Something on the evolution of feathers

[RonO]

Feathers are made of the same material that turtle, alligator and dino
scales (scutes) were made of. This paper is looking at altering the
gene regulation.

https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article-abstract/35/2/417/4627828?redirectedFrom=fulltext

[RonO]

You have to pay for the above copy, but there was a prerelease of this
paper.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/869f/19fc265a1f9dbc6a9585c15a8ac25c9b3afd.pdf?_ga=2.106758851.1944075384.1532798382-176445927.1532798382

[erik simpson]

Amazing! Looks like rmns might be able to get reptiles to grow feathers after all.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 10:32:24 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com>:

SHHHHH!!!!
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 12:02:12 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:

Crap; now DocDoc will have another hissy fit, and post his
usual "IS NOT!!!"...

[RonO]

On 7/28/2018 1:42 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 12:02:12 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
>
>> Feathers are made of the same material that turtle, alligator and dino
>> scales (scutes) were made of. This paper is looking at altering the
>> gene regulation.
>>
>> https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article-abstract/35/2/417/4627828?redirectedFrom=fulltext
>
> Crap; now DocDoc will have another hissy fit, and post his
> usual "IS NOT!!!"...
>

Just more to deny. I wonder what his alternative is. Why do reptiles
have the same genes that are regulated differently to for feather like
structures? It is weird that the common ancestor had these genes, and
birds and dinos took them another step further than scales.

Ron Okimoto

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 14:13:11 -0500, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:

>On 7/28/2018 1:42 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 12:02:12 -0500, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
>>
>>> Feathers are made of the same material that turtle, alligator and dino
>>> scales (scutes) were made of. This paper is looking at altering the
>>> gene regulation.
>>>
>>> https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article-abstract/35/2/417/4627828?redirectedFrom=fulltext
>>
>> Crap; now DocDoc will have another hissy fit, and post his
>> usual "IS NOT!!!"...

>Just more to deny. I wonder what his alternative is.

He has no alternative; "IS NOT!!!" is as far as he goes.
Vaguely reminiscent of Tony's "DOES NOT!!!" WRT the Earth's
movement...

> Why do reptiles
>have the same genes that are regulated differently to for feather like
>structures? It is weird that the common ancestor had these genes, and
>birds and dinos took them another step further than scales.

No matter what evidence is presented, DocDoc will deny it,
while refusing to say how feathers (or mammals, for that
matter) originated.

[RonO]

On 7/29/2018 1:54 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 14:13:11 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
>
>> On 7/28/2018 1:42 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 12:02:12 -0500, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
>>>
>>>> Feathers are made of the same material that turtle, alligator and dino
>>>> scales (scutes) were made of. This paper is looking at altering the
>>>> gene regulation.
>>>>
>>>> https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article-abstract/35/2/417/4627828?redirectedFrom=fulltext
>>>
>>> Crap; now DocDoc will have another hissy fit, and post his
>>> usual "IS NOT!!!"...
>
>> Just more to deny. I wonder what his alternative is.
>
> He has no alternative; "IS NOT!!!" is as far as he goes.
> Vaguely reminiscent of Tony's "DOES NOT!!!" WRT the Earth's
> movement...
>
>> Why do reptiles
>> have the same genes that are regulated differently to for feather like
>> structures? It is weird that the common ancestor had these genes, and
>> birds and dinos took them another step further than scales.
>
> No matter what evidence is presented, DocDoc will deny it,
> while refusing to say how feathers (or mammals, for that
> matter) originated.
>

Poor Pags he had been blindly accepting the lies that the ID perps told
him for years, so when they finally told him the truth he choked on it.
He shot himself in the head by claiming that some of the "best" of
IDiocy didn't have anything to do with IDiocy and then quit. I wonder
if he realized what he had done, or he just had some type of unfortunate
accident. Pags has destroyed his own arguments so many times before,
with no effect, that it is hard to believe that he could have understood
what he was doing. He did seem to have quit after claiming that he was
going to conquer all his previous stupidity in the next couple of weeks,
but he never came back.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

Better to let sleeping dogs lie.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

So everyone knows that SlowO is an idiot. Is SlowO now trying to prove he is actually an IDiot?

[jillery]

Why do you ask? It's not as if there aren't plenty of IDiots to keep
you company.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 9:05:03 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 04:26:25 -0700 (PDT), Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:05:03 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >> Feathers are made of the same material that turtle, alligator and dino
> >> scales (scutes) were made of. This paper is looking at altering the
> >> gene regulation.
> >>
> >> https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article-abstract/35/2/417/4627828?redirectedFrom=fulltext
> >
> >So everyone knows that SlowO is an idiot. Is SlowO now trying to prove he is actually an IDiot?
>
>
> Why do you ask? It's not as if there aren't plenty of IDiots to keep
> you company.

Why would SlowO publish a link supporting ID unless he is now an IDiot? His link certainly doesn't support the TOE.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 19:11:11 -0500, the following appeared

Sounds a bit like Ray and his "any time now" magnum opus.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 04:26:25 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
<klei...@sti.net>:

See, Ron? "IS NOT!!!", ad hominems and irrelevancies are all
he has.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 10:35:02 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 04:26:25 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> :
>
> >On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:05:03 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >> Feathers are made of the same material that turtle, alligator and dino
> >> scales (scutes) were made of. This paper is looking at altering the
> >> gene regulation.
> >>
> >> https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article-abstract/35/2/417/4627828?redirectedFrom=fulltext
>
> >So everyone knows that SlowO is an idiot. Is SlowO now trying to prove he is actually an IDiot?
>
> See, Ron? "IS NOT!!!", ad hominems and irrelevancies are all
> he has.

Why would SlowO post a link of scientists trying to induce feather growth if he is not an IDiot? Or perhaps dimmy thinks these scientists are random unguided forces?

[freon96]

The problem is not that some animals have feathers but that
people try to explain them. This desire (compulsion) to
explain everything creates the illusion that explanations
are as necessary as what they purport to explain.

Bill

[RonO]

This is Bills delusion, and not an illusion. Bill can't tell the
difference.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

On 7/30/2018 1:22 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 10:35:02 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 04:26:25 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> :
>>
>>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:05:03 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>>>> Feathers are made of the same material that turtle, alligator and dino
>>>> scales (scutes) were made of. This paper is looking at altering the
>>>> gene regulation.
>>>>
>>>> https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article-abstract/35/2/417/4627828?redirectedFrom=fulltext
>>
>>> So everyone knows that SlowO is an idiot. Is SlowO now trying to prove he is actually an IDiot?
>>
>> See, Ron? "IS NOT!!!", ad hominems and irrelevancies are all
>> he has.
> Why would SlowO post a link of scientists trying to induce feather growth if he is not an IDiot? Or perhaps dimmy thinks these scientists are random unguided forces?

I really do hope that you do not have a license to practice medicine.
No one responsible for someone else's health or life should be as lost
as you are.

Did you even read the paper and see what they concluded? Wouldn't that
tell you why they did the research?

Ron Okimoto

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 5:55:02 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> On 7/30/2018 1:22 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 10:35:02 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 04:26:25 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> >> :
> >>
> >>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:05:03 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >>>> Feathers are made of the same material that turtle, alligator and dino
> >>>> scales (scutes) were made of. This paper is looking at altering the
> >>>> gene regulation.
> >>>>
> >>>> https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article-abstract/35/2/417/4627828?redirectedFrom=fulltext
> >>
> >>> So everyone knows that SlowO is an idiot. Is SlowO now trying to prove he is actually an IDiot?
> >>
> >> See, Ron? "IS NOT!!!", ad hominems and irrelevancies are all
> >> he has.
> > Why would SlowO post a link of scientists trying to induce feather growth if he is not an IDiot? Or perhaps dimmy thinks these scientists are random unguided forces?
>
> I really do hope that you do not have a license to practice medicine.
> No one responsible for someone else's health or life should be as lost
> as you are.

Not only am I licensed to practice medicine (and still practicing), I'm also a state licensed engineer. I have to treat many MRSA infections because of bunglers like you.

>
> Did you even read the paper and see what they concluded? Wouldn't that
> tell you why they did the research?

You mean the part where it takes intelligent scientists to transform scale producing genes and control modules and make them produce feathers? Yes, I read that. It good to see that you have finally come to your senses and are now an IDiot.

[Bill Rogers]

On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 9:05:03 AM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
<snip>

> Not only am I licensed to practice medicine (and still practicing), I'm also a state licensed engineer. I have to treat many MRSA infections because of bunglers like you.

You still have provided no evidence at all that biologists ever told doctors not to worry about drug resistance because it could not evolve, nor of biologists ever discouraging the use of combination therapy. Nor have you ever explained why biologists, who according to you, vastly OVERESTIMATE the power of "rmns," nevertheless underestimate its ability to produce drug resistance. Not a shred.

Nor can you deny the evidence that evolutionary biologists have used the evolution of drug resistance as a canonical example of evolution and even advocated combination therapy based on the "multiplication rule of probability" in the textbooks they write for at least fifty years.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 7:00:03 AM UTC-7, Bill Rogers wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 9:05:03 AM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> <snip>
> > Not only am I licensed to practice medicine (and still practicing), I'm also a state licensed engineer. I have to treat many MRSA infections because of bunglers like you.
>
> You still have provided no evidence at all that biologists ever told doctors not to worry about drug resistance because it could not evolve, nor of biologists ever discouraging the use of combination therapy. Nor have you ever explained why biologists, who according to you, vastly OVERESTIMATE the power of "rmns," nevertheless underestimate its ability to produce drug resistance. Not a shred.

What biologists have failed to do is correctly explain how rmns works. And worse than that, they have never shown an interest in correctly explaining this phenomenon. And the simple-minded advice that biologists give for preventing drug-resistance is to stop using the selection pressures. This is bad and dangerous advice.

>
> Nor can you deny the evidence that evolutionary biologists have used the evolution of drug resistance as a canonical example of evolution and even advocated combination therapy based on the "multiplication rule of probability" in the textbooks they write for at least fifty years.

Drug-resistance has been given as canonical evidence for the TOE without ever giving a coherent explanation of how this happens. And your own work ignores how de novo evolution of resistance can occur with two drug therapy for the treatment of malaria, even if treatment protocols, medicines, and immune competence are all working in your favor. And the reason is the huge populations that malaria can achieve, even when there is no hyperparasitemia. Despite the fact that you did the math in med school, you failed to do the math correctly on a problem you've spent your career on. Instead, you focused on the mathematics of survival of the fittest which is not the correct mathematics for the evolution of drug-resistance. And when you are shown your blunder, you refuse to acknowledge your error.

[freon96]

You're right. The delusion that explanations explain things
creates the illusion that things are being explained which
is a great comfort to those who would rather be deluded than
ignorant.

Bill

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 11:22:57 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

<klei...@sti.net>:

>On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 10:35:02 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 04:26:25 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> :
>>
>> >On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:05:03 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>> >> Feathers are made of the same material that turtle, alligator and dino
>> >> scales (scutes) were made of. This paper is looking at altering the
>> >> gene regulation.
>> >>
>> >> https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article-abstract/35/2/417/4627828?redirectedFrom=fulltext
>>
>> >So everyone knows that SlowO is an idiot. Is SlowO now trying to prove he is actually an IDiot?
>>
>> See, Ron? "IS NOT!!!", ad hominems and irrelevancies are all
>> he has.

>Why would SlowO post a link of scientists trying to induce feather growth if he is not an IDiot? Or perhaps dimmy thinks these scientists are random unguided forces?

Perhaps Allie thinks that any experiment in which scientists
are involved, even if only to set up the initial conditions,
is ID by definition? Such as, for instance, the Miller-Urey
experiments? If so, Allie is even more of any idiot than I'd
suspected.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 15:57:26 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by freon96 <fre...@gmail.com>:

No, the main problem is that there are some people who
reject *all* explanations, no matter how well-formulated or
how well supported by evidence, and prefer ignorance. And
the secondary problem is that there are some supposedly
intelligent people who look at the evidence and reject it;
DocDoc's reflexive "IS NOT!!!".

>>>Poor Pags he had been blindly accepting the lies that the
>>>ID perps told him for years, so when they finally told him
>>>the truth he choked on it. He shot himself in the head by
>>>claiming that some of the "best" of
>>>IDiocy didn't have anything to do with IDiocy and then
>>>quit. I wonder if he realized what he had done, or he
>>>just had some type of unfortunate
>>>accident. Pags has destroyed his own arguments so many
>>>times before, with no effect, that it is hard to believe
>>>that he could have understood
>>>what he was doing. He did seem to have quit after
>>>claiming that he was going to conquer all his previous
>>>stupidity in the next couple of weeks, but he never came
>>>back.
>>
>> Sounds a bit like Ray and his "any time now" magnum opus.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 06:01:27 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

<klei...@sti.net>:

>On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 5:55:02 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>> On 7/30/2018 1:22 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>> > On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 10:35:02 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 04:26:25 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> >> :
>> >>
>> >>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:05:03 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>> >>>> Feathers are made of the same material that turtle, alligator and dino
>> >>>> scales (scutes) were made of. This paper is looking at altering the
>> >>>> gene regulation.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article-abstract/35/2/417/4627828?redirectedFrom=fulltext
>> >>
>> >>> So everyone knows that SlowO is an idiot. Is SlowO now trying to prove he is actually an IDiot?
>> >>
>> >> See, Ron? "IS NOT!!!", ad hominems and irrelevancies are all
>> >> he has.
>> > Why would SlowO post a link of scientists trying to induce feather growth if he is not an IDiot? Or perhaps dimmy thinks these scientists are random unguided forces?
>>
>> I really do hope that you do not have a license to practice medicine.
>> No one responsible for someone else's health or life should be as lost
>> as you are.

>Not only am I licensed to practice medicine (and still practicing), I'm also a state licensed engineer. I have to treat many MRSA infections because of bunglers like you.

So your contention is that Ron is a doctor (bungler) who
either overprescribed antibiotics or prescribed them
inappropriately, such as for known viral infections, as some
MD's have been shown to have done, usually just to shut up a
patient who wanted "something" done? Or maybe you think he
runs a feedlot, where antibiotics are used routinely for
other than the treatment of disease? Both are primarily
responsible for the current problems with resistant
bacteria.

>> Did you even read the paper and see what they concluded? Wouldn't that
>> tell you why they did the research?

>You mean the part where it takes intelligent scientists to transform scale producing genes and control modules and make them produce feathers? Yes, I read that. It good to see that you have finally come to your senses and are now an IDiot.

So it's your contention that your favorite experimenters,
the ones whose experiments you continually cite, are IDists,
since it took "intelligent scientists" to perform the
experiments?

Were you always a moron, or did it require advanced study?

[jillery]

That explains everything.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 12:13:20 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by freon96 <fre...@gmail.com>:

>> This is Bills delusion, and not an illusion. Bill can't
>> tell the difference.

>You're right. The delusion that explanations explain things

Not all, nor even most, explanations are delusions. But
since you effectively reject all evidence as "subjective" I
doubt you can even understand that, much less accept it, no
matter how strong the evidence in any particular case.

>creates the illusion that things are being explained which
>is a great comfort to those who would rather be deluded than
>ignorant.

So you prefer ignorance? Your prescription ("explain
nothing") throws out the baby with the bathwater, and
fosters ignorance.

[freon96]

People seek knowledge because they acknowledge their
ignorance. If we know something then why bother thinking
about it? The more intelligent people will wonder about what
they know which will suggest that they know their knowledge
is incomplete. Others will adopt the popular dogma.

Bill

[RonO]

It doesn't explain why he still bothers to keep breathing.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

And the above is another example of you proudly exercising your
idiocy.

>>>>>Poor Pags he had been blindly accepting the lies that
>>>>>the ID perps told him for years, so when they finally
>>>>>told him the truth he choked on it. He shot himself in
>>>>>the head by claiming that some of the "best" of
>>>>>IDiocy didn't have anything to do with IDiocy and then
>>>>>quit. I wonder if he realized what he had done, or he
>>>>>just had some type of unfortunate
>>>>>accident. Pags has destroyed his own arguments so many
>>>>>times before, with no effect, that it is hard to believe
>>>>>that he could have understood
>>>>>what he was doing. He did seem to have quit after
>>>>>claiming that he was going to conquer all his previous
>>>>>stupidity in the next couple of weeks, but he never came
>>>>>back.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds a bit like Ray and his "any time now" magnum
>>>> opus.

[jillery]

Point. Even GR doesn't explain QM

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 11:41:09 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 11:22:57 -0700 (PDT), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
><klei...@sti.net>:
>
>>On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 10:35:02 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 04:26:25 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>>> :
>>>
>>> >On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:05:03 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>>> >> Feathers are made of the same material that turtle, alligator and dino
>>> >> scales (scutes) were made of. This paper is looking at altering the
>>> >> gene regulation.
>>> >>
>>> >> https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article-abstract/35/2/417/4627828?redirectedFrom=fulltext
>>>
>>> >So everyone knows that SlowO is an idiot. Is SlowO now trying to prove he is actually an IDiot?
>>>
>>> See, Ron? "IS NOT!!!", ad hominems and irrelevancies are all
>>> he has.
>
>>Why would SlowO post a link of scientists trying to induce feather growth if he is not an IDiot? Or perhaps dimmy thinks these scientists are random unguided forces?
>
>Perhaps Allie thinks that any experiment in which scientists
>are involved, even if only to set up the initial conditions,
>is ID by definition? Such as, for instance, the Miller-Urey
>experiments?

[Crickets...]

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 16:09:44 -0500, the following appeared

Correct, and science is the best way so far developed by
which to reduce ignorance about the universe and everything
in it.

> If we know something then why bother thinking
>about it? The more intelligent people will wonder about what
>they know which will suggest that they know their knowledge
>is incomplete.

Good description of the average scientist; if they didn't
acknowledge the incompleteness of their knowledge they'd
almost certainly do something else. Televangelism, perhaps.

> Others will adopt the popular dogma.

Since we were discussing neither dogma nor what people in
general "know", but explanations for observations (which you
reject as "illusory"), perhaps you should try again?

>>>>>Poor Pags he had been blindly accepting the lies that
>>>>>the ID perps told him for years, so when they finally
>>>>>told him the truth he choked on it. He shot himself in
>>>>>the head by claiming that some of the "best" of
>>>>>IDiocy didn't have anything to do with IDiocy and then
>>>>>quit. I wonder if he realized what he had done, or he
>>>>>just had some type of unfortunate
>>>>>accident. Pags has destroyed his own arguments so many
>>>>>times before, with no effect, that it is hard to believe
>>>>>that he could have understood
>>>>>what he was doing. He did seem to have quit after
>>>>>claiming that he was going to conquer all his previous
>>>>>stupidity in the next couple of weeks, but he never came
>>>>>back.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds a bit like Ray and his "any time now" magnum
>>>> opus.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 5:55:02 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:

> On 7/30/2018 1:22 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> > On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 10:35:02 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 04:26:25 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
> >> :
> >>
> >>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:05:03 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >>>> Feathers are made of the same material that turtle, alligator and dino
> >>>> scales (scutes) were made of. This paper is looking at altering the
> >>>> gene regulation.
> >>>>
> >>>> https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article-abstract/35/2/417/4627828?redirectedFrom=fulltext
> >>
> >>> So everyone knows that SlowO is an idiot. Is SlowO now trying to prove he is actually an IDiot?
> >>
> >> See, Ron? "IS NOT!!!", ad hominems and irrelevancies are all
> >> he has.
> > Why would SlowO post a link of scientists trying to induce feather growth if he is not an IDiot? Or perhaps dimmy thinks these scientists are random unguided forces?
>
> I really do hope that you do not have a license to practice medicine.
> No one responsible for someone else's health or life should be as lost
> as you are.

Sorry to disappoint you. Not only am I licensed to practice medicine, I'm also a licensed engineer.

>
> Did you even read the paper and see what they concluded? Wouldn't that
> tell you why they did the research?

It's obvious, an intelligent designer can change the genes and control modules which produce scales and make them produced feathers. Glad to see you joined the IDiot bandwagon with your post.

[RonO]

On 7/30/2018 9:23 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 5:55:02 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>> On 7/30/2018 1:22 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 10:35:02 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 04:26:25 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:05:03 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>>>>>> Feathers are made of the same material that turtle, alligator and dino
>>>>>> scales (scutes) were made of. This paper is looking at altering the
>>>>>> gene regulation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article-abstract/35/2/417/4627828?redirectedFrom=fulltext
>>>>
>>>>> So everyone knows that SlowO is an idiot. Is SlowO now trying to prove he is actually an IDiot?
>>>>
>>>> See, Ron? "IS NOT!!!", ad hominems and irrelevancies are all
>>>> he has.
>>> Why would SlowO post a link of scientists trying to induce feather growth if he is not an IDiot? Or perhaps dimmy thinks these scientists are random unguided forces?
>>
>> I really do hope that you do not have a license to practice medicine.
>> No one responsible for someone else's health or life should be as lost
>> as you are.
> Sorry to disappoint you. Not only am I licensed to practice medicine, I'm also a licensed engineer.

I wouldn't brag about that, Your TO stupidity would be fodder for any
ambulance chasing lawyer that could track down any of your dissatisfied
patients. I am serious. You come off as someone that can't be trusted.

Ron Okimoto

[solar penguin]

On Thursday, 2 August 2018 01:25:02 UTC+1, the DrDr drivelled...

> It's obvious, an intelligent designer can change the genes and control
> modules which produce scales and make them produced feathers.

So, your position has shifted from, "Reptiles can't grow feathers," to,
"Reptiles can grow feathers if they have some help."

Got it.

[jillery]

Good catch.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 19:23:17 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

<klei...@sti.net>:

>On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 5:55:02 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>> On 7/30/2018 1:22 PM, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
>> > On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 10:35:02 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 04:26:25 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD
>> >> :
>> >>
>> >>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 10:05:03 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>> >>>> Feathers are made of the same material that turtle, alligator and dino
>> >>>> scales (scutes) were made of. This paper is looking at altering the
>> >>>> gene regulation.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article-abstract/35/2/417/4627828?redirectedFrom=fulltext
>> >>
>> >>> So everyone knows that SlowO is an idiot. Is SlowO now trying to prove he is actually an IDiot?
>> >>
>> >> See, Ron? "IS NOT!!!", ad hominems and irrelevancies are all
>> >> he has.
>> > Why would SlowO post a link of scientists trying to induce feather growth if he is not an IDiot? Or perhaps dimmy thinks these scientists are random unguided forces?
>>
>> I really do hope that you do not have a license to practice medicine.
>> No one responsible for someone else's health or life should be as lost
>> as you are.
>Sorry to disappoint you. Not only am I licensed to practice medicine, I'm also a licensed engineer.
>>
>> Did you even read the paper and see what they concluded? Wouldn't that
>> tell you why they did the research?

>It's obvious, an intelligent designer can change the genes and control modules which produce scales and make them produced feathers. Glad to see you joined the IDiot bandwagon with your post.

Just curious...

If the Miller-Urey experiments had resulted in the
generation of life, would that have been, in your opinion,
Intelligent Design?

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

That's what SlowO's link says. Take some intelligent scientist, manipulate the genes and control modules which make scales and you can make some feather-like growths. SlowO has joined the IDiot crowd.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Thursday, August 2, 2018 at 11:15:02 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 19:23:17 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

The experiment didn't result in the generation of life. And you still don't get the vast problems with the primordial soup mythology. Even if some protein could form in this racemic mixture of amino acids, how long would this protein last? Certainly not billions of years, maybe not even hundreds of years. So this idea of some type of self-replicator arising from the primordial soup is just plain stupid. But this is an appropriate idea for someone of your caliber.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 3 Aug 2018 06:16:37 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

<klei...@sti.net>:

So "if" is another of the terms you understand poorly, if at
all?

Try answering the question for a change; you might find you
enjoy it.

> And you still don't get the vast problems with the primordial soup mythology. Even if some protein could form in this racemic mixture of amino acids, how long would this protein last? Certainly not billions of years, maybe not even hundreds of years. So this idea of some type of self-replicator arising from the primordial soup is just plain stupid. But this is an appropriate idea for someone of your caliber.

....while someone of your caliber (.22 short, low velocity,
dud priming mix?) can't even answer a simple hypothetical,
and must resort to his usual idiotic irrelevancies.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Friday, August 3, 2018 at 10:20:03 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Aug 2018 06:16:37 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

Can I help if dimmy is a dud?

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 3 Aug 2018 10:50:29 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

<klei...@sti.net>:

Your failure to answer the hypothetical speaks volumes. No
surprise, of course; it's "what you do".

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 01 Aug 2018 10:55:26 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

Still there, Bill? Any intent to answer? If not, a simple
"no" will suffice.

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 9:40:02 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Aug 2018 10:50:29 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

Why would I want to answer the hypothetical when I've given the factual answer? So not only are you dim, you are low volume.

[freon96]

Bob Casanova wrote:

> On Wed, 01 Aug 2018 10:55:26 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>
> Still there, Bill? Any intent to answer? If not, a simple
> "no" will suffice.

Answer what? Do you suppose that appending your sig to a
post is that same as participating? What have you asked,
specifically, that requires a specific answer?

Bill

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 4 Aug 2018 09:45:50 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

<klei...@sti.net>:

You wouldn't, because it would reveal too much about your
agenda.

And "factual answer"? You call "it didn't work" a "factual
answer" to the hypothetical I posed? *Damn* you're stupid.

> So not only are you dim, you are low volume.

I could be turned off completely, with the plug pulled and
the fuses removed, and I'd *still* be ahead of you; at
least, unlike you, I don't wiggle, evade and lie to avoid
answering questions (such as the hypothetical above) which
would reveal my religious fundamentalism. "Mammals and
feathers didn't evolve", forsooth...

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 04 Aug 2018 13:26:17 -0500, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by freon96 <fre...@gmail.com>:

>Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2018 10:55:26 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>>
>> Still there, Bill? Any intent to answer? If not, a simple
>> "no" will suffice.
>
>Answer what? Do you suppose that appending your sig to a
>post is that same as participating? What have you asked,
>specifically, that requires a specific answer?

I guess, since I refuted your assertions, both explicit and
implicit, "respond" would have been a better choice than
"answer". But since by you silence you apparently accept
that I did indeed refute them I guess there's no reason for
you to respond.

[freon96]

Bob Casanova wrote:

> On Sat, 04 Aug 2018 13:26:17 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by freon96 <fre...@gmail.com>:
>
>>Bob Casanova wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2018 10:55:26 -0700, the following
>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova
>>> <nos...@buzz.off>:
>>>
>>> Still there, Bill? Any intent to answer? If not, a
>>> simple "no" will suffice.
>>
>>Answer what? Do you suppose that appending your sig to a
>>post is that same as participating? What have you asked,
>>specifically, that requires a specific answer?
>
> I guess, since I refuted your assertions, both explicit
> and implicit, "respond" would have been a better choice
> than "answer". But since by you silence you apparently
> accept that I did indeed refute them I guess there's no
> reason for you to respond.

Respond to what? Answer what? Is there a discussions here?

Bill

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Sunday, August 5, 2018 at 10:25:03 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Aug 2018 09:45:50 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

So what's your agenda? To teach naive school children to be blithering idiots like you and believe that reptiles grow feathers, 70 million-year-old collagen could exist and life popped out of the primordial soup? We have not shortage of your kind of stupidity.

>
> And "factual answer"? You call "it didn't work" a "factual
> answer" to the hypothetical I posed? *Damn* you're stupid.

If you were smart enough to get something out of your two courses in statistics, you might be able to understand the "factual answer" I've given how rmns works. But sadly you are not, you are too dim.

>
> > So not only are you dim, you are low volume.
>
> I could be turned off completely, with the plug pulled and
> the fuses removed, and I'd *still* be ahead of you; at
> least, unlike you, I don't wiggle, evade and lie to avoid
> answering questions (such as the hypothetical above) which
> would reveal my religious fundamentalism. "Mammals and
> feathers didn't evolve", forsooth...

You are completely turned off, that's why you are so dim.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 06:40:46 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

<klei...@sti.net>:

I have no agenda; I go where the evidence leads, and unlike
you don't try to make the evidence fit the preconceptions.

> To teach naive school children to be blithering idiots like you and believe that reptiles grow feathers, 70 million-year-old collagen could exist and life popped out of the primordial soup? We have not shortage of your kind of stupidity.

>> And "factual answer"? You call "it didn't work" a "factual
>> answer" to the hypothetical I posed? *Damn* you're stupid.

>If you were smart enough to get something out of your two courses in statistics, you might be able to understand the "factual answer" I've given how rmns works. But sadly you are not, you are too dim.

"How rmns works" has nothing to do with my question. *DAMN*
but you're stupid.

>> > So not only are you dim, you are low volume.
>>
>> I could be turned off completely, with the plug pulled and
>> the fuses removed, and I'd *still* be ahead of you; at
>> least, unlike you, I don't wiggle, evade and lie to avoid
>> answering questions (such as the hypothetical above) which
>> would reveal my religious fundamentalism. "Mammals and
>> feathers didn't evolve", forsooth...

>You are completely turned off, that's why you are so dim.

....says the desperate evader of revealing questions...

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 05 Aug 2018 14:10:19 -0500, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by freon96 <fre...@gmail.com>:

>Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 04 Aug 2018 13:26:17 -0500, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by freon96 <fre...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2018 10:55:26 -0700, the following
>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova
>>>> <nos...@buzz.off>:
>>>>
>>>> Still there, Bill? Any intent to answer? If not, a
>>>> simple "no" will suffice.
>>>
>>>Answer what? Do you suppose that appending your sig to a
>>>post is that same as participating? What have you asked,
>>>specifically, that requires a specific answer?
>>
>> I guess, since I refuted your assertions, both explicit
>> and implicit, "respond" would have been a better choice
>> than "answer". But since by you silence you apparently
>> accept that I did indeed refute them I guess there's no
>> reason for you to respond.
>
>Respond to what? Answer what? Is there a discussions here?

Of course not; the material below is obviously just a
figment of my imagination. Go have a nice lie-down.

[freon96]

Bob Casanova wrote:


...

Here is the extent of the point I wanted to make:

I am not convinced that what people claim to know is
actually known. This partly because people have always
claimed knowledge, for thousands of years and have
mercilessly persecuted those who hold contrary views. These
happy certainties mutate over time but the formula remains.

You believe that the sciences are proof against intellectual
abuse. I disagree.

Bill

[jillery]

There's nothing wrong with being skeptical. Ok, you're not convinced
of X. Big whoop. What would be interesting is your basis for that
skepticism and your basis for rejecting what is known about X. Your
refusal to provide either specific to X makes you just another
mindless pseudo-skeptic.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 06 Aug 2018 14:06:01 -0500, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by freon96 <fre...@gmail.com>:

>Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>
>...
>
>Here is the extent of the point I wanted to make:
>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The problem is not that some animals have feathers
>>>>>>>>>>but that people try to explain them. This desire
>>>>>>>>>>(compulsion) to explain everything creates the
>>>>>>>>>>illusion that explanations are as necessary as what
>>>>>>>>>>they purport to explain.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, the main problem is that there are some people
>>>>>>>>> who reject *all* explanations, no matter how
>>>>>>>>> well-formulated or how well supported by evidence,
>>>>>>>>> and prefer ignorance. And the secondary problem is
>>>>>>>>> that there are some supposedly intelligent people
>>>>>>>>> who look at the evidence and reject it; DocDoc's
>>>>>>>>> reflexive "IS NOT!!!".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>People seek knowledge because they acknowledge their
>>>>>>>>ignorance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Correct, and science is the best way so far developed
>>>>>>>by which to reduce ignorance about the universe and
>>>>>>>everything in it.

No comment on this point? OK.

>>>>>>>> If we know something then why bother thinking
>>>>>>>>about it? The more intelligent people will wonder
>>>>>>>>about what they know which will suggest that they
>>>>>>>>know their knowledge is incomplete.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Good description of the average scientist; if they
>>>>>>>didn't acknowledge the incompleteness of their
>>>>>>>knowledge they'd almost certainly do something else.
>>>>>>>Televangelism, perhaps.

>I am not convinced that what people claim to know is
>actually known.

Your privilege, even though it fails to address what
precedes it, other than to tacitly agree with it, since
scientists make no claims to Ultimate Knowledge (TM), but
only to what best fits the available data. Yes, that will
frequently be phrased in casual discussion as "we know
that...", but never, AFAIK, in formal papers.

> This partly because people have always
>claimed knowledge, for thousands of years and have
>mercilessly persecuted those who hold contrary views. These
>happy certainties mutate over time but the formula remains.
>
>You believe that the sciences are proof against intellectual
>abuse. I disagree.

I believe no such thing, and neither I nor anyone else here
has made that assertion. The opposite in fact; science has a
built-in self-correction method for both "intellectual
abuse" and honest mistakes, and *all* theories are subject
to modification, or even to outright rejection, if evidence
is found which refutes them.

[zencycle]

On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 9:45:03 AM UTC-4, Alan littleman PUIT wrote:

> And you still don't get the vast problems with the primordial
> soup mythology.

Check your math, littleman. From talkorigins.org:

"On the early Earth it is likely that the ocean had a volume of 1 x 10^24 litres. Given an amino acid concentration of 1 x 10^-6 M (a moderately dilute soup, see Chyba and Sagan 1992 [23]), then there are roughly 1 x 10^50 potential starting chains, so that a fair number of efficent peptide ligases (about 1 x 10^31) could be produced in a under a year, let alone a million years. The synthesis of primitive self-replicators could happen relatively rapidly, even given a probability of 1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40 (and remember, our replicator could be synthesized on the very first trial).

Assume that it takes a week to generate a sequence [14,16]. Then the Ghadiri ligase could be generated in one week, and any cytochrome C sequence could be generated in a bit over a million years (along with about half of all possible 101 peptide sequences, a large proportion of which will be functional proteins of some sort)."

See, littleman, if you buy a million lottery tickets, your chances of winning go up dramatically.

> Even if some protein could form in this racemic mixture of
> amino acids, how long would this protein last?

As long as the conditions exist to allow it to last.

> Certainly not billions of years, maybe not even hundreds of years.

Why not? Do you have experimentation to back this up? Throw in metabolic replication (including mutation and evolution)...yeah, I'd actually go for hundreds of millions at a minimum - BTW - look around you...Q.E.D.

> So this idea of some type of self-replicator arising from the
> primordial soup is just plain stupid.

No, it's supportable and logical, you're just an asshole.

> So what's your agenda? To teach naive school children to be
> blithering idiots like you and believe that reptiles grow
> feathers, 70 million-year-old collagen could exist and life
> popped out of the primordial soup?

That's way better than your agenda - To teach naive school children to be
blithering idiots like you and believe that some magical being poofed things into existence. 'Pray the gay away' is only a short hop from that agenda, you Pathetic Useless Ignorant Twat.

> We have not shortage of your kind of stupidity.

We have an extreme shortage of people who want to teach children to think critically and leave the fantasy of "goddidit" at the church steps.


> >

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 9:45:02 AM UTC-7, zencycle wrote:
> On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 9:45:03 AM UTC-4, Alan littleman PUIT wrote:
>
> > And you still don't get the vast problems with the primordial
> > soup mythology.
>
> Check your math, littleman. From talkorigins.org:
>
> "On the early Earth it is likely that the ocean had a volume of 1 x 10^24 litres. Given an amino acid concentration of 1 x 10^-6 M (a moderately dilute soup, see Chyba and Sagan 1992 [23]), then there are roughly 1 x 10^50 potential starting chains, so that a fair number of efficent peptide ligases (about 1 x 10^31) could be produced in a under a year, let alone a million years. The synthesis of primitive self-replicators could happen relatively rapidly, even given a probability of 1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40 (and remember, our replicator could be synthesized on the very first trial).
>
> Assume that it takes a week to generate a sequence [14,16]. Then the Ghadiri ligase could be generated in one week, and any cytochrome C sequence could be generated in a bit over a million years (along with about half of all possible 101 peptide sequences, a large proportion of which will be functional proteins of some sort)."
>
> See, littleman, if you buy a million lottery tickets, your chances of winning go up dramatically.

Only one possible response to your masterful use of probability theory:
https://tenor.com/view/baby-toddler-laughing-laugh-toppling-gif-4290934

>
>
> > Even if some protein could form in this racemic mixture of
> > amino acids, how long would this protein last?
>
> As long as the conditions exist to allow it to last.
>
> > Certainly not billions of years, maybe not even hundreds of years.
>
> Why not? Do you have experimentation to back this up? Throw in metabolic replication (including mutation and evolution)...yeah, I'd actually go for hundreds of millions at a minimum - BTW - look around you...Q.E.D.
>
> > So this idea of some type of self-replicator arising from the
> > primordial soup is just plain stupid.
>
> No, it's supportable and logical, you're just an asshole.
>
> > So what's your agenda? To teach naive school children to be
> > blithering idiots like you and believe that reptiles grow
> > feathers, 70 million-year-old collagen could exist and life
> > popped out of the primordial soup?
>
> That's way better than your agenda - To teach naive school children to be
> blithering idiots like you and believe that some magical being poofed things into existence. 'Pray the gay away' is only a short hop from that agenda, you Pathetic Useless Ignorant Twat.
>
> > We have not shortage of your kind of stupidity.
>
> We have an extreme shortage of people who want to teach children to think critically and leave the fantasy of "goddidit" at the church steps.

Ahhh well, too bad:
https://tenor.com/view/ahhhh-well-yeahnothanks-whatyoutalkinboutwillis-gif-8693695
>
>
> > >

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 10:56:36 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

<klei...@sti.net>:

>On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 9:45:02 AM UTC-7, zencycle wrote:
>> On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 9:45:03 AM UTC-4, Alan littleman PUIT wrote:
>>
>> > And you still don't get the vast problems with the primordial
>> > soup mythology.
>>
>> Check your math, littleman. From talkorigins.org:
>>
>> "On the early Earth it is likely that the ocean had a volume of 1 x 10^24 litres. Given an amino acid concentration of 1 x 10^-6 M (a moderately dilute soup, see Chyba and Sagan 1992 [23]), then there are roughly 1 x 10^50 potential starting chains, so that a fair number of efficent peptide ligases (about 1 x 10^31) could be produced in a under a year, let alone a million years. The synthesis of primitive self-replicators could happen relatively rapidly, even given a probability of 1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40 (and remember, our replicator could be synthesized on the very first trial).
>>
>> Assume that it takes a week to generate a sequence [14,16]. Then the Ghadiri ligase could be generated in one week, and any cytochrome C sequence could be generated in a bit over a million years (along with about half of all possible 101 peptide sequences, a large proportion of which will be functional proteins of some sort)."
>>
>> See, littleman, if you buy a million lottery tickets, your chances of winning go up dramatically.

>Only one possible response to your masterful use of probability theory:
>https://tenor.com/view/baby-toddler-laughing-laugh-toppling-gif-4290934

Yes that would be an *expected* response from someone who
was incapable of refuting zencycle's post, or the math it
quotes. So your use of it is completely understandable,
given your oft-demonstrated inability to support your claims
or to refute the objective physical evidence which
contradicts those claims.

"When the facts are against you, pound on the law. When the
law is against you, pound on the facts. When both are
against you, pound on the table." Are you sure neither of
your doctorates is a J.D.?

Keep pounding the table, Allie.

>> > Even if some protein could form in this racemic mixture of
>> > amino acids, how long would this protein last?
>>
>> As long as the conditions exist to allow it to last.
>>
>> > Certainly not billions of years, maybe not even hundreds of years.
>>
>> Why not? Do you have experimentation to back this up? Throw in metabolic replication (including mutation and evolution)...yeah, I'd actually go for hundreds of millions at a minimum - BTW - look around you...Q.E.D.
>>
>> > So this idea of some type of self-replicator arising from the
>> > primordial soup is just plain stupid.
>>
>> No, it's supportable and logical, you're just an asshole.
>>
>> > So what's your agenda? To teach naive school children to be
>> > blithering idiots like you and believe that reptiles grow
>> > feathers, 70 million-year-old collagen could exist and life
>> > popped out of the primordial soup?
>>
>> That's way better than your agenda - To teach naive school children to be
>> blithering idiots like you and believe that some magical being poofed things into existence. 'Pray the gay away' is only a short hop from that agenda, you Pathetic Useless Ignorant Twat.
>>
>> > We have not shortage of your kind of stupidity.
>>
>> We have an extreme shortage of people who want to teach children to think critically and leave the fantasy of "goddidit" at the church steps.
>Ahhh well, too bad:
>https://tenor.com/view/ahhhh-well-yeahnothanks-whatyoutalkinboutwillis-gif-8693695
>>
>>
>> > >
>

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 10:00:03 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 10:56:36 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

> :
>
> >On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 9:45:02 AM UTC-7, zencycle wrote:
> >> On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 9:45:03 AM UTC-4, Alan littleman PUIT wrote:
> >>
> >> > And you still don't get the vast problems with the primordial
> >> > soup mythology.
> >>
> >> Check your math, littleman. From talkorigins.org:
> >>
> >> "On the early Earth it is likely that the ocean had a volume of 1 x 10^24 litres. Given an amino acid concentration of 1 x 10^-6 M (a moderately dilute soup, see Chyba and Sagan 1992 [23]), then there are roughly 1 x 10^50 potential starting chains, so that a fair number of efficent peptide ligases (about 1 x 10^31) could be produced in a under a year, let alone a million years. The synthesis of primitive self-replicators could happen relatively rapidly, even given a probability of 1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40 (and remember, our replicator could be synthesized on the very first trial).
> >>
> >> Assume that it takes a week to generate a sequence [14,16]. Then the Ghadiri ligase could be generated in one week, and any cytochrome C sequence could be generated in a bit over a million years (along with about half of all possible 101 peptide sequences, a large proportion of which will be functional proteins of some sort)."
> >>
> >> See, littleman, if you buy a million lottery tickets, your chances of winning go up dramatically.
>
> >Only one possible response to your masterful use of probability theory:
> >https://tenor.com/view/baby-toddler-laughing-laugh-toppling-gif-4290934
>
> Yes that would be an *expected* response from someone who
> was incapable of refuting zencycle's post, or the math it
> quotes. So your use of it is completely understandable,
> given your oft-demonstrated inability to support your claims
> or to refute the objective physical evidence which
> contradicts those claims.
>
> "When the facts are against you, pound on the law. When the
> law is against you, pound on the facts. When both are
> against you, pound on the table." Are you sure neither of
> your doctorates is a J.D.?
>
> Keep pounding the table, Allie.

What do you get when Ztupid meets dimmy dud?
https://www.deviantart.com/benttibisson/art/Dumb-and-Dumber-194332342

[zencycle]

On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 4:40:04 PM UTC-4, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >
> What do you get when Ztupid meets dimmy dud?

We get someone with two doctorates acting like donald trump

IOW - alan littleman PUIT

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

How Ztupid and dimmy dud evolved:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e8/Dumb_%26_Dumberer_film.jpg

[zencycle]

doctor littlemans _real_ credentials:
https://memegenerator.net/instance/44766878/doctor-grover-i-got-my-medical-degree-from-the-cereal-box

[Alan Kleinman MD PhD]

It was a Wheaties box.

[Oxyaena]

You're an idiot. While no one can be *absolutely* certain of anything,
we can be damn *near* certain that what we know is correct, at least in
some matters, and in terms of practicality what we *claim* to know is
*actually* known. There's the scientific method for a reason, and
there's also a reason why the term "pseudoscience" exists. Try
exercising that underdeveloped brain of yours for a moment and reflect
on this.

> You believe that the sciences are proof against intellectual
> abuse. I disagree.

You have a right to disagree, although it doesn't necessarily mean
you're right. There's a quote from my favorite Youtuber Aronra in a
debate with a creationist, in which he said to the creationist "That's
true, and you have a right to be wrong," after being hit with the common
escape hatch "But I have a right to believe what I want to believe"


>
> Bill
>
>

[freon96]

By the tone of your reply, you make it clear that you know
what others merely wonder about. By calling someone an idiot
you are also saying that you are not an idiot and are quite
certain about it.

Bill

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 13:39:41 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alan Kleinman MD PhD

<klei...@sti.net>:

Q.E.D.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 07 Aug 2018 10:14:11 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

[Crickets...]

You saw fit to respond (to be loose with that term) to
Oxyaena's comment on your post, but ignored the above? OK,
no real surprise there...

[freon96]

I generally don't pay much attention to who posts what;
everything looks about the same.

Bill

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 10 Aug 2018 17:43:22 -0500, the following appeared

And yet it doesn't...