ratios, I certainly don't mind; I might try posting some
myself eventually.

> When one of those values (the denominator in the ratio) is
> very close to zero, then even tiny uncertainties in its value produce
> enormous variation in the ratio.

The natural thing is to put the smaller in the numerator. But one can
estimate ratios independently of how one estimates the individual
components.

> And I have no idea what
> "difficulty" even means for evolution.

Well, the quantitative version has to do with the probability of
evolution from one stage to the next within the constraints imposed by
the planet's sun. And please don't think I'm asking readers to
estimate any of that on this thread.

[Nashton]

Yes, of course. But we're not even there yet.

You need a container with selective permeability, not just some bag of
loose molecules as you stated, as you can't let anything enter the cell
that would interferer with its delicate and fragile proto-structure. You
need phospholipids in abundance that will self assemble in order to
create the proto-cellular membrane or some kind of other type of
membrane (different chemical composition) with selective permeability.
The cell will presumably require components that can't travel
passively via osmosis and therefore, energy is required in the form of
ATP for active transport. ATP requires a long process of catabolization
of glucides. Where were these? Was there some other energy (perhaps
solar) that sped up chemical reactions in the protocell? Not to mention
that all cellular functions would require some form of chemical energy
chemically similar to ATP.

Amino acids have been shown to organize into DNA/RNA. What provided the
spark for their replication? Was the internal environment of the cell (a
primitive kind of homeostasis) stable enough to provide an environment
that would permit RNA to be transcribed into proteins. Can replication
happen willy nilly, on a consistent basis in order to produce daughter
generations? I think not.

How so? If by definition ones considers the cell as the fundamental
quantum of life, with the functional pre-conditions I just described,
how can you expect them to all come together and exist long enough in an
atmosphere of extreme heat during the Archean, close to the boiling
point of water and assemble to create a proto-cell?

> Also, IC as described by Behe specifically calls for
> "a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts
> that contribute to the basic function." [_Darwin's Black Box_, page
> 39.] You need to specify a system and its basic function, and explain
> how the parts interact.

I already did. If there is a particular one that you would like me to
expound I will do my best.

>
>
>> I view it as a type of
>> minimal requirements for the first "units" to be considered alive. Take
>> any one of these away and no joy.
>
> "These" presumably refers to the four "parts": RM, the membrane, the
> metabolic material, and the means of bringing in material from the
> outside. But you'd need to show how the RM interacts with the other
> things, and how they can be "well-matched" when some of the RM does
> not do anything besides replicate, and its replication might be
> unconnected with the rest.
>
> Also, what is the basic function supposed to be? "being alive" is not
> a function, it is simply a description, and an ill-defined one at
> that.

Well, I disagree here. Being alive is very well defined. What you are
proposing is some sort of chemical evolution, where all the parts
appeared essentially at the same time, the same place and combined to
form a proto-cell, which we can both agree is the basic unit of life.

>
>> It's mind boggling to think that all
>> this was created simultaneously in some unknown conditions (probably
>> very harsh, given the environment of an early Earth).
>
> There is no reason why it would have to be simultaneously. There
> could have been an ocean of loose molecules floating around, until a
> bunch finally came together to form a protocell.

This is akin to evolution which I consider to be chemical as opposed to
biological.

[John Harshman]

Only the assumption that mathematicians habitually think "like
mathematicians". I was using the phrase to mean "with mechanical
overprecision", which is exactly what you were doing.

[John Harshman]

On 9/7/12 1:53 PM, J.J. O'Shea wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 16:31:35 -0400, John Harshman wrote
> (in article<RoydnfxwK-E...@giganews.com>):
>
>> On 9/7/12 12:58 PM, J.J. O'Shea wrote:
>>>> Peter Nyikos
>>> who is the single most dishonest creationist to ever post on t.o.
>>
>> I find at least two problems with that:
>>
>> 1) The bar is extremely high; I seem to recall that even William Dembski
>> has posted here, and it would be hard for anyone to be more dishonest
>> than that.
>
> Point. I had forgotten him. I'll back off of that part.
>
>>
>> 2) Peter doesn't appear to be a creationist by any reasonable or useful
>> definition of the word.
>
> Oh, he's a creationist, alright. Look at the totality of his positions wrt ID
> and panspermia. He's just not a _religious_ creationist.

Again, that stretches the bounds of the term beyond useful meaning.

>> 3) He doesn't seem dishonest at all, just opinionated, not too good at
>> understanding his opponents, and paranoid.

[snip tirade]

You come close to being a stalker. What has you so incensed and obsessed?

[John Harshman]

I have no interest in indulging you here.

>> 4) And lovely red uniforms. I'll come in again.
>
> Is that an allusion to some film or book?

No. But it's an allusion. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, you know.

[Boikat]

On Sep 7, 3:03�pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 15:27:52 -0400, pnyikos wrote
> (in article

> <cd9a22d4-5757-4df7-84f7-f88cab3e6...@h5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>):

>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 7, 11:28�am, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 09:08:25 -0400, Glenn wrote
> >> (in article <glennsheldon-k2crqg$b1...@dont-email.me>):
>
> >>> "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote
>
> >>>> We need a marker when Peter thinks that he's being funny, just so we can
> >>>> tell
> >>>> that he's joking. Thanks to his (lack of a) sense of humor there's no
> >>>> other
> >>>> way to determine that.
>
> >> Yes!
>
> > Don't worry, I seriously doubt Harshman will accuse you of talking to
> > yourself.
>
> Mostly because I was talking to _Glenn_, thou liar of liars.
>
> > �In my experience, he reserves that sort of thing for those
> > who do not belong to what might be called "the talk.origins village of
> > anti-ID regulars," like myself.
>
> Bloody hell, boy, is there no limit to your ego?
>
> And, btw, thanks so much for proving my point. You _have_ no sense of humor.
> None whatsoever.
>
>
>
> > Peter Nyikos
>
> who is the single most dishonest creationist to ever post on t.o.

McNameless, Nando (okay, maybe he's just simply a delusional nut-
case), Pagano, Ed Conrad...

Boikat

[Mark Isaak]

True, but the problem is to get all the important organelles into the
same lineage. That means each organelle either has to be evolved in
that particular lineage, or it has to be acquired from another lineage
via symbiosis or recombination, and that scale of recombination could
not be counted upon at that stage, either.

I did not put sex in my list of benchmarks because sex is not an
all-or-nothing state. There are various means of recombination
possible, with various efficacy, and I assumed the sex would start early
and get better with time. (Sorry, I could not resist phrasing it like
that.) There is no bench to put the mark on, just an inclined plane. I
can see that the same problem exists for other items that are on my
list. Like I said at the start, this was mostly off the top of my head.

[Paul J Gans]

pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

With reference to Darwinists, Peter replied to a post thusly:

>Specifically, their greatest weakness is the gulf between Benchmark 0
>and Benchmark 1, especially the first half, the gulf between prebiotic
>soup and efficient replicators, commonly referred to as "abiogenesis".

Peter, please do not include abiogenesis as part of "Darwinism". It
isn't. And I suspect that you know it.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 19:51:55 -0400, Paul J Gans wrote
(in article <k2e1ar$oje$3...@reader1.panix.com>):

Oh, he knows.

[Richard Norman]

On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 14:39:14 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Sep 7, 3:28嚙緘m, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 11:10:20 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>
>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>> >On Sep 6, 5:48嚙緘m, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> cOn Thu, 6 Sep 2012 13:20:36 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>>
>> >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>i
>> >I have had lots of experience with Harshman, so I strongly suspected I
>> >would just be wasting my time if I tried to explain TO HIM why this

>> >and that benchmark was selected for very good reasons. 嚙磅o I just

>> >decided to remind him that there are other uses of "random" which

>> >depart from the ordinary, English language senses of the word. 嚙稼There

>> >are several incompatible ones, by the way. Each has its own
>> >mathematical counterpart.]
>>
>> >However, if you are willing to read with an open mind, I will show YOU
>> >the rational basis for why I chose "sexually reproducing" for one of
>> >my benchmarks.
>
>You made no direct reply to this, and I'm holding off explaining until
>someone shows interest.
>
>> >> You, of course, must also be fully aware that the physics text is
>> >> attempting to train students in estimation of quantities that do in
>> >> fact have specific values
>>

>> >Have you actually looked at the problems? 嚙磐es, the one I chose does

>> >have a specific value for each student, but not the following:
>>
>> >1.26 You are using water to dilute small amounts of chemicals in the
>> >laboratory, drop by drop. How many drops of water are there in a 1.0L
>> >bottle? (*Hint*: Start by estimating the diameter of a drop of water.)
>>
>> >As you are undoubtedly aware, the sizes of drops of water are
>> >influenced by a host of factors, including temperature, impurities,
>> >and tendency to adhere to the pipette opening, and hence the material
>> >composition of the pipette, shape and size of the opening, etc.
>>
>> >>whereas your demand for estimates of
>> >> evolutionary difficulty have absolutely no basis in any reasonable
>> >> metric.
>>
>> >Which is why I didn't ask for a metric in the first place, and my only
>> >mention of such a thing had to do with ratios, not absolute measures
>> >of difficulty.
>>
>> I seem to observe you engaged in extended arguments, sometimes quite

>> intemperate, with people about what I think are side issues. 嚙磐our
>> analysis of what John might mean by "random" or 嚙�arbitrary" is one of
>> those. 嚙瘢 do not wish to get embroiled in such a discussion.

>
>OK by me, as long as you are consistent about it.
>
>> I agree that a number of your earlier "benchmarks" are reasonable and

>> I gave a slightly modified set of my own. 嚙瘢 also believe that all of

>> your later ones, the ones specifically relating to the evolution of
>> humans, are quite arbitrary.
>
>I chose them because they seemed to match Stages 4 through 7 quite
>well. Do you have any ideas for "less arbitrary" stages than those?
>

>>嚙確here are any number of other equally

>> justifiable markers you could pick on that one line and the selection
>> of human evolution out of all of biology is another problem when
>> discussing the general concept of evolution of life.
>
>We are the only known species capable of understanding the deep facts
>about the universe, from the smallest subatomic particle to the
>universe itself, and of discussing them like we do here. Is it not a
>worthwhile thing to contemplate how easy or how hard it is for
>evolution to come to produce such an organism?
>
>Concluded in next reply.

I respect your weekends and understand that people have real lives to
live outside of t.o.

I did not comment on "sexual reproduction" because I included it on my
own modification of your list of benchmarks. It is indeed a major
development for most eukaryotes.

Your stages 4 through 7 , specifically

B4: lower chordates
B5: primitive tetrapods
B6: prosimians
B7: *Homo sapiens*

seems entirely arbitrary to me.

Biology now considers as important "stages" or "benchmarks" in
animals leading to humans to be
bilateral symmetry,
internal organs,
triploblasty,
complete one-way digestive system
the coelom
centralization and cephalization of nervous control
jaws
bony skeleton
amniotic egg
air breathing, internal fertilization and other adaptations for
terrestrial life
homeothermy
placental development

The list can be extended rather significantly. I can see no reason to
single out "lower chordate" or "prosimian". In short, your 4 through
7 seems to be extremely arbitrary and limited in terms of what
developments were truly important

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 18:51:14 -0400, John Harshman wrote
(in article <Mcidnfg54uT...@giganews.com>):

> On 9/7/12 1:53 PM, J.J. O'Shea wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 16:31:35 -0400, John Harshman wrote
>> (in article<RoydnfxwK-E...@giganews.com>):
>>
>>> On 9/7/12 12:58 PM, J.J. O'Shea wrote:
>>>>> Peter Nyikos
>>>> who is the single most dishonest creationist to ever post on t.o.
>>>
>>> I find at least two problems with that:
>>>
>>> 1) The bar is extremely high; I seem to recall that even William Dembski
>>> has posted here, and it would be hard for anyone to be more dishonest
>>> than that.
>>
>> Point. I had forgotten him. I'll back off of that part.
>>
>>>
>>> 2) Peter doesn't appear to be a creationist by any reasonable or useful
>>> definition of the word.
>>
>> Oh, he's a creationist, alright. Look at the totality of his positions wrt
>> ID
>> and panspermia. He's just not a _religious_ creationist.
>
> Again, that stretches the bounds of the term beyond useful meaning.

That would be your opinion, not mine.

>
>>> 3) He doesn't seem dishonest at all, just opinionated, not too good at
>>> understanding his opponents, and paranoid.
>
> [snip tirade]
>
> You come close to being a stalker. What has you so incensed and obsessed?

I'm hardly obsessed. Compare Peter's volume of posts to mine. Note that I
ignore the majority of his.

Nor am I incensed. I don't think that he should get a free pass for his
continuous and massive dishonesty, and he will not while I'm around.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 17:06:33 -0400, pnyikos wrote
(in article
<3640462c-a279-4cb3...@z8g2000yql.googlegroups.com>):

> On Sep 7, 4:33ï¿œpm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On 9/7/12 12:58 PM, J.J. O'Shea wrote:
>>
>>>> Peter Nyikos
>>> who is the single most dishonest creationist to ever post on t.o.
>>
>> I find at least two problems with that:
>>
>> 1) The bar is extremely high; I seem to recall that even William Dembski
>> has posted here, and it would be hard for anyone to be more dishonest
>> than that.
>>
>> 2) Peter doesn't appear to be a creationist by any reasonable or useful
>> definition of the word.
>>
>> 3) He doesn't seem dishonest at all,
>
> And O'Shea hasn't come within a country mile of showing otherwise.

And there we are again.

>
>> just opinionated, not too good at
>> understanding his opponents, and paranoid.
>
> Your original claim that my "paranoia ascends to the skies" was based
> on the false premise that I had claimed that n people were Howard
> Hershey, where n was a number considerably above 1, where in fact n
> was and still is no greater than 1.
>
> Have you come up with any valid examples of paranoia by me? I can
> recall none.

Oh, my.

>
>> 4) And lovely red uniforms. I'll come in again.
>
> Is that an allusion to some film or book?

<snerk>
>
> Peter Nyikos

[Richard Norman]

I don't wish to argue about the physics problems. I think the entire
exercise to be very important as part of the education of a scientist
and, especially, of an experimental scientist. It does say "some are
silly" and "most require guesswork" but the pattern of thinking
required is important.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 16:59:36 -0400, pnyikos wrote
(in article
<e14f157e-751f-4602...@e14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>):

> On Sep 7, 4:03ï¿œpm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 15:27:52 -0400, pnyikos wrote
>> (in article
>> <cd9a22d4-5757-4df7-84f7-f88cab3e6...@h5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>):
>

>>> On Sep 7, 11:28ï¿œam, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 09:08:25 -0400, Glenn wrote
>>>> (in article <glennsheldon-k2crqg$b1...@dont-email.me>):
>>
>>>>> "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote
>>
>>>>>> We need a marker when Peter thinks that he's being funny, just so we can
>>>>>> tell
>>>>>> that he's joking. Thanks to his (lack of a) sense of humor there's no
>>>>>> other
>>>>>> way to determine that.
>>
>>>> Yes!
>>
>>> Don't worry, I seriously doubt Harshman will accuse you of talking to
>>> yourself.
>>
>> Mostly because I was talking to _Glenn_, thou liar of liars.
>
> Nothing above is due to Glenn, except the attribution line to your
> preceding post, from which emanated all the text to which you were
> replying.
>

>>> ï¿œIn my experience, he reserves that sort of thing for those

>>> who do not belong to what might be called "the talk.origins village of
>>> anti-ID regulars," like myself.
>
> NOTE TO READERS OTHER THAN O'SHEA:
>
> O'shea has repeatedly claimed that I amuse him,

You do.

> and has also claimed
> not to dislike me. The following line from him would therefore seem
> to be facetious, despite the lack of smileys.

So, Peter, thou liar of liars, tell me when the last time I have _ever_
posted _anything_ with a smiley. Go on. Tell me.

>
>> Bloody hell, boy, is there no limit to your ego?
>
> What is supposed to be egoistical about pointing out that I am not one
> of the anti-ID regulars?
>
> Other than that, I was talking about John, not myself, and I would
> have been dishonest if I had left out "In my experience," because that
> would have been claiming clairvoyance, which I certainly do not have.
>
>> And, btw, thanks so much for proving my point. You _have_ no sense of humor.
>> None whatsoever.
>
> Thanks for admitting it was your point, not Glenn's. Other than
> that...
>
> What I wrote was irrelevant to the issue of whether I have a sense of
> humor or not, inasmuch as I wasn't trying to be facetious this time.
> Note the lack of a smiley this time around.
>
> [usual unsupported allegation about dishonesty deleted]
>
> Peter Nyikos

who is the single most dishonest creationist currently posting on t.o.

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/7/12 2:39 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> [...] Is it not a

> worthwhile thing to contemplate how easy or how hard it is for
> evolution to come to produce such an organism?

Returning to a question that I earlier suggested but have not yet asked
outright: What good is an estimate that is only accurate within thirty
orders of magnitude?

To answer your question above: No, it is not worthwhile contemplating
how easy or hard it is for an organism to evolve, unless that
contemplation leads to some way of answering the question with a
reasonable degree of precision and confidence. If you disagree, then by
all means try to convince me otherwise.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 22:50:56 -0400, Mark Isaak wrote
(in article <k2ebqi$7mc$1...@dont-email.me>):

> On 9/7/12 2:39 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>> [...] Is it not a
>> worthwhile thing to contemplate how easy or how hard it is for
>> evolution to come to produce such an organism?
>
> Returning to a question that I earlier suggested but have not yet asked
> outright: What good is an estimate that is only accurate within thirty
> orders of magnitude?
>
> To answer your question above: No, it is not worthwhile contemplating
> how easy or hard it is for an organism to evolve, unless that
> contemplation leads to some way of answering the question with a
> reasonable degree of precision and confidence. If you disagree, then by
> all means try to convince me otherwise.
>
>

This should be good. <gets popcorn>

[Nashton]

The correct term for the notion everyone is alluding to is not
"abiogenesis" but biopoiesis. It describes the phenomenon much better
without the historical baggage of the term abiogenesis.

[Arkalen]

On 07/09/12 01:33, pnyikos wrote:
> On Sep 6, 2:48 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 11:28:34 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> On Sep 6, 1:08 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 08:22:20 -0700, John Harshman

>>
>>>> <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 9/6/12 7:26 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>>>>>> Originally I thought to use "milestones" instead of "benchmarks", but
>>>>>> that creates the impression that these benchmarks are about evenly
>>>>>> spaced, whereas I think the difficulties in getting between successive
>>>>>> benchmarks are very different quantitatively.
>>
>>>>>> In fact, the first thing I'd appreciate reader feedback on is this.
>>>>>> Try ordering the various moves from one benchmark to the next, in
>>>>>> order of difficulty.
>>
>>>>>> I'd like even creationists to play along here. Even if you don't
>>>>>> think evolution bridged the gap from one benchmark to the next, you
>>>>>> might at least have some idea as to which ones pose the biggest
>>>>>> obstacle to "abiogeneticists" and "evolutionists".
>>
>>>>>> Here are the main benchmarks:
>>
>>>>>> B0. Prebiotic soup, with amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, and
>>>>>> various other simple organic compounds that we know can be formed
>>>>>> spontaneously under early earth (before life) conditions, having
>>>>>> produced them in the lab and having found them in meteorites.
>>
>>>>>> B1. prokaryotes (bacteria, archae)
>>
>>>>>> B2. sexually reproducing eukaryotes
>>
>>>>>> B3: metazoans
>>

>>>>>> B4: lower chordates
>>
>>>>>> B5: primitive tetrapods
>>
>>>>>> B6: prosimians
>>
>>>>>> B7: *Homo sapiens*
>>

>>>>> As far as I can tell, you have picked 5 random points along a particular

>>>>> pathway from no life at all to one particular extant species. I see no
>>>>> reason to suppose that these points are special, even along that
>>>>> pathway, or that the particular pathway is in any way generalizable.

>>>>> What is served by such an exercise?
>>

>>>> To play the game as proposed, taking it seriously, I do think that
>>>> some form of B0, B1, B2, and a modified B3 (the origin of complex
>>>> multicellular organisms) are indeed major stages. Given that pretty
>>>> much all of evolution as ordinarily studied relates to plants and
>>>> animals, that most living things are really prokaryotes is important
>>>> biology but not what interests most of us.
>>
>>>> I would separate the origin of eukaryotes from the origin of true
>>>> sexual reproduction (meiosis + fertilization/syngamy) as separate
>>>> steps.
>>
>>> That's another good benchmark. Let's put it in:
>>
>>> B1.5 the first eukaryotes
>>
>>> I think the move from B1.5 to B2 was much more difficult than the move
>> >from B1 to B1.5. How about you?
>>
>>>> Once you have multicellularity, it seems the rest is pretty
>>>> easy to explain and even multicellularity doesn't seem to be that much
>>>> of a problem.
>>
>>> Did you read what I wrote about Stage 3 in my second post? Metazoans
>>> have far more going for them than mere multicellularity.
>>
>>>> The first step in particular encompasses all of what we
>>>> call abiogenesis and seems like an enormous leap compared with all the
>>>> rest.
>>
>>> I fully agree. See my reply to Harshman a few minutes ago for more
>>> details.
>>
>> The real issue is as John pointed out: what is the purpose of this
>> analysis?
>>
>> You can point to any number of "stages" in the development of life.
>> There is really nothing to be gained by searching for qualitative
>> features measuring the "difficulty" of any step.
>
> Richard, talk.origins is not a scientific research forum; we are here
> to talk about evolution in various ways, and I thought this would be a
> nice little intellectual excercise.
>
> That said, I do have an application in mind, but I'd rather hold off
> talking about it because that would distract others from the main
> theme of this thread.
>
>> It is obvious that
>> at every branching point in evolution there is some "change", some
>> "development" -- this branch has such and such whereas that branch
>> lacks it or has some other. Follow the branching tree and you get a
>> series of "benchmarks".
>
> Sure, but the Stages 1 through 7 are levels that some branches may
> attain, and others not. The number of branches that have gotten from
> one stage to the next is surprisingly small.
>
> In fact, I can't think of a single example of a set of four organisms
> at one stage giving rise to an organism at the next stage unless two
> or more of them are in a direct line of descent from each other.

That's because each of your stages is a clade. Of course it will have
been reached only once. It's one thing when you do that up to metazoans,
but why is "primitive chordates" a benchmark ? It's important to us
because we're chordates, and the chordate body plan does seem more
suited to large organisms, i.e. large brains, i.e. intelligence, but if
you went back to the Precambrian and looked at the first chordates among
the trilobites I'm not sure you'd go "Aha ! A benchmark has been reached
! Surely the descendants of these creatures (and only of these
creatures) will be the only ones to develop the large brains
intelligence requires". And in fact they aren't, if you consider the
octopus an example of intelligence (and even if you don't think much of
the octopus' intelligence, they clearly have as much potential for
intelligence as chordates do, from a Precambrian perspective).

Same thing with "primitive tetrapods". If your benchmark was "complex
land life" you'd see it be reached quite a few times. Even "chordates
moving onto land" has happened more than once (though to be fair nothing
holds a candle to tetrapods in that respect).

And I completely fail to see the significance of the "prosimian"
benchmark, as opposed to any other clade that's between tetrapods and
Homo sapiens.

The question really is what those are benchmarks *to*. If I were setting
benchmarks for life on Earth in general, some thing I'd include would be
: oxygen metabolism, hard shells, land plants, land animals, vascular
plants, wood, presociality, eusociality, pack/tribal structures, flight,
flowers, C4 photosynthesis, Nitrogenase, neocortical-like structures,
domestication, thermoregulation...

>
>
>> There is no measure for how "difficult" any step might be.
>
> As I told John, my purposes on this thread are more qualitative than
> quantitative. The main emhasis is just on comparing pairs of
> successive benchmarks, and saying which "move" is the easier.
>
> And you came through very nicely in your first post.
>
>> There is
>> only a measure of how much we know or understand about the processes
>> and stages and mechanisms that lead to each stop.
>
> How would you measure (in the sense of "quantify") your knowledge or
> understanding? It seems far harder than quantifying the difficulty of
> getting from one step to the next.
>
> I'm here to gather infomation about the processes; it is only in that
> way that we can be confident about the comparisons we make about the
> difficulty.
>
>
>> It is clear that
>> the earliest steps are little understood where the more recent steps
>> are well documented.
>
> We do know something about getting from prokaryotes (B1) to the most
> primitive eukaryotes (B1.5).
>
> In the textbook _Biology_, Eighth Edition, by Campbell et.al., there
> is a section, "The Evolution of Mitosis" on page 237. It shows a
> hypothetical pathway from the way bacteria reproduce to the mitosis
> that occurs in most eukaryotes, including Plantae and Animalia.
>
> There are two intermediate stages, representied by dinoflagellates,
> then diatoms and yeasts. In the latter stage, the nuclear membrane
> remains intact and the microtubules stay within the nucleus,
> separating the chromosomes as in plant and animal cells, whereas the
> microtubules in dinoflagellates anchor the nucleus to the cell wall
> the way proteins are believed to anchor the daughter chromosomes to
> the cell wall before fission is complete. In the mitosis you generally
> see in textbooks, the nuclear envelope breaks down during mitosis.
>
> One thing missing from this hypothesis is how the single chromosome of
> bacteria might have become replaced by paired chromosomes. Might a
> mechanism like polyploidy be involved?
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolina
> http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
> nyikos @ math.sc.edu
>

[pnyikos]

On Sep 7, 6:53�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 9/7/12 1:53 PM, J.J. O'Shea wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 16:31:35 -0400, John Harshman wrote

> > (in article<RoydnfxwK-E1xNfN4p2d...@giganews.com>):

>
> >> On 9/7/12 12:58 PM, J.J. O'Shea wrote:
> >>>> Peter Nyikos
> >>> who is the single most dishonest creationist to ever post on t.o.
>
> >> I find at least two problems with that:
>
> >> 1) The bar is extremely high; I seem to recall that even William Dembski
> >> has posted here, and it would be hard for anyone to be more dishonest
> >> than that.
>
> > Point. I had forgotten him. I'll back off of that part.
>
> >> 2) Peter doesn't appear to be a creationist by any reasonable or useful
> >> definition of the word.
>
> > Oh, he's a creationist, alright. Look at the totality of his positions wrt ID
> > and panspermia. He's just not a _religious_ creationist.
>
> Again, that stretches the bounds of the term beyond useful meaning.

That's already been pointed out to him by Glenn, with assists from
Richard Norman and Ernest Major on the "Drake" thread. Good luck on
getting any further with J.J. than they did.

> >> 3) He doesn't seem dishonest at all, just opinionated, not too good at
> >> understanding his opponents, and paranoid.
>
> [snip tirade]
>
> You come close to being a stalker. What has you so incensed and obsessed?

Good luck on getting a valid answer out of him on this, too.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Sep 7, 7:53 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> With reference to Darwinists, Peter replied to a post thusly:

Also with reference to them, Gans subtly moved the goalposts thusly:

> >Specifically, their greatest weakness is the gulf between Benchmark 0
> >and Benchmark 1, especially the first half, the gulf between prebiotic
> >soup and efficient replicators, commonly referred to as "abiogenesis".
>
> Peter, please do not include abiogenesis as part of "Darwinism".  It
> isn't.  And I suspect that you know it.

Of course, I do. And I suspect YOU know that all too many Darwinists
are apt to treat it, in practice, as though it were.

One example of such treatment is when anti-ID zealots accuse me of
being a creationist (or, worse, an "anti-science" person) because I
don't go along with their sentiment that "Mother Earth did it
[abiogenesis] easily."

One person posting to this thread actually conflates creationism with
directed panspermia.

Unless you are carefully cherry-picking your way through this thread,
just like you are cherry-picking your way through the other threads
dealing with abiogenesis and directed panspermia, you know who I am
talking about.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Sep 7, 10:08�pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 17:06:33 -0400, pnyikos wrote
> (in article

> <3640462c-a279-4cb3-80ea-f97fb458b...@z8g2000yql.googlegroups.com>):

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 7, 4:33�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> On 9/7/12 12:58 PM, J.J. O'Shea wrote:
>
> >>>> Peter Nyikos
> >>> who is the single most dishonest creationist to ever post on t.o.
>
> >> I find at least two problems with that:
>
> >> 1) The bar is extremely high; I seem to recall that even William Dembski
> >> has posted here, and it would be hard for anyone to be more dishonest
> >> than that.
>
> >> 2) Peter doesn't appear to be a creationist by any reasonable or useful
> >> definition of the word.
>
> >> 3) He doesn't seem dishonest at all,
>
> > And O'Shea hasn't come within a country mile of �showing otherwise.
>
> And there we are again.
>
>
>
> >> just opinionated, not too good at
> >> understanding his opponents, and paranoid.
>
> > Your original claim that my "paranoia ascends to the skies" was based
> > on the false premise that I had claimed that n people were Howard
> > Hershey, where n was a number considerably above 1, where in fact n
> > was and still is no greater than 1.
>
> > Have you come up with any valid examples of paranoia by me? �I can
> > recall none.
>
> Oh, my.

On the other hand, you keep coming up with displays of paranoia where
I am concerned. You are such a conspiracy theorist that you accused
me of "throwing UC under the bus," just in case I had any designs [I
certainly don't] of allying myself with him.

And you seem even more paranoid about the very thought of any kind of
alliance between me and prawnster, so much so that you falsely accused
me of "defending" him and baselessly insinuated that I know he is
evil.

Do you even care about whether a person is good or evil? You claim
you don't dislike me, and yet you have falsely accused me of evils
like rampant lying. How could anyone not dislike someone whom one
considers to be evil?

>
>
> >> 4) And lovely red uniforms. I'll come in again.
>
> > Is that an allusion to some film or book?
>
> <snerk>

Is that supposed to voice agreement with me being like an Inquisitor?
If so, you are displaying paranoia to the nth degree.

Peter Nyikos

[Mike Painter]

I had a Jehovah's witness working for me once.
He was using a manual typewriter and typing on blue paper.

He made a mistake, picked up a piece of white correcting tape
(wite-out) and used it.
He now had a white letter on the blue paper.

After a second or so he complained that the white-out had not worked.

[pnyikos]

You may be confusing benchmarks with stages here. Stage 6 encompasses
only part of the clade Coelurosauria, the clade Procyonidae, and the
clade Primates. It's quite polyphyletic.

And Stage 5 includes the clades Arthropoda, Mollusca, and Chordata;
perhaps also Hemichordata and Onychophora.

> Of course it will have
> been reached only once. It's one thing when you do that up to metazoans,
> but why is "primitive chordates" a benchmark ?

Here, you've changed from "stages" to "benchmarks".

> It's important to us
> because we're chordates, and the chordate body plan does seem more
> suited to large organisms,

Eurypterids of the Silurian were larger than we are. Sure, they were
buoyed up by water, but...read on.

> i.e. large brains, i.e. intelligence, but if
> you went back to the Precambrian and looked at the first chordates among
> the trilobites I'm not sure you'd go "Aha ! A benchmark has been reached
> ! Surely the descendants of these creatures (and only of these
> creatures) will be the only ones to develop the large brains
> intelligence requires".

On earth, no. On a planet with a lower gravity, creatures with
exoskeletons, like the trilobites, could evolve all the way to
intelligence.

Saturn's moon Titan, for example, has a surface gravity of 0.14g, less
than that of our moon, and yet its atmosphere is denser than that of
the earth. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Titan

The main impediment to life (especially intelligent life) developing
on Titan is that so cold there. Chemical reactions work much more
slowly, and this in turn slows down metabolism and reproduction, so
that there may not be enough time for life, even if it gets started,
to evolve into an intelligent species.

But on a planet situated like our earth, with a surface gravity more
like that of Titan and atmospheric density like that of earth,
terrestrial animals with exoskeletons might grow quite large,
comparable to ourselves in size
or even larger. At the same time, animals with internal skeletons
like ours might compete with them, so that you could have two widely
separated clades competing in the intelligence race.

Note that Titan's atmosphere is mostly nitrogen, just like ours.
Compare also Venus, whose surface gravity is slightly less than ours,
but has a far thicker atmosphere, with CO2 as its main ingredient.
N2, H2O, and CO2 contain all the gaseous elements needed to form
proteins, nucleotides, and a host of other requirements for life.

Remainder deleted, to be replied to later, hopefully today. Duty
calls.

[Arkalen]

Not all of those things are called "prosimians".

>
> And Stage 5 includes the clades Arthropoda, Mollusca, and Chordata;
> perhaps also Hemichordata and Onychophora.

Not all of those things are "primitive chordates".

The words you use have meanings. Maybe I missed a previous thread where
you explained why you are using accepted taxonomic terms to denote...
some completely different kind of grouping, but that means I have no
clue whatsoever what those benchmarks you proposed even consist of.

>
>> Of course it will have
>> been reached only once. It's one thing when you do that up to metazoans,
>> but why is "primitive chordates" a benchmark ?
>
> Here, you've changed from "stages" to "benchmarks".

Oh please. I think context made it quite clear I was referring to your
"B0x" thingies that you decided to call benchmarks but that could just
as easily be called many other things. I had a brain fart and called
them "stages" that one time, and you successfully understood my meaning
then, I don't know why you're making a big deal out of it. It isn't like
I'm calling arthropods "primitive chordates" or something really
confusing like that.

All the rest is irrelevant, given I didn't understand what you meant by
"primitive chordates" or "prosimians". But I'd like to, if you could
explain.

[Richard Norman]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 20:17:34 +0100, Arkalen <ark...@inbox.com> wrote:

>On 10/09/12 19:45, pnyikos wrote:

>> You may be confusing benchmarks with stages here. Stage 6 encompasses
>> only part of the clade Coelurosauria, the clade Procyonidae, and the
>> clade Primates. It's quite polyphyletic.
>
>Not all of those things are called "prosimians".

None of those things are called "prosimians".

>>
>> And Stage 5 includes the clades Arthropoda, Mollusca, and Chordata;
>> perhaps also Hemichordata and Onychophora.
>
>Not all of those things are "primitive chordates".

None of those things are called "primitive chordates" or "lower
chordates".

[Glenn]

"Richard Norman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1ifs48thl0t8hcko5...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 20:17:34 +0100, Arkalen <ark...@inbox.com> wrote:
>
> >On 10/09/12 19:45, pnyikos wrote:
>
> >> You may be confusing benchmarks with stages here. Stage 6 encompasses
> >> only part of the clade Coelurosauria, the clade Procyonidae, and the
> >> clade Primates. It's quite polyphyletic.
> >
> >Not all of those things are called "prosimians".
>
> None of those things are called "prosimians".
>

This caused me to wiki "primate", recalling the recent row about calling humans
apes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate

Is the article accurate, and am I reading it right, that there is some
difficulty in placement, that
there are "problems in relating scientific names to common names" such that
since "modern classifications typically use groups that are monophyletic", the
"great apes" in particular, are not monophyletic because they exclude humans" or
"the group traditionally called "apes" must then be called the "nonhuman apes"?

"Thus, although Benton defines "apes" to include humans, he also repeatedly uses
"ape-like" to mean "like an ape rather than a human", and when discussing the
reaction of others to a new fossil writes of "claims that Orrorin ... was an ape
rather than a human".

Is "ape" a scientific classification, and does the claim "humans are apes" even
make sense?

[Arkalen]

I don't know, he did include "Chordata" and the Primate clade... I think
some members of those clades would be called "primitive chordates" or
"prosimians" (my first draft of my response was exactly yours though).
(And looking at Wikipedia I see that "prosimian" actually *excludes*
simians, i.e. the clade that include Homo sapiens, so... my confusion at
the use of that term remains total)

[Richard Norman]

In proper context ape can mean "member of the Hominoidea" or in a
different (also proper) context it can mean "non-human member of the
Hominoidea". The claim that "humans are apes" makes perfect sense in
the first context.

Everybody here knows that the word "ape" has historically been used in
common speech to refer to non-human animals only. Almost everybody
here (with one notable exception) knows that in a biological context
humans are apes.

Many "ordinary" words have distinct meanings when used in different
context. My favorites refer to groups of plants that are distinctly
different when used in a culinary sense or a botanical sense: "fruit"
"nut", "berry". "Ape" is simply another example of a word used
differently in different contexts.

[Ernest Major]

In message <Emr*+j5...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Arkalen
<ark...@inbox.com> writes

My guess is he is now using prosimian as an exemplar of an animal with
manipulatory appendages. In which case his extended list above is
presumably not intended as a complete list.

I am however baffled as to what Stage 5 represents.
--
alias Ernest Major

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 14:01:40 -0400, pnyikos wrote
(in article
<00f83d30-6990-4ede...@b8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>):

> On Sep 7, 6:53ï¿œpm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On 9/7/12 1:53 PM, J.J. O'Shea wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 16:31:35 -0400, John Harshman wrote
>>> (in article<RoydnfxwK-E1xNfN4p2d...@giganews.com>):
>>
>>>> On 9/7/12 12:58 PM, J.J. O'Shea wrote:
>>>>>> Peter Nyikos
>>>>> who is the single most dishonest creationist to ever post on t.o.
>>
>>>> I find at least two problems with that:
>>
>>>> 1) The bar is extremely high; I seem to recall that even William Dembski
>>>> has posted here, and it would be hard for anyone to be more dishonest
>>>> than that.
>>
>>> Point. I had forgotten him. I'll back off of that part.
>>
>>>> 2) Peter doesn't appear to be a creationist by any reasonable or useful
>>>> definition of the word.
>>
>>> Oh, he's a creationist, alright. Look at the totality of his positions wrt
>>> ID
>>> and panspermia. He's just not a _religious_ creationist.
>>
>> Again, that stretches the bounds of the term beyond useful meaning.
>
> That's already been pointed out to him by Glenn, with assists from
> Richard Norman and Ernest Major on the "Drake" thread. Good luck on
> getting any further with J.J. than they did.

Hi, Peter!

>
>>>> 3) He doesn't seem dishonest at all, just opinionated, not too good at
>>>> understanding his opponents, and paranoid.
>>
>> [snip tirade]
>>
>> You come close to being a stalker. What has you so incensed and obsessed?
>
> Good luck on getting a valid answer out of him on this, too.

Oh, I answered. You just don't like the answer I gave, oh liar of liars.

>
> Peter Nyikos

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 14:23:10 -0400, pnyikos wrote
(in article
<e81d6557-ec40-41ec...@o8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>):

> On Sep 7, 10:08ï¿œpm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 17:06:33 -0400, pnyikos wrote
>> (in article
>> <3640462c-a279-4cb3-80ea-f97fb458b...@z8g2000yql.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 7, 4:33ï¿œpm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> On 9/7/12 12:58 PM, J.J. O'Shea wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Peter Nyikos
>>>>> who is the single most dishonest creationist to ever post on t.o.
>>
>>>> I find at least two problems with that:
>>
>>>> 1) The bar is extremely high; I seem to recall that even William Dembski
>>>> has posted here, and it would be hard for anyone to be more dishonest
>>>> than that.
>>
>>>> 2) Peter doesn't appear to be a creationist by any reasonable or useful
>>>> definition of the word.
>>
>>>> 3) He doesn't seem dishonest at all,
>>

>>> And O'Shea hasn't come within a country mile of ï¿œshowing otherwise.

>>
>> And there we are again.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> just opinionated, not too good at
>>>> understanding his opponents, and paranoid.
>>
>>> Your original claim that my "paranoia ascends to the skies" was based
>>> on the false premise that I had claimed that n people were Howard
>>> Hershey, where n was a number considerably above 1, where in fact n
>>> was and still is no greater than 1.
>>

>>> Have you come up with any valid examples of paranoia by me? ï¿œI can

>>> recall none.
>>
>> Oh, my.
>
> On the other hand, you keep coming up with displays of paranoia where
> I am concerned.

Nope.

> You are such a conspiracy theorist that you accused
> me of "throwing UC under the bus," just in case I had any designs [I
> certainly don't] of allying myself with him.

Context, Peter, context. But you know that, oh liar of liars.

>
> And you seem even more paranoid about the very thought of any kind of
> alliance between me and prawnster, so much so that you falsely accused
> me of "defending" him and baselessly insinuated that I know he is
> evil.

Damn, boy, but you really are far gone, aren't you?

>
> Do you even care about whether a person is good or evil? You claim
> you don't dislike me, and yet you have falsely accused me of evils
> like rampant lying.

Because you _are_ a massively dishonest liar.

> How could anyone not dislike someone whom one
> considers to be evil?

Tch, tch, tch. You appear to be basing your conclusions on an incorrect
reading of my position. I've actually posted my position, several times. I
find it fascinating that you somehow failed to respond to any of those posts.

>
>>
>>
>>>> 4) And lovely red uniforms. I'll come in again.
>>
>>> Is that an allusion to some film or book?
>>
>> <snerk>
>
> Is that supposed to voice agreement with me being like an Inquisitor?

Nope. However, thanks again for showing clearly that you completely and
totally lack a sense of humor, and for displaying rampant paranoia.

> If so, you are displaying paranoia to the nth degree.

One of us is paranoid and it ain't me.

>
> Peter Nyikos
who is the single most dishonest creationist currently posting on t.o.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <crbs481echvoct1nf...@4ax.com>,

It's not for nothing they have the nickname of "Jehova's Witless".

Urban Dictonary

1.
Jehovah's Witless
41 up, 49 down



A derogatory nickname for a Jehovah's Witness, refering to the
apparent witless, clueless and lamebrain beliefs (as percieved by
normal persons) of the church dogma and its members.
Do you Jehovah's Witlesses always dress like dorks or are these just
your Sunday-go-to-meeting clothes?

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

[Nashton]

On 12-09-07 7:42 PM, Nashton wrote:
> On 12-09-07 4:23 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>> On Sep 6, 4:38 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>>> On 09-06-12 3:20 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>>>> On Sep 6, 1:33 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>>>>> On 09-06-12 11:26 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>>>

I guess you have nothing to say on my points....

[jillery]

Apparently, even Nashton thinks he had nothing to say.

[pnyikos]

On Sep 7, 7:48�pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> On 9/7/12 9:33 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In message <k2d6m7$g3...@dont-email.me>, Mark Isaak
> > <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> writes
> >> On 9/6/12 9:13 PM, pnyikos wrote:

> >>>>> � [...]
> >>>>> It would be nice to have at least "order-of-magnitude" estimates of
> >>>>> the relative difficulties �in getting from one benchmark to the other,
> >>>>> but that's not what this thread is mainly about.
>
> >>>> I assume this is in reference to the origin of something capable of
> >>>> launching life into the galaxy. �(If not, then the whole exercise
> >>>> appears pointless.) �Here, then, more or less off the top of my head,
> >>>> are what I see as major benchmarks:
>
> >>>> C0: Prebiotic soup, with water; carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus
> >>>> compounds; mineral substrate; a host of trace minerals; and some
> >>>> continuous energy sources.
>
> >>>> C1: Self-replicating genetics.
>
> >>>> C2: Prokaryotes; i.e. self-contained self-replicating genetics.
> >>>> Possibly C1 and C2 could be simultaneous.
>
> >>>> C3: Organelles.
>
> >>>> C4: Multicellularity with some cellular differentiation. �Possibly C4
> >>>> could come before C3 (though it seems unlikely).
>
> >>>> C5: Tool use.
>
> >>>> C6: Technological control of whole ecosystems.
>
> >>> Thanks for playing. �[Is this old Usenet expression still in common
> >>> use?]
>
> >>> Don't worry, Harsman wouldn't dream of suggesting that YOUR benchmarks
> >>> are random. �:-)
>
> >>>> My estimates of relative difficulties of transitions (expressed as
> >>>> probability of the second given the first):
> >>>> C0->C1 (replication): 10^-10 to 0.3
> >>>> C1->C2 (prokaryotes): 10^-4 to 1
> >>>> C2->C3 (organelles) : 10^-8 to 1
> >>>> C3->C4 (multi-cell) : 0.01 to 1
> >>>> C4->C5 (tool use) � : 0.001 to 1
> >>>> C5->C6 (high tech.) : 0.01 to 1
> >>>> Total: somewhere between 10^-29 and 0.3. �Of course, my estimates could
> >>>> be way off.
>
> >>> What do you include under organelles, and why the very small lower
> >>> bound for C2->C3? �why so much lower than the one for C4->C5?
>
> >> Organelles are significant organization of functionality within the
> >> cell. �On earth, a lot of this involved symbiosis, which, for
> >> primitive organisms, is probably rare; impossible to say how rare when
> >> we don't know what we're working with.
>
> > There appear to be more organelles of non-symbiotic origin than
> > organelles of symbiotic origin. Moreover some prokaryotes have
> > organelles (e.g. the chlorosomes of green sulfur bacteria).
>
> True, but the problem is to get all the important organelles into the
> same lineage.

A similar problem occurs later in evolution, which is why I mentioned
sexual reproduction in one of the benchmarks. But, as I pointed out
in the description of the corresponding stage, it can take on a number
of forms.


> That means each organelle either has to be evolved in
> that particular lineage, or it has to be acquired from another lineage
> via symbiosis or recombination, and that scale of recombination could
> not be counted upon at that stage, either.
>
> I did not put sex in my list of benchmarks because sex is not an
> all-or-nothing state.

Nor are organelles, if you look at it that way. Who can say how many
and varied the organelles must be?

>�There are various means of recombination
> possible, with various efficacy, and I assumed the sex would start early
> and get better with time. �(Sorry, I could not resist phrasing it like
> that.)

It might get stuck in a low plateau if it isn't the right kind.
[Similar double entendre, sorry.]

The idea is that as genomes get more complex, any one individual of a
species is unlikely to have more than a small minority of
"advantageous" genes [in our case, the precise term here is "alleles"]
in its genome. But sharing a fairly large fraction of the genomes of
more than one individual in the offspring will enable enough of the
best genes for evolution to advance at a reasonable rate in the
direction of intelligence.

It doesn't have to be 50% from two parents, but I think anything more
than 90% from one of the "parents" on a regular basis won't cut it in
the available time frame. [This is just a guess, and I'll be glad to
get input from others here.]

The idea of favorable mutations being in different individuals at the
start and coming together in descendants is something we keep trying
to impress on Alan Kleinman, and I haven't kept up with that thread
lately so I don't know whether he's finally acknowledged its truth.

>�There is no bench to put the mark on, just an inclined plane. �I
> can see that the same problem exists for other items that are on my
> list. �Like I said at the start, this was mostly off the top of my head.

Fine, we may be able to refine the benchmarks and stages and their
descriptions together.

Peter Nyikos

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/11/12 7:39 AM, pnyikos wrote:
> On Sep 7, 7:48 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:

> [huge snip]

>> There is no bench to put the mark on, just an inclined plane. I
>> can see that the same problem exists for other items that are on my
>> list. Like I said at the start, this was mostly off the top of my head.
>
> Fine, we may be able to refine the benchmarks and stages and their
> descriptions together.

You have yet to answer the question, For what reason?

[pnyikos]

On Sep 7, 10:08�pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 14:39:14 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos

> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Sep 7, 3:28�pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:

> >> I agree that a number of your earlier "benchmarks" are reasonable and
> >> I gave a slightly modified set of my own. �I also believe that all of
> >> your later ones, the ones specifically relating to the evolution of
> >> humans, are quite arbitrary.

I'm not sure you remembered my reply to this when you wrote what you
did at the end:

> >I chose them because they seemed to match Stages 4 through 7 quite
> >well. �Do you have any ideas for "less arbitrary" stages than those?

You came through with quite a few below, but did not try to argue that
they are less arbitrary than mine.

> >>�There are any number of other equally
> >> justifiable markers you could pick on that one line and the selection
> >> of human evolution out of all of biology is another problem when
> >> discussing the general concept of evolution of life.
>

[snip something reposted at the end]

> >Concluded in next reply.
>
> I respect your weekends and understand that people have real lives to
> live outside of t.o.

> I did not comment on "sexual reproduction" because I included it on my
> own modification of your list of benchmarks. �It is indeed a major
> development for most eukaryotes.
>
> Your stages 4 through 7 , specifically

benchmarks, not stages. The stages have a number of important
characteristics defining them, and while the *order* of events is
flexible, I can't think of a single characteristics I can dispense
with. [Repost on request.]

> �B4: lower chordates

> �B5: primitive tetrapods
> �B6: prosimians
> �B7: *Homo sapiens*

> seems entirely arbitrary to me.
>
> Biology now considers as important "stages" or "benchmarks" �in
> animals leading to humans to be
> � bilateral symmetry,
> � internal organs,
> � triploblasty,
> � complete one-way digestive system
> � the coelom
> � centralization and cephalization of nervous control
> � jaws
> � bony skeleton
> � amniotic egg
> � air breathing, internal fertilization and other adaptations for
> � � � terrestrial life
> � homeothermy
> � placental development
>
> The list can be extended rather significantly.

But not all items are essential to the evolution of an intelligent
being. Why would triploblasty be important when some consider the
neural crest to be a worthy addition to the three-member list
{ectoderm, mesoderm, endoderm}?

There are a number of alternatives to the amniotic egg that have been
developed just within Vertebrata. There is vivipary without all the
extraembryonic membranes (some sharks), ovovivipary (keeping
fertilized eggs in the body until they hatch), and insertion of
fertilized eggs into pouches in the body of one of the mating pair.

The Surinam toad is an example of the last form: the male inserts non-
amniotic eggs into the back of the female, the pouches close over, and
in some varieties tadpoles emerge, in others "adult" forms emerge.

An interesting example of the last two forms is in the sea horse: the
female lays the fertilized eggs into the male's brood pouch, from
which the tiny young eventually emerge, miniature copies of their
parents.

>�I can see no reason to
> single out "lower chordate" or "prosimian". �In short, your 4 through
> 7 seems to be extremely arbitrary and limited in terms of what
> developments were truly important

On our planet, an internal skeleton seems indispensible for a life
form on our level of intelligence. On others (see my reply to Arkalen
yesterday) it may not be needed. As for 7, I stand by what I wrote
earlier:

We are the only known species capable of understanding the deep
facts about the universe, from the smallest subatomic particle to the
universe itself, and of discussing them like we do here. Is it not a

worthwhile thing to contemplate how easy or how hard it is for
evolution to come to produce such an organism?

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

Gimme a break. There are several people whose posts call for
attention, some of them more directly related to what this thread is
all about than yours are. Like Arkalen, whose points I only half
answered yesterday. And I might not even get around to the rest of
them today. Duty calls again.

Did you see how I told Noman that I don't post on weekends except
under extraordinary circumstances? That adds to the delay.

Be patient. I will reply to your points some time this week. But I
can't promise you better than that.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Sep 11, 11:53�am, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> On 9/11/12 7:39 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> > On Sep 7, 7:48 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> > �[huge snip]
> >> � There is no bench to put the mark on, just an inclined plane. �I
> >> can see that the same problem exists for other items that are on my
> >> list. �Like I said at the start, this was mostly off the top of my head.
>
> > Fine, we may be able to refine the benchmarks and stages and their
> > descriptions together.
>
> You have yet to answer the question, For what reason?

I see no question from up there, and I don't have time to search for
your earlier posts now. Duty calls.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Sep 10, 11:18�pm, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <crbs481echvoct1nfj0utah4mreglh7...@4ax.com>,

> �Mike Painter <mddotpain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > I had a Jehovah's witness working for me once.
> > He was using a manual typewriter and typing on blue paper.
>
> > He made a mistake, picked up a piece of white correcting tape
> > (wite-out) and used it.
> > He now had a white letter on the blue paper.
>
> > After a second or so he complained that the white-out had not worked.
>
> It's not for nothing they have the nickname of "Jehova's Witless".
>
> Urban Dictonary
>
> 1.
> Jehovah's Witless
> 41 up, 49 down
>
> A derogatory nickname for a Jehovah's Witness, refering to the
> apparent witless, clueless and lamebrain beliefs (as percieved by
> normal persons) of the church dogma and its members.
> Do you Jehovah's Witlesses always dress like dorks or are these just
> your Sunday-go-to-meeting clothes?

On the other hand, there is this:

"Nazi anti-Semitism made Germany inhospitable for Jewish scientists;
but scientists as such made a poorer show of resistance to Hitler than
the Jehovah's Witnesses."
-- Theodore Roszak, _Where the Wasteland Ends_, page 218

Peter Nyikos

[Richard Norman]

Several points:

1) I do not understand the distinction between "benchmarks" and
"stages" and I am not the only one here with that problem. You listed
a number of "things" and many of us here think that, although all are
indeed steps or waypoints between an abiotic earth and humans, we do
not understand why those particular points are identified. My long
list was indeed arbitrary points just to show that there are an awful
lot of things that could be mentioned.

Just what points are "essential" for the evolution of intelligence is
a very different story. We have had many threads discussing the
evolution of intelligence and I see no reason to repeat all that here.
You titled this thread "benchmarks .. to Homo sapiens", not "... to
intelligence". The points I mentioned are all important markers on
the evolution of Homo sapiens. That is all I meant.

I still do not understand the purpose of your list. Could you please
simply say just what is gained by trying to list "essential features
necessary for intelligent life" (if that is indeed your goal) and,
especially, by trying to establish which feature is "more difficult to
attain" ?

[Nashton]

Glad to hear :)

Just checking.
>
> Peter Nyikos
>

[Earle Jones]

In article <proto-606CE9....@news.panix.com>,

*
The fundamental beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are no more preposterous
than the beliefs associated with any successful religion. Virgin birth,
life after death, magic golden tablets (and the spectacles required to
interpret them), the planet Teegeack, etc, etc, are all fundamental to
different religions.

Without these, no religion can succeed. It is necessary to "test the
faith" by requiring belief in events and processes that are patently
impossible.

Can you name a religion that does not require such belief.
HINT: Confucianism is not a religion.

earle
*

[Mark Isaak]

The question is: ==> For what reason? <==
In other words, Why? So what? What's the point of your post initiating
this thread?

[pnyikos]

On Sep 10, 9:53�pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 14:23:10 -0400, pnyikos wrote
> (in article

> <e81d6557-ec40-41ec-9635-5cc25b18f...@o8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>):

>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 7, 10:08�pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 17:06:33 -0400, pnyikos wrote
> >> (in article
> >> <3640462c-a279-4cb3-80ea-f97fb458b...@z8g2000yql.googlegroups.com>):
>

> >>> On Sep 7, 4:33�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>> On 9/7/12 12:58 PM, J.J. O'Shea wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Peter Nyikos
> >>>>> who is the single most dishonest creationist to ever post on t.o.
>
> >>>> I find at least two problems with that:
>
> >>>> 1) The bar is extremely high; I seem to recall that even William Dembski
> >>>> has posted here, and it would be hard for anyone to be more dishonest
> >>>> than that.
>
> >>>> 2) Peter doesn't appear to be a creationist by any reasonable or useful
> >>>> definition of the word.
>
> >>>> 3) He doesn't seem dishonest at all,
>

> >>> And O'Shea hasn't come within a country mile of �showing otherwise.

>
> >> And there we are again.
>
> >>>> just opinionated, not too good at
> >>>> understanding his opponents, and paranoid.
>

> >>> Your original claim that my "paranoia ascendsto theskies" was based

> >>> on the false premise that I had claimed that n people were Howard
> >>> Hershey, where n was a number considerably above 1, where in fact n
> >>> was and still is no greater than 1.
>

> >>> Have you come up with any valid examples of paranoia by me? �I can

> >>> recall none.
>
> >> Oh, my.
>
> > On the other hand, you keep coming up with displays of paranoia where
> > I am concerned.
>
> Nope.

You refuse to acknowledge it, because of your flagrant double
standards. But here is one example:

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 13:06:11 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Mon, Jul 16 2012 4:06 pm
Subject: Re: How transitional fossils are determined

On Jul 15, 3:53 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 15:15:23 -0400, Slow Vehicle wrote
> (in article
> <b3ab2cc7-c302-4dae-af29-5fc81ba02...@h8g2000pbt.googlegroups.com>):

> > On Jul 13, 5:53 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> On Jul 13, 10:36 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:


> >>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 06:19:11 -0400, "J.J. O'Shea"


> >>> <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 23:06:33 -0400, UC wrote
> >>>> (in article
> >>>> <uranium-0c089cbb-fae7-4451-8824-f2cdbd95c...@m10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com
> >>>> >):


> >>>>> On Jul 12, 10:59 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Jul 11, 11:16 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:


> >>>>>>> On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 06:41:56 -0700 (PDT), UC


> >>>>>>> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 6:30 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:


> >>>>>>> [...]


> >>>>>>>>> Yes. I think you have the upper hand in this particular debate, UC.


> >>>>>>>>> Peter Nyikos


> >>>>>>>> Thanks a lot!


> >>>>>>> Consider the source.


> >>>>>> Nearly impeccable, unlike the hateful, vindictive liar that is played
> >>>>>> by the dummy-analogue "jillery". AFAIK, the real name, occupation (if
> >>>>>> any), place of work (if any) and even the gender of the ventriloquist-
> >>>>>> analogue who actually types the words that appear under the byline
> >>>>>> "jillery" have never been posted to talk.origins.


> >>>>>> Peter Nyikos


> >>>>> Jillery, 'Mark Isaak', and several others are all just ignorant cunts.
> >>>>> They have no credibility whatsoever.


> >>>> Oh, my.


> >>> Two delusional self-important misogynists expressing their man-love
> >>> for each other.


> >> Were "jillery" not a consummate hypocrite, [s]he would realize that
> >> anyone who is naive enough to fall for the expressions "paranoid,"
> >> "paranoia," "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" for anyone
> >> who points out obvious alliances among such groups as {jillery,
> >> O'Shea, Gans} and {jillery, O'Shea, Ron O} will REALLY see "man-love
> >> for each other" as paranoia on the part of "jillery":


> >> But of course, it isn't paranoia. It is hypocrisy, insincerity,
> >> hatefulness, and ye olde "drive a wedge between your adversaries" that
> >> is being expressed, along with illogic where I am concerned.


> >> I don't really know why "jillery" calls me a misogynist, but judging
> >> from almost a decade and a half of experience in talk.origins and
> >> talk.abortion, the "reasoning" might go like this.


> >> 1. As a supremely self-righteous persona, "jillery" looks upon
> >> anything that reflects badly on her/him as morally reprehesible, even
> >> if it is being caught red-handed in libel, and upon anything that
> >> enhances her/his prestige as morally laudable, even if it is the same
> >> libel.


> >> 2. As a grossly dishonest persona, "jillery" is quite capable of lying
> >> that I know that [s]he is a woman, despite everything I've written in
> >> the very post of mine that you see quoted up there.


> >> 3. And so, by the very act of having caught "jillery" red-handed in
> >> libel a number of times, I am supposedly demonstrating misogyny [see
> >> above about "self-righteous"].


> >> One thing more: I strongly suspect that "jillery" is an abortion
> >> rights fanatic, and that [s]he was projecting what others have said
> >> about her/him onto a pro-life "UC" just to get her/his blood pressure
> >> up, when [s]he called "UC" a "baby killer."


> >> One reason is that I've almost never seen a pro-choice person being
> >> accused of misogyny by habitual liars like "jillery", but accusations
> >> of pro-life people being "misogynists" by abortion rights fanatics are
> >> a dime a dozen.


> >> I have given other reasons for suspecting "jillery" is an abortion
> >> rights fanatic on the other splinter thread on which I've been
> >> participating with UC.


> >>> Ain't it romantic.


> >> Not nearly as romantic as jillery's "love affair" [figure of speech,
> >> not to be taken in the usual sense] with Ron O, for whom jillery has
> >> repeatedly expressed appreciation; and Paul Gans is also far more
> >> "loved" by her than UC is by me.


> >> Peter Nyikos


> > ...except that it is Carol "UC" who equates using a word in a way
> > Carol "UC" has not blessed with smashing babies' heads against
> > trees...



I still haven't found out what this baby killing theme is all about.


> > ...and it is Carol "UC" who lusts for the power to tell others how to
> > use words, even though Carol "UC" cannot even drum up a modicum if
> > consistency in word use, even here on T.O...

> Peter cares not for such trifles.



I care tremendously, but I will not be railroaded into condemning UC
of things for which the evidence I've seen is slim to none.


> What he cares about is that Mr. Language
> Guy is on the other side from certain other people on the newsgroup. That's
> sufficient for him. (Why, Ivan Petrovich, are those bells I hear? Arf! Arf!)


O'Shea cares not for truth here, only his vendetta against me.

Oh, and if he had any consistency, he would admit that the paragraph
to which I am responding is proof that he is a paranoid conspiracy
theorist. But hypocrisy is one of his most prominent qualities.


Peter Nyikos
============== end of post archived
at http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0de475c43d17c8de

Strangely enough, you never replied to that one.

> > �You are such a conspiracy theorist that you accused

> > me of "throwing UC under the bus," just in case I had any designs [I
> > certainly don't] of allying myself with him.
>
> Context, Peter, context. But you know that,

The typical response of a troll, making absolutely no attempt to show
what the context WAS.

But I gave part of it above, and as sane, sensible readers can see, I
was pulling my punches by only mentioning the "throwing under the bus"
incident.

> oh liar of liars.

This is a bit atypical of trolls, but it certainly fits your massive
campaign of defamation against me.

Rest of O'Shea's crap deleted, it being more of the same unsupported,
baseless campaign.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Sep 10, 4:18�pm, Arkalen <arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
> (2012/09/11 4:26), Richard Norman wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 20:17:34 +0100, Arkalen<arka...@inbox.com> �wrote:
>
> >> On 10/09/12 19:45, pnyikos wrote:
>
> >>> You may be confusing benchmarks with stages here. �Stage 6 encompasses
> >>> only part of the clade Coelurosauria, the clade Procyonidae, and the
> >>> clade Primates. �It's quite polyphyletic.
>
> >> Not all of those things are called "prosimians".

It looks to me like you missed my second post, in which I laid out 7
stages, all but one (the first) of which described some general
characteristics shared by the benchmark organisms of the same number.

I'm hoping that people who are turned off by my benchmarks might still
like to talk about my stages, or vice versa. Here is Stage 6, of
which I was speaking up there.

Stage 6: Well developed brain; extended care of young; ability to
manipulate objects. Besides prosimians, raccoons qualify. Carl
Sagan,in _The Dragons of Eden_, makes a case for *Saurornithoides*
(identified with *Troodon* by some) being at this stage.

For the whole list,
see: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/efbff2ed1c06e478

> > None of those things are called "prosimians".
>
> >>> And Stage 5 includes the clades Arthropoda, Mollusca, and Chordata;
> >>> perhaps also Hemichordata and Onychophora.

Stage 5: Ability to take in oxygen (or a very few alternatives) from
the air; skeleton sufficiently strong to enable the animal to move
freely on the land during some stage of its life cycle; sense organs
suitable for forming an integrated perception of the surroundings.
Includes mollusks, arthropods in addition to tetrapods.

> >> Not all of those things are "primitive chordates".
>
> > None of those things are called "primitive chordates" or "lower
> > chordates".
>
> I don't know, he did include "Chordata" and the Primate clade... I think
> some members of those clades would be called "primitive chordates"

That's benchmark 4. Here is Stage 4:

Stage 4: Well developed nervous system and either internal or
external
"skeleton" suitable for advance to the next stage. The lancelet
(*Branchiostoma*, a.k.a. amphioxus) is the canonical internal-
skeleton
example; various arthopods and mollusks are
external-skeleton examples.

> or
> "prosimians" (my first draft of my response was exactly yours though).
> (And looking at Wikipedia I see that "prosimian" actually *excludes*
> simians, i.e. the clade that include Homo sapiens,

Prosimians are an old Linnean taxon, universally used before the
cladistic revolution. This taxon consists of Primates minus the clade
containing monkeys and the clade containing the tarsier. The living
exemplars are lemurs, the Aye-Aye, lorises, pottos, bush-babys.

> so... my confusion at
> the use of that term remains total).

If you think that's bad, look at my 4th benchmark, "primitive
tetrapods". They are what used to be called "primitive amphibians,"
living in the Age of Amphibians.

But the cladistic systematists, in their infinite wisdom, decided to
attach the name Amphibia to a clade excluding all or some of these.

Those who make a crown group out of it have a devil of a time figuring
out whether most or none of those Age of Amphibians tetrapods are
included. It all depends whether some of living amphibians are
descended from temnospondyls and others from lepospondyls, versus all
of them being descended from one or the other of these Linnean taxa.

[Richard Norman]

So now you have explained the difference between your "stages" and
your "benchmarks". But that leaves me more confused than ever. You
have two completely separate and entirely different "ladders" of
evolution. All of the items described in either set are well known
and discussed points in evolution. But you give absolutely no reason
why you think you should be interested or concerned with either of
your two lists. What are they intended to illustrate that is not
already well known? Why are you so concerned with this "progessive"
view of evolution "up the ladder to humanity" when evolutionary
biology abandoned that notion long since given that almost no
organisms have proceeded that way.

[Arkalen]

(2012/09/13 1:57), pnyikos wrote:
> On Sep 10, 4:18 pm, Arkalen<arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
>> (2012/09/11 4:26), Richard Norman wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 20:17:34 +0100, Arkalen<arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On 10/09/12 19:45, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>>>>> You may be confusing benchmarks with stages here. Stage 6 encompasses
>>>>> only part of the clade Coelurosauria, the clade Procyonidae, and the
>>>>> clade Primates. It's quite polyphyletic.
>>
>>>> Not all of those things are called "prosimians".
>
> It looks to me like you missed my second post, in which I laid out 7
> stages, all but one (the first) of which described some general
> characteristics shared by the benchmark organisms of the same number.

So it seems. Thank you for clarifying. I also didn't realize you talked
about both benchmarks and stages and applied the words to different
things, which would explain why you were confused when I used them
interchangeably.

>
> I'm hoping that people who are turned off by my benchmarks might still
> like to talk about my stages, or vice versa. Here is Stage 6, of
> which I was speaking up there.
>
> Stage 6: Well developed brain; extended care of young; ability to
> manipulate objects. Besides prosimians, raccoons qualify. Carl
> Sagan,in _The Dragons of Eden_, makes a case for *Saurornithoides*
> (identified with *Troodon* by some) being at this stage.

And elephants. Parrots and corvids also manage to do a lot with their
beaks and feet (to the extent of actual tool use) but I don't know how
much "ability to manipulate objects" you're thinking of here.

Okay, I have a clearer idea of what you mean by each benchmark or stage,
thanks.

So now I still think it's unsurprising that few of each group that
reaches one stage reaches the next, but for a different reason than
before. Namely, your stages combine quite a few independent (or
semi-independent) traits. And you yourself give several examples for
each stage so it's not as if only one group reaches each one, but if you
look at each of your criteria you see that if you took some of those
criteria out you'd automatically get a lot more organisms in that stage.
For example your "big brains, extended parental care, manipulating
limbs" could also include octopodes, eusocial insects, most large
mammals, and the smartest birds if you only took one of those conditions
out. It's trivial that when you add independent constraints you'll end
up with a smaller set of entities that satisfy them all. Especially when
each of those constraints is going to be fairly stringent on its own
(all of big brains, extended parental care and manipulating limbs are
complex and thus expensive adaptations).

It doesn't seem obvious to me that the field is being restricted more
than we'd expect by the combination of all the constraints you give.