Programming of Life

[Steady Eddie]

I hate posting, but this is just an outstanding video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s

Any time you want to take me up on one of these topics, let me know..

"Ed Reynolds 2 months ago
Wow! A tour-de-force scientific reality check for Darwinian origin-of-life theorizing.
Well done!
Reply · 5"

[RonO]

Why should anyone watch this video? Can you tell us anything new that
they bring up on the issue that hasn't been a failure for ID for the
last 20 years?

What is of interest to this group about this video?

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/programming-life/

This site describes documentaries. This review isn't very flattering.

QUOTE:
It is a good deceiving religion documentary film that avoids to mention
religion, god, bible, etc. The authors spice up the video with science
talk in order to attack evolution. They did this by not letting the
public know their true intention.

Since at this moment science does not have all the answers to DNA, they
insinuate that evolution is wrong and the answer should be some place
else. They explain their science from their point of view and do not
share the arguments for evolution.
END QUOTE:

Sounds like the switch scam that the ID perps are running. Do they ever
get around to mentioning intelligent design or God in the video?

Doesn't sound like much of anything to waste anyone's time on.

So just tell us one good reason to watch this video. Do they put
forward any positive evidence for their view? That would be different.
Why is denial all that these types of efforts ever put forward? Why
isn't there some real argument for their position?

Not only that, but what does the DNA actually tell us? Not what we do
not know at this time, but what anyone can discover for themselves if
they do the science or look at the data?

Why do IDiots like Denton and Behe acknowledge that common descent is a
fact of nature when they understand the DNA data? Biological evolution
is a fact of nature. The only argument left is that we do not know if
there was any god involved in the process. Science can't say because
there is no evidence for any god-did-it intervention. Put up your
evidence that some god did anything. Why is not as good as your own not
good enough, good enough for such an argument? If the IDiots had the
science we would have seen it by now.

The Discovery Institute started their IDiot think tank 20 years ago.
What have they accomplished?

They have been running the bait and switch since 2002 and no creationist
rube that has needed the ID science ever got the promised ID science to
teach in the public schools. The ID science literally never appeared
when the IDiots needed it. All anyone gets is an obfuscation scam that
doesn't mention that ID ever existed.

They have removed the claim that they had a scientific theory of
intelligent design to teach in the public schools from their web site
education policy statement and the ID scam wing of the Discovery
Institute now claim that their junk is good for home school and private
schools. They did not change their education policy until 2013 and the
bait and switch had been going down for over a decade. They kept
claiming that they had the ID science, but no one ever got the ID science.

The Discovery Institute has recently started multiple religious web
pages to associate ID with religion when they used to claim that ID had
nothing to do with religion.

This is the reality that you live in. So what is in the video that
would change that sad reality?

Ron Okimoto

[Steady Eddie]

Just some scientific facts, that's all.

[jillery]

What scientific facts, exactly?
And what topics are "these" topics?

--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Steady Eddie]

The video is quite densely packed with related topics, but my take-away after an initial viewing is:

The main thrust of the video is the information content of life. And not just the existence of
information, but the type of information, and the processing of that information.
It points out that a cell contains many kinds of biological computers, using many different
programming languages, all coordinated together to process the information necessary to operate life's systems.

As I pointed out in the comments (under Ed Reynolds), the proper scientific use of the term
"possibility" is clearly defined, and distinguished from "speculation"; a distinction which is missed
by many when discussing the origin of life.

[jillery]

On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 06:47:47 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

>The video is quite densely packed with related topics, but my take-away after an initial viewing is:
>
>The main thrust of the video is the information content of life. And not just the existence of
>information, but the type of information, and the processing of that information.
>It points out that a cell contains many kinds of biological computers, using many different
>programming languages, all coordinated together to process the information necessary to operate life's systems.
>
>As I pointed out in the comments (under Ed Reynolds), the proper scientific use of the term
>"possibility" is clearly defined, and distinguished from "speculation"; a distinction which is missed
>by many when discussing the origin of life.

Ok, so life processes information. How does that rate a whole video,
nevermind the superlatives you give it?

And how do you figure possibilities are facts?

[RonO]

I guess that means that it is the same old denial with no positive
arguments to put forward, and an avoidance of what we do know that makes
their arguments superfluous.

When do you think that will change?

Ron Okimoto

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/1/15 7:58 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> I hate posting, but this is just an outstanding video:

> [snip]

Can't be very good, since you obviously did not learn anything from it
which you could put in your own words.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[John Bode]

On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 8:53:11 AM UTC-5, Steady Eddie wrote:

[massive snippage]

>
> The video is quite densely packed with related topics, but my take-away
> after an initial viewing is:
>
> The main thrust of the video is the information content of life. And not
> just the existence of information, but the type of information, and the
> processing of that information.
> It points out that a cell contains many kinds of biological computers,
> using many different programming languages, all coordinated together to
> process the information necessary to operate life's systems.

=sigh=

One of the more tortured metaphors to come out of the ID movement is to
compare living systems to digital computers, and to appropriate some
information processing terminology to describe living systems.

Life *doesn't work* that way. Living systems don't "process information";
they *do work* as the result of chemical reactions, decreasing local entropy
while increasing universal entropy.

DNA is not a computer program; it is not processed in any way, shape, or
form like a computer program. The genetic code is not a programming
language*.

Sure, you can analyze DNA and talk about it in an information-theoretic way
to describe some interesting properties about genes, but at the end of the
day it's a complex molecule among a soup of other complex molecules that are
combining and breaking up according to their physical and chemical
properties. That's it. That's all the magic there is. Get a big enough
system together and you'll get some complex structures and behavior.

* Not to say you can't program with DNA; I think there was a project at
MIT or somewhere that used DNA to solve problems that required
massive parallelism. I'll have to dig up that link at some point.

[Bill]

So DNA is just chemicals. It is merely chemicals in the same way that a
microprocessor is merely silicon. Well that clears things up. Some might
think that the sum is greater than its parts, but that just adds
complications that might require thinking about.

It could also be argued that something emerges from the chemicals that
couldn't be predicted, something unexpected that the chemicals themselves
can't do. Can we determine what and which each of the chemicals create the
very special qualities of DNA? If DNA is just the chemical composition, how
is it different from all other chemical compositions?

Bill

[Steady Eddie]

On Wednesday, 2 September 2015 07:18:11 UTC-6, jillery wrote:

watch the video, if you want to know.
Then we'll discuss any objections you may have.
It's not hidden in piles of jargon. You can do it.

[Steady Eddie]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the process of which DNA is a part is not LIKE a digital computer,
it IS a digital computer. DNA is just the memory storage device.

Sure, you can bury your head in the sand and just deny it, but the time has come; the cat's out of
the bag.
The time has come to DEAL WITH IT.

[RSNorman]

Sadly you are very wrong. Actually I am not at all sad about your
being wrong.

Your second paragraph is quite accurate, though. Perhaps you should
read what it says.

[Steady Eddie]

Yes, I know.
All you can say is "you are very wrong", turn your back, and try to forget about it.
It's not going away:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s

(the link has been snipped from the discussion - can you tell whether it was done "accidentally" or
intentionally?)

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/2/15 7:05 PM, Bill wrote:
>> [...]

> So DNA is just chemicals. It is merely chemicals in the same way that a
> microprocessor is merely silicon. Well that clears things up. Some might
> think that the sum is greater than its parts, but that just adds
> complications that might require thinking about.
>
> It could also be argued that something emerges from the chemicals that
> couldn't be predicted, something unexpected that the chemicals themselves
> can't do. Can we determine what and which each of the chemicals create the
> very special qualities of DNA? If DNA is just the chemical composition, how
> is it different from all other chemical compositions?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life

Conway's Game of Life.
It operates in a universe far, far simpler than this one, and still lots
of things emerge that couldn't be predicted, some things unexpected that
the elements themselves can't do.

The only very special quality is your lack of understanding of how
ordinary all of this is.

[RSNorman]

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 09:39:30 -0700, Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:

>On 9/2/15 7:05 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> [...]
>> So DNA is just chemicals. It is merely chemicals in the same way that a
>> microprocessor is merely silicon. Well that clears things up. Some might
>> think that the sum is greater than its parts, but that just adds
>> complications that might require thinking about.
>>
>> It could also be argued that something emerges from the chemicals that
>> couldn't be predicted, something unexpected that the chemicals themselves
>> can't do. Can we determine what and which each of the chemicals create the
>> very special qualities of DNA? If DNA is just the chemical composition, how
>> is it different from all other chemical compositions?
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life
>
>Conway's Game of Life.
>It operates in a universe far, far simpler than this one, and still lots
>of things emerge that couldn't be predicted, some things unexpected that
>the elements themselves can't do.
>
>The only very special quality is your lack of understanding of how
>ordinary all of this is.

I had many long go-arounds with John Wilkins on this kind of emergence
and I have come around to a large extent to what I thik his point was.

What we call "couldn't be predicted" or "unexpected" has everything to
do with our lack of imagination and insight into how particular
combinations of elementary events might work than in having new
scientific processes or laws "emerge". There are people who say the
information content contained in, say, the original formation of cells
in Conway's Life is separate from the rules by which each cell winks
into or out of existence depending deterministically on the state of
its neighbors. Still, watching 'objects' march across the screen,
generating a train of new objects in their wake and behaving in ways
that we attribute to "independent action" is an amazing experience.

The objects inside a cell all interacting, including the DNA as a
major player (but one out of many) produces the emergent property of
"being alive". Still it is not a computer. Information is involved
certainly but there is nothing in the emergence that upsets the
mechanistic and materialistic operation of how it all works.

The world works by objects obeying the laws of physics. The boundary
conditions (in space and in time -- the initial conditions) are
separate from the laws, themselves, and some people say this is a kind
of duality: matter and information. However science takes that whole
set: laws working in conformity with boundary conditions. And nothing
in life, the reality inside cells or the playing out of Conway's game,
deviates from that package: laws plus boundary conditions.

Our "surprise" at finding "unexpected" and "unpredicted" behavior is
merely our failure to imagine the consequences of a particular set of
boundary conditions.

[Bill]

Mark Isaak wrote:

> On 9/2/15 7:05 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> [...]
>> So DNA is just chemicals. It is merely chemicals in the same way that a
>> microprocessor is merely silicon. Well that clears things up. Some might
>> think that the sum is greater than its parts, but that just adds
>> complications that might require thinking about.
>>
>> It could also be argued that something emerges from the chemicals that
>> couldn't be predicted, something unexpected that the chemicals themselves
>> can't do. Can we determine what and which each of the chemicals create
>> the very special qualities of DNA? If DNA is just the chemical
>> composition, how is it different from all other chemical compositions?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life
>
> Conway's Game of Life.
> It operates in a universe far, far simpler than this one, and still lots
> of things emerge that couldn't be predicted, some things unexpected that
> the elements themselves can't do.
>

> The only very special quality is your lack of understa.nding of how

> ordinary all of this is.
>

I suggest that characterizing DNA as mere chemistry is about as descriptive
as calling the Lincoln Memorial mere marble or the pyramids of Giza as mere
limestone. It is a collection of letters pertaining to nothing.

I further suggest that this kind of "definition" is only descriptive when
one hopes, for whatever reason, to minimize the significance of the thing
described. It appears that by trivializing the function of DNA, the intent
is to negate the appearance of intent which is based on its function as
programming code. The purpose of such oversimplifications has nothing to do
with the DNA in any scientific sense, but rather the implications of its
function.

Bill

[Glenn]

"Mark Isaak" <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote in message news:ms9t0n$qaq$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 9/2/15 7:05 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> [...]
>> So DNA is just chemicals. It is merely chemicals in the same way that a
>> microprocessor is merely silicon. Well that clears things up. Some might
>> think that the sum is greater than its parts, but that just adds
>> complications that might require thinking about.
>>
>> It could also be argued that something emerges from the chemicals that
>> couldn't be predicted, something unexpected that the chemicals themselves
>> can't do. Can we determine what and which each of the chemicals create the
>> very special qualities of DNA? If DNA is just the chemical composition, how
>> is it different from all other chemical compositions?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life
>
> Conway's Game of Life.
> It operates in a universe far, far simpler than this one, and still lots
> of things emerge that couldn't be predicted, some things unexpected that
> the elements themselves can't do.
>
> The only very special quality is your lack of understanding of how
> ordinary all of this is.
>

There is only one universe.

[Glenn]

"Steady Eddie" <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:aae6898f-24ed-480b...@googlegroups.com...

John Bode did a "massive snip". Intentionally of course, but likely not to "hide" the link.

"I have the impression that the best answer to any question in the form "is X Y or Z?" is almost always "neither!" (As, for instance, was Bohr or Einstein right?") To focus strictly on life as an information process is to miss the point, widely. This is a mistake I myself was guilty of in my two decades old papers on the origin of life, buying too naively into the "RNA world" and the idea that self-replicating information was the essence of life."
https://edge.org/conversation/is-life-analog-or-digital

[Bill]

Something emergent is something in addition to what it emerged from. There
are the constituent pieces that can be observed, tested and verified; mere
chemistry. There are things that emerge from this that are something more,
something intangible, effects without apparent causes. Because of DNA and
other chemical combinations, there is life and, eventually, intelligent
life, phenomena that can't be measured. Emergence is something new.

Bill

[Robert Camp]

On 9/3/15 10:19 AM, Bill wrote:
> Mark Isaak wrote:
>
>> On 9/2/15 7:05 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>> So DNA is just chemicals. It is merely chemicals in the same way that a
>>> microprocessor is merely silicon. Well that clears things up. Some might
>>> think that the sum is greater than its parts, but that just adds
>>> complications that might require thinking about.
>>>
>>> It could also be argued that something emerges from the chemicals that
>>> couldn't be predicted, something unexpected that the chemicals themselves
>>> can't do. Can we determine what and which each of the chemicals create
>>> the very special qualities of DNA? If DNA is just the chemical
>>> composition, how is it different from all other chemical compositions?
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life
>>
>> Conway's Game of Life.
>> It operates in a universe far, far simpler than this one, and still lots
>> of things emerge that couldn't be predicted, some things unexpected that
>> the elements themselves can't do.
>>
>> The only very special quality is your lack of understa.nding of how
>> ordinary all of this is.
>>
>
> I suggest that characterizing DNA as mere chemistry is about as descriptive
> as calling the Lincoln Memorial mere marble or the pyramids of Giza as mere
> limestone. It is a collection of letters pertaining to nothing.

I suggest that the purpose in this case (as it looks to me, not speaking
for Mark, here) was to resist an airy, woo-filled mystification of
something that is not just undeniably interesting, complex and amazing,
but also observable, testable and quantifiable.

> I further suggest that this kind of "definition" is only descriptive when
> one hopes, for whatever reason, to minimize the significance of the thing
> described.

I can assure you that virtually no one here minimizes the significance
of DNA - especially not by reducing it to the subject of new-agey
chitchat around a bong.

> It appears that by trivializing the function of DNA, the intent
> is to negate the appearance of intent which is based on its function as
> programming code. The purpose of such oversimplifications has nothing to do
> with the DNA in any scientific sense, but rather the implications of its
> function.

Understanding DNA, or anything else, is not "trivializing" it. This is
the impulse of the epistemic nihilist.

[Steady Eddie]

No, understanding DNA is not to trivialize it. For that, it takes understanding Darwinism.
:) (smug grin)

[John Bode]

I'll admit it's been on the order of 30 years since my last computer
architecture class, but...no. Not at all. Living cells do not behave
like digital computers. Living cells are not series of on/off switches
through which electrical signals travel. Living cells are not divided up
into discrete data registers, arithmetic logic units, program counters,
instruction registers, etc. Living cells don't fetch, decode, and execute
instructions on a fixed clock frequency. Living cells don't have an
instruction set architecture. DNA is not a series of opcodes, operands,
and addressing modes. Nor is it a digital storage device using magnetic
materials to capture a particular magnetic orientation.

I mean, I program the goddamned things for a living, I think I have *some*
insights into how they work. Living cells simply don't work anything like
a digital computer. At all. In any way, shape, or form. I'm not a
biologist (nor do I play one on TV), and I don't know the Krebs cycle
from a hole in the ground, but I know *enough* to be able to say that the
metaphor is, not to put too fine a point on it, horseshit.

You can *model* life processes using digital computers. But life *isn't*
a digital computer.

And this is why the ID movement gets some things so singularly,
*spectacularly* wrong, because they get caught up in these elegant (to
them) mathematical models that have absolutely *no relation* to actual
living systems.

You *cannot* ignore chemistry and physics when deciding that the odds of
"random elements coming together to create life" are one in a google or
something like that. Certain elements have high affinity for each other
and bond easily (hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, etc.). Other elements, like
noble gases, not so much.

You *cannot* ignore biology and biochemistry when talking about
reproduction, mutation, etc. But the leading dims of the ID movement
routinely *do* ignore these things, because that reality has a nasty
tendency to bollux up their elegant models.

[RSNorman]

Somehow I thought your citation would refer to your mistake of two
decades ago. The Dyson discussion in your citation is very new.

More important and to the point: Dyson writes "For the purposes of
this discussion, life is defined as a material system that can
acquire, store, process, and use information to organize its
activities. In this broad view, the essence of life is information,
but information is not synonymous with life. To be alive, a system
must not only hold information but process and use it. It is the
active use of information, and not the passive storage, that
constitutes life."

Most notions of life require metabolism, responsiveness to the
environment, ordered structure, reproduction, and growth and
development.

Information processing systems process energy (have a sort of
metabolism), respond to the environment (that is what the information
processing is about), and have an ordered structure. However they
utterly fail what biologists consider critically important aspects:
reproduction and growth and development. Both the energy and the
information needed to build and operate all the machinery that does
the metabolism and information processing and growth and development
comes about recursively from the operation of the machine itself.
Computers as well as all sorts of non-living information processing
systems are constructed using materials, energy sources, and design
plans derived from outside their own operation. Living cells are
constructed using materials, energy sources, and design plans derived
entirely from their own metabolism and genetic resources. And those
genetic resources are derived entirely from the operation of other
living systems.

In other words, Dyson is not talking about life but about information
processing systems.

Wake me up when those information processing systems take raw
materials from the environment and build their own power plants (that
also use raw environmental sources) and construct not only their own
bodies but all the machinery and tools needed in their manufacturing
and power plants based on designs that they, themselves (or their
predecessors) worked out on their own. More important, make sure that
the partially constructed models rolling of the production line are
capable of fully functioning as independent agents even though they
are still very early in their construction. Organisms routinely do
that, too.

[Bill]

I was replying to the idea that DNA is "mere" chemistry, an absurdity on its
face. The chemistry is the means, the vehicle by which life is made
possible, but DNA is more than just chemistry. I think the point was that
the effect of DNA shouldn't be thought about.

Bill

[Steady Eddie]

By the same token, electronic computers are "mere electromagnetics".

[Steady Eddie]

You try to fool me by conflating "digital" with BINARY. Computers are coded in a binary language.
Cells are coded in a base-4 language. Both are DIGITAL languages.

> Living cells are not divided up
> into discrete data registers, arithmetic logic units, program counters,
> instruction registers, etc.

No, living cells are INTEGRATED into all of these functions, as a fully functioning unit.

>Living cells don't fetch, decode, and execute
> instructions on a fixed clock frequency.

No, living cells do all these things on a FLEXIBLE clock frequency.

> Living cells don't have an
> instruction set architecture.

Would you explain what "instruction set architecture" you would be expecting?

> DNA is not a series of opcodes, operands,
> and addressing modes.

You should watch this video before deciding what "modes" DNA is capable of using:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s

> Nor is it a digital storage device using magnetic
> materials to capture a particular magnetic orientation.

Again, you conflate "digital" with "using magnetic

materials to capture a particular magnetic orientation".

There are many types of digital computer that do not use magnetic storage devices.
Mechanical computers, for one.
You are really betraying your ignorance of what a computer is or how it works.

And I don't suspect your knowledge of biology is any better.

> I mean, I program the goddamned things for a living, I think I have *some*
> insights into how they work. Living cells simply don't work anything like
> a digital computer. At all. In any way, shape, or form. I'm not a
> biologist (nor do I play one on TV), and I don't know the Krebs cycle
> from a hole in the ground, but I know *enough* to be able to say that the
> metaphor is, not to put too fine a point on it, horseshit.
>
> You can *model* life processes using digital computers. But life *isn't*
> a digital computer.
>
> And this is why the ID movement gets some things so singularly,
> *spectacularly* wrong, because they get caught up in these elegant (to
> them) mathematical models that have absolutely *no relation* to actual
> living systems.

What 'irrelevant' mathematical models are you talking about?

> You *cannot* ignore chemistry and physics when deciding that the odds of
> "random elements coming together to create life" are one in a google or
> something like that. Certain elements have high affinity for each other
> and bond easily (hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, etc.). Other elements, like
> noble gases, not so much.

I'm guessing you have no idea what you're talking about here, or you're drunk.
You're not making sense. Study English.

> You *cannot* ignore biology and biochemistry when talking about
> reproduction, mutation, etc. But the leading dims of the ID movement
> routinely *do* ignore these things, because that reality has a nasty
> tendency to bollux up their elegant models.

Wow. I'm seeing stars after that one.

[Bill]

My impression is that the dimwittedness of the remark will be defended based
on ever more dimwitted remarks. Anyone who points out this dimwittitude will
become the bad guy.

Bill

[Glenn]

"RSNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:3b2huahr1tk6mgngh...@4ax.com...

What mistake?

[RSNorman]

I thought you wrote the statement in question by not noticing the
quotation marks which were obscured by all the dirt on my screen.

I sincerely apologize for my egregious error in believing that you
actually expressed an opinion of your own on this news group.

[jillery]

You claimed that reality is mere quantum fluctuations and waves, but
an alleged trivializing of DNA gets you bent. There's something very
inconsistent with your world view.

[jillery]

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 08:24:31 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

So once again you show you have no idea what you're talking about. Is
anybody surprised?

[Burkhard]

Whole everybody knows they need little imps for running, who need
frequent sacrifices of goat's blood else they evaporate.

[Bill Rogers]

On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 1:43:06 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:

Some people, interpreting evidence in the light of what they want to be true, do hold that view of emergence. Other people, interpreting evidence in the light of what they want to be true, hold a different view of emergence. There's really no way to say anything about it. It's all just an unreal quantum fuzziness on which we project our desired beliefs. So what's the point in discussing it at all?

[Robert Camp]

Yes, well your ability to gin up a ridiculous strawman to bravely topple
is legendary. DNA *is* about chemistry, but no one said "mere." And your
recognition of absurdities is suspect, considering how many are brought
to life by your keyboard.

> The chemistry is the means, the vehicle by which life is made
> possible, but DNA is more than just chemistry.

One would expect you must be particularly expert to make such a claim.
Please, tell us what you mean by "DNA is more than just chemistry."
Something more than the obvious and trivial, I mean - accompanied with
facts and documentation, of course.

> I think the point was that the effect of DNA shouldn't be thought about.

To the degree that means anything, it's offensive. No one here would
suggest such a thing, and the very idea reflects a defensive and
petulant attitude.

[Steady Eddie]

Oh? And what, besides chemistry, is DNA?

> > The chemistry is the means, the vehicle by which life is made
> > possible, but DNA is more than just chemistry.
>
> One would expect you must be particularly expert to make such a claim.
> Please, tell us what you mean by "DNA is more than just chemistry."
> Something more than the obvious and trivial, I mean - accompanied with
> facts and documentation, of course.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s
Watch it. You'll learn nothing.

[Steady Eddie]

Mr. Bode said above:

"Sure, you can analyze DNA and talk about it in an information-theoretic way
to describe some interesting properties about genes, but at the end of the
day it's a complex molecule among a soup of other complex molecules that are
combining and breaking up according to their physical and chemical
properties. That's it. That's all the magic there is. Get a big enough
system together and you'll get some complex structures and behavior."

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/Zv_Fyi9i9I4/_At-hxgNDwAJ

That's calling DNA "mere chemistry".

[Kleuskes & Moos]

On Thu, 03 Sep 2015 12:35:38 -0700, Steady Eddie wrote:

> On Thursday, 3 September 2015 12:13:08 UTC-6, John Bode wrote:

<snip>

>> I'll admit it's been on the order of 30 years since my last computer
>> architecture class, but...no. Not at all. Living cells do not behave
>> like digital computers. Living cells are not series of on/off switches
>> through which electrical signals travel.
>
> You try to fool me by conflating "digital" with BINARY. Computers are
> coded in a binary language.
> Cells are coded in a base-4 language. Both are DIGITAL languages.

Cells are not coded in ''any'' digital system. Not base 2, nor base 4.

>> Living cells are not divided up into discrete data registers,
>> arithmetic logic units, program counters, instruction registers, etc.
>
> No, living cells are INTEGRATED into all of these functions, as a fully
> functioning unit.

Ergo: they are *not* computers in any way, shape or form. They simply do
not have anything remotely resembling those functionalities.

>>Living cells don't fetch, decode, and execute
>> instructions on a fixed clock frequency.
>
> No, living cells do all these things on a FLEXIBLE clock frequency.

Living cells do not have *anything* even remotely resembling a "clock
frequency", flexible or otherwise.

>> Living cells don't have an instruction set architecture.
>
> Would you explain what "instruction set architecture" you would be
> expecting?

None. They do not have any.

>> DNA is not a series of opcodes, operands,
>> and addressing modes.
>
> You should watch this video before deciding what "modes" DNA is capable
> of using:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s

Which *still* does not resemble opcodes, operands or addressing modes.
For an adressing mode, you need addresses. DNA has no addresses.

>> Nor is it a digital storage device using magnetic materials to capture
>> a particular magnetic orientation.
>
> Again, you conflate "digital" with "using magnetic materials to capture
> a particular magnetic orientation".
> There are many types of digital computer that do not use magnetic
> storage devices.
> Mechanical computers, for one.
> You are really betraying your ignorance of what a computer is or how it
> works.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! <snort> HAHAHA!

There's the Pot calling the kettle purple with yellow polka dots.

> And I don't suspect your knowledge of biology is any better.

It can hardly be any worse than yours.

>>[...] I know *enough* to be able to say that

>> the metaphor is, not to put too fine a point on it, horseshit.

Wrong animal. It's bullshit.

<snip>

>> You *cannot* ignore chemistry and physics when deciding that the odds
>> of "random elements coming together to create life" are one in a google
>> or something like that. Certain elements have high affinity for each
>> other and bond easily (hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, etc.). Other
>> elements, like noble gases, not so much.
>
> I'm guessing you have no idea what you're talking about here, or you're
> drunk.
> You're not making sense. Study English.

He's making perfect sense. The presence of amino-acids and other organic
compounds in space is ample proof of that.

<snip>

> Wow. I'm seeing stars after that one.

If only you were. Moron. What you see is likely the effect of an oxygen
shortage to what might liberally be called your brain.

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/3/15 10:19 AM, Bill wrote:

> Mark Isaak wrote:
>
>> On 9/2/15 7:05 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>> So DNA is just chemicals. It is merely chemicals in the same way that a
>>> microprocessor is merely silicon. Well that clears things up. Some might
>>> think that the sum is greater than its parts, but that just adds
>>> complications that might require thinking about.
>>>
>>> It could also be argued that something emerges from the chemicals that
>>> couldn't be predicted, something unexpected that the chemicals themselves
>>> can't do. Can we determine what and which each of the chemicals create
>>> the very special qualities of DNA? If DNA is just the chemical
>>> composition, how is it different from all other chemical compositions?
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life
>>
>> Conway's Game of Life.
>> It operates in a universe far, far simpler than this one, and still lots
>> of things emerge that couldn't be predicted, some things unexpected that
>> the elements themselves can't do.
>>

>> The only very special quality is your lack of understanding of how

>> ordinary all of this is.
>>
>
> I suggest that characterizing DNA as mere chemistry is about as descriptive
> as calling the Lincoln Memorial mere marble or the pyramids of Giza as mere
> limestone. It is a collection of letters pertaining to nothing.

And I will thank you to stop characterizing DNA as "mere" anything.
There is nothing trivial or "mere" about DNA, nor about the Giza
pyramids or Lincoln Memorial. Still, the pyramids are built from simple
pieces, and so is DNA.

> I further suggest that this kind of "definition" is only descriptive when
> one hopes, for whatever reason, to minimize the significance of the thing
> described. It appears that by trivializing the function of DNA, the intent
> is to negate the appearance of intent which is based on its function as
> programming code. The purpose of such oversimplifications has nothing to do
> with the DNA in any scientific sense, but rather the implications of its
> function.

So stop oversimplifying already! Or don't you realize that claiming an
inability to understand any of life is nothing but your own form of
oversimplification (as is appealing to a magical woo)?

Chemistry (and the physics behind it) is relatively simple compared
with, say, all the biology within an estuary, but we know from Conway's
Game of Life (among many other things) that simple rules lead to amazing
complexity. I wish you would stop trying to trivialize that!

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/3/15 11:36 AM, Bill wrote:
>

> I was replying to the idea that DNA is "mere" chemistry, ...

Who, besides you, puts the word "mere" in front of "chemistry"? You,
Bill, are the one doing all of the trivializing.

[Steady Eddie]

No, it was Mr. Bode that called DNA mere chemistry.
Bill was objecting to him.
Try to keep up.

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:pgfhuat0o9gfjlntq...@4ax.com...

Show that Bill claimed reality is "mere quantum fluctuations and waves".

[William Morse]

On 9/3/2015 1:05 PM, RSNorman wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 09:39:30 -0700, Mark Isaak

> <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>
>> On 9/2/15 7:05 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>> So DNA is just chemicals. It is merely chemicals in the same way that a
>>> microprocessor is merely silicon. Well that clears things up. Some might
>>> think that the sum is greater than its parts, but that just adds
>>> complications that might require thinking about.
>>>
>>> It could also be argued that something emerges from the chemicals that
>>> couldn't be predicted, something unexpected that the chemicals themselves
>>> can't do. Can we determine what and which each of the chemicals create the
>>> very special qualities of DNA? If DNA is just the chemical composition, how
>>> is it different from all other chemical compositions?
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life
>>
>> Conway's Game of Life.
>> It operates in a universe far, far simpler than this one, and still lots
>> of things emerge that couldn't be predicted, some things unexpected that
>> the elements themselves can't do.
>>

>> The only very special quality is your lack of understanding of how

>> ordinary all of this is.
>

> I had many long go-arounds with John Wilkins on this kind of emergence
> and I have come around to a large extent to what I thik his point was.
>
> What we call "couldn't be predicted" or "unexpected" has everything to
> do with our lack of imagination and insight into how particular
> combinations of elementary events might work than in having new
> scientific processes or laws "emerge". There are people who say the
> information content contained in, say, the original formation of cells
> in Conway's Life is separate from the rules by which each cell winks
> into or out of existence depending deterministically on the state of
> its neighbors. Still, watching 'objects' march across the screen,
> generating a train of new objects in their wake and behaving in ways
> that we attribute to "independent action" is an amazing experience.

I also have become skeptical of many of the uses of the term
"emergence", but that is partly because the term doesn't really have a
consistent usage. In simplest form, some properties of systems are
emergent by definition, since they are only properties of aggregations
of lower level entities, not of the lower level entities themselves.
Temperature is an example you have used before. Clearly temperature is
not unexpected and is exactly predicted by the properties of individual
molecules, but it makes no sense to speak of the temperature of an
individual molecule.

A more interesting example is turbulence. An individual molecule does
not exhibit turbulence - the property only emerges once one has a large
collection of molecules. Turbulence more closely approaches the
definition of " can't be predicted", at least to date. At least as I
understand it, we can currently create turbulence in computational fluid
mechanics, but only by recreating in the models a large number of
individual molecules that interact according to the laws of physics. We
don't have a more fundamental understanding of why those interactions
create turbulence. But that situation may change in the future, so it is
not clear that turbulence is emergent in the sense of being
unpredictable. And even if it continues to be predictable only by
simulation, does that really make it "something unexpected that the
chemicals themselves can't do"?

> The objects inside a cell all interacting, including the DNA as a
> major player (but one out of many) produces the emergent property of
> "being alive". Still it is not a computer. Information is involved
> certainly but there is nothing in the emergence that upsets the
> mechanistic and materialistic operation of how it all works.
>

Life is a considerably more complicated subject than turbulence, and
may be a much better example of emergence. Again this doesn't mean it is
not mechanistic or materialistic. However I disagree that all
unpredicted behavior is "_merely_ our failure to imagine ...
consequences" as you state below. We know that we cannot make accurate
long range predictions about the weather, even though it is mechanistic.
We know that we cannot predict whether some algorithms will stop, even
though they are mechanistic. I don't think we know at present whether
life or consciousness are analogous to either of the above.

> The world works by objects obeying the laws of physics. The boundary
> conditions (in space and in time -- the initial conditions) are
> separate from the laws, themselves, and some people say this is a kind
> of duality: matter and information. However science takes that whole
> set: laws working in conformity with boundary conditions. And nothing
> in life, the reality inside cells or the playing out of Conway's game,
> deviates from that package: laws plus boundary conditions.
>
> Our "surprise" at finding "unexpected" and "unpredicted" behavior is
> merely our failure to imagine the consequences of a particular set of
> boundary conditions.

I would modify this to say "often" instead of "merely"
>
>
>

[RSNorman]

Your comments are quite correct because I was careless in how I used
the terms "unexpected" and "unpredicted". There are many situations
where the differential equations underlying a process cannot be
computed -- chaotic solutions. We know that turbulence and weather
are chaotic so we cannot predict details. However we can indeed
predict that chaotic behavior will occur and then describe the
outlines of how it will proceed in general terms, though not the
details case by case. We can't predict earthquakes and volcanic
eruptions although we can predict that they wil occur and know just
what causes them. So I called these events "expected" and
"predictable" although you can with equal fervor call them
"unexpected" and "unpredictable."

In particular I should say (just to stir up the pot) that the coming
climate crisis should now be put into the class of "expected" and
"predicted" although the details of how and where it will play out on
exactly what time schedule are not.

[jonathan]

What the ID argument has...so wrong is the
instinctive notion that something like life
can't possibly arise through random processes.
So they conclude it must be directed by some
intelligent source.

But random processes, whether natural selection
or gravity, is a primary source of organization.

That also means, however, that with evolving systems
we can't have the ability to predict the future
and have control over our environment.

Which is a notion the objective scientific community
also has...so wrong.

All of nature results from a process that's equal parts
'rules of operation' and 'freedom of interaction'.

Or directed and undirected.
Intelligent and unintelligent.

Both sides are half right and half wrong.
But since each side begins from opposing frames
of reference, they just keep talking past
each other.

Pointing to each others emptiness, not realizing
it's the result of reducing to two alternatives
what should remain one.

Our instinctive need to simplify, like noticing
threats in the forest first, is the problem.

[Steady Eddie]

That's not the type of organization we see in life.
Watch the video.

[William Morse]

The code by which DNA is translated to proteins may be a base-4
language, but the process by which proteins interact to produce cells is
not digital but analog. I agree with you that there is some merit in the
analogy between computers and life, but the computers you should be
comparing life to are analog computers.

>> Living cells are not divided up
>> into discrete data registers, arithmetic logic units, program counters,
>> instruction registers, etc.
>
> No, living cells are INTEGRATED into all of these functions, as a fully functioning unit.

Again this is akin to how analog computers work (or should I say worked?
I am not current enough in the field to know if there are still
applications for analog computers).

>> Living cells don't fetch, decode, and execute
>> instructions on a fixed clock frequency.
>
> No, living cells do all these things on a FLEXIBLE clock frequency.
>
>> Living cells don't have an
>> instruction set architecture.
>
> Would you explain what "instruction set architecture" you would be expecting?

I don't think analog computers ever got to the point where one could
describe them as having an instruction set architecture. But if they did
this is the architecture one might expect of living cells, as opposed to
the instruction sets of digital computers, which life can't carry out
other than a few very simple commands like read, copy, and skip. And
again these commands only get carried out on the early processes in
transcription of DNA to proteins.

>> DNA is not a series of opcodes, operands,
>> and addressing modes.

I disagree with someone (I think John Bode) on this point. The machinery
that translates DNA to proteins does have an analogy to opcodes,
operands, and addressing modes. As I said above, that really doesn't
translate to the next steps of how the proteins produced interact in
cells. And I agree with the rest of the points.

> You should watch this video before deciding what "modes" DNA is capable of using:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s
>
>> Nor is it a digital storage device using magnetic
>> materials to capture a particular magnetic orientation.
>
> Again, you conflate "digital" with "using magnetic
> materials to capture a particular magnetic orientation".
> There are many types of digital computer that do not use magnetic storage devices.
> Mechanical computers, for one.
> You are really betraying your ignorance of what a computer is or how it works.
>
> And I don't suspect your knowledge of biology is any better.
>
>> I mean, I program the goddamned things for a living, I think I have *some*
>> insights into how they work. Living cells simply don't work anything like
>> a digital computer. At all. In any way, shape, or form. I'm not a
>> biologist (nor do I play one on TV), and I don't know the Krebs cycle
>> from a hole in the ground, but I know *enough* to be able to say that the
>> metaphor is, not to put too fine a point on it, horseshit.
>>
>> You can *model* life processes using digital computers. But life *isn't*
>> a digital computer.
>>
>> And this is why the ID movement gets some things so singularly,
>> *spectacularly* wrong, because they get caught up in these elegant (to
>> them) mathematical models that have absolutely *no relation* to actual
>> living systems.

Hear! Hear!

[Steady Eddie]

I said cells are "coded" in digital base-4 language. The actual work done by the proteins is in RESPONSE to this computer code, not part of it.

[Steady Eddie]

Information science is not that difficult to grasp. You can do it.

[jillery]

On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 08:37:53 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

>> >watch the video, if you want to know.
>> >Then we'll discuss any objections you may have.
>> >It's not hidden in piles of jargon. You can do it.
>>
>>
>> So once again you show you have no idea what you're talking about. Is
>> anybody surprised?
>

>Information science is not that difficult to grasp. You can do it.

Still waiting for you to identify those alleged scientific facts of
yours, and those topics to which you referred.

[Steady Eddie]

Don't be daft. Watch the video if you want to see the scientific facts involved.

[Steady Eddie]

On Friday, 11 September 2015 16:17:41 UTC-6, jillery wrote:

23:49
Chemically the DNA in this guy's body is the same as that in a fruitfully or any other animal.
The uniqueness ... lays in the INFORMATION CONTENT of the DNA.

Check out the comments:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s

[jillery]

On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 18:34:56 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:


>Don't be daft. Watch the video if you want to see the scientific facts involved.

I did watch the video. It didn't tell me what scientific facts you
saw. It didn't tell me what topics you were thinking of. Only you
can do that. Why are you evading my reasonable and simple questions?

[jillery]

On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 19:51:51 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

>23:49
>Chemically the DNA in this guy's body is the same as that in a fruitfully or any other animal.
>The uniqueness ... lays in the INFORMATION CONTENT of the DNA.

Depending on what you mean by "unique", that's likely a truism not in
dispute. In the sense you mean above, everybody's DNA is unique.

Did you have some other point in mind?

>Check out the comments:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s

Which comments, exactly? And how do those comments compare to your
opinions? Do you think evading questions makes you look clever?

[Steady Eddie]

The comments by Ed Reynolds - me.

[jillery]

On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 16:32:54 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

So you have no idea what you mean by "unique". Is anybody surprised?

>> >Check out the comments:
>> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s
>>
>>
>> Which comments, exactly? And how do those comments compare to your
>> opinions? Do you think evading questions makes you look clever?

>

>The comments by Ed Reynolds - me.

**********************************************

"Wow! A tour-de-force scientific reality check for Darwinian
origin-of-life theorizing. Well done!"

"The challenge for molecular biologists such as myself is
understanding what that information means."

"The uniqueness of [each life form] is the INFORMATION CONTENT OF THE
DNA."

"How did nature develop the arbitrary protocols for communication and
coordination among the thousands of computers in each cell?"

"Those who adhere to a purely naturalistic explanation for the
existence of life are left struggling to find mechanisms to create
such a sophisticated information source."
********************************************

I don't see any scientific facts in your comments. Please elaborate.

[Steady Eddie]

Those are just headlines. Did you watch the video from the specified time stamps and get the
whole stories?

[Steady Eddie]

On Saturday, 19 September 2015 18:42:20 UTC-6, jillery wrote:

Did you notice that at:
https://youtu.be/00vBqYDBW5s?t=24m22s

-There is a challenge to all molecular biologists to try to understand "what that information
means".
In so doing, you can't help but begin to wonder whether this level of elegant complexity could be
attained via the naturalistic means at life's disposal.

[Earle Jones27]

*
I watched the video:

Cinematography: A+
Science: D-

earle
*

[jillery]

Challenges and expressions of wonderment are not scientific facts. So
you don't even know what scientific facts are. Is anybody really
surprised?

[jillery]

On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 09:19:33 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

>Those are just headlines. Did you watch the video from the specified time stamps and get the
>whole stories?

Those are your comments, in their entirety, as they are presented in
the comments section of the video, per your "check out the comments"
instructions, still preserved above in the quoted text.

So there are no scientific facts in your comments or in the video, and
you're too dishonest to admit it. Is anybody surprised?

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/20/15 10:09 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> [...]

> -There is a challenge to all molecular biologists to try to
> understand "what that information means".

Just out of curiosity, what do you think molecular biologists had been
trying to understand before that challenge was issued?

[Steady Eddie]

How to fit this dang thing into an evolutionary framework, of course.

[Steady Eddie]

No, you deleted the time stamps, actually.
Each comment is related to a point made in the video.
So you have to go on youtube if you want the full discussion.

[jillery]

On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 17:56:33 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:


>> >> >> >Check out the comments:

>> >> >>
>> >> >> Which comments, exactly? And how do those comments compare to your
>> >> >> opinions? Do you think evading questions makes you look clever?
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >The comments by Ed Reynolds - me.
>> >>
>> >> **********************************************
>> >> "Wow! A tour-de-force scientific reality check for Darwinian
>> >> origin-of-life theorizing. Well done!"
>> >>
>> >> "The challenge for molecular biologists such as myself is
>> >> understanding what that information means."
>> >>
>> >> "The uniqueness of [each life form] is the INFORMATION CONTENT OF THE
>> >> DNA."
>> >>
>> >> "How did nature develop the arbitrary protocols for communication and
>> >> coordination among the thousands of computers in each cell?"
>> >>
>> >> "Those who adhere to a purely naturalistic explanation for the
>> >> existence of life are left struggling to find mechanisms to create
>> >> such a sophisticated information source."
>> >> ********************************************
>> >>
>> >> I don't see any scientific facts in your comments. Please elaborate.
>> >
>> >Those are just headlines. Did you watch the video from the specified time stamps and get the
>> >whole stories?
>>
>>
>> Those are your comments, in their entirety, as they are presented in
>> the comments section of the video, per your "check out the comments"
>> instructions, still preserved above in the quoted text.
>>
>> So there are no scientific facts in your comments or in the video, and
>> you're too dishonest to admit it. Is anybody surprised?
>>
>

>No, you deleted the time stamps, actually.
>Each comment is related to a point made in the video.
>So you have to go on youtube if you want the full discussion.

Ok, you're just pimping the video, with no intention of actually
supporting your claims here. Is anybody surprised?

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/21/15 5:54 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Monday, 21 September 2015 18:47:11 UTC-6, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 9/20/15 10:09 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> -There is a challenge to all molecular biologists to try to
>>> understand "what that information means".
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, what do you think molecular biologists had been
>> trying to understand before that challenge was issued?
>

> How to fit this dang thing into an evolutionary framework, of course.

Ah, so you have never seen any actual biological science, and what you
think about it is based on erroneous sources.

[Steady Eddie]

What makes you think that?

[Steady Eddie]

I've already stated my claims and included a citation to the video where each claim is supported.
You just don't want to have to deal with the challenges put to you as a supporter of talk.origins.
(you DO support talk.origins, do you not?)

[jillery]

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 18:00:29 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

>I've already stated my claims

Apparently you think stating your claims is the same as supporting
your claims. Is anybody surprised?

>and included a citation to the video where each claim is supported.
>You just don't want to have to deal with the challenges put to you as a supporter of talk.origins.
>(you DO support talk.origins, do you not?)

Ok, for your comment @24:22, in your opinion, what is/are the
scientific facts presented there?

[Steady Eddie]

Ok I should have started it at 23:49 where the speaker starts his sentence.
I have edited my comment to reflect that.
But you just have to keep watching to see the scientific basis for their points.

[jillery]

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 20:58:55 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

>Ok I should have started it at 23:49 where the speaker starts his sentence.
>I have edited my comment to reflect that.
>But you just have to keep watching to see the scientific basis for their points.

Still waiting for you to identify any scientific facts you claim are
presented in the video.

[Steady Eddie]

Well, how about the fact that for functional information to exist, it must have a sender and a
receiver that both understand the information?

[erik simpson]

Got it. You refuse to understand anything that's said to you, so that proves
that whatever said to you is wrong. That'll work.

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/22/15 5:56 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Tuesday, 22 September 2015 18:32:09 UTC-6, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 9/21/15 5:54 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>> On Monday, 21 September 2015 18:47:11 UTC-6, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 9/20/15 10:09 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> -There is a challenge to all molecular biologists to try to
>>>>> understand "what that information means".
>>>>
>>>> Just out of curiosity, what do you think molecular biologists had been
>>>> trying to understand before that challenge was issued?
>>>
>>> How to fit this dang thing into an evolutionary framework, of course.
>>
>> Ah, so you have never seen any actual biological science, and what you
>> think about it is based on erroneous sources.
>

> What makes you think that?

Direct observation.

[jillery]

What about it? Assuming for argument's sake that it's a scientific
fact, what conclusions do you, Steady Eddie, make from it?

[Steady Eddie]

Well, I'm glad you asked.
The conclusion I make is that, since functional information pervades the cell, there is a sender, as
well as a receiver, who both understand the information.

[jillery]

On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 23:16:28 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 18:17:03 UTC-6, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 14:24:29 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
>> <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Well, how about the fact that for functional information to exist, it must have a sender and a
>> >receiver that both understand the information?
>>
>>
>> What about it? Assuming for argument's sake that it's a scientific
>> fact, what conclusions do you, Steady Eddie, make from it?
>

>Well, I'm glad you asked.

Only about a dozen times, but thanks for noticing this time.

>The conclusion I make is that, since functional information pervades the cell, there is a sender, as
>well as a receiver, who both understand the information.

A rather shallow conclusion, even from you.

[Steady Eddie]

One must wade gently into the depths of knowledge.
Grashopper.

So, in the case of the cell, there's much to discuss.

[jillery]

On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 23:52:09 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, 24 September 2015 00:42:03 UTC-6, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 23:16:28 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
>> <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 18:17:03 UTC-6, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 14:24:29 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
>> >> <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Well, how about the fact that for functional information to exist, it must have a sender and a
>> >> >receiver that both understand the information?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> What about it? Assuming for argument's sake that it's a scientific
>> >> fact, what conclusions do you, Steady Eddie, make from it?
>> >
>> >Well, I'm glad you asked.
>>
>>
>> Only about a dozen times, but thanks for noticing this time.
>>
>>
>> >The conclusion I make is that, since functional information pervades the cell, there is a sender, as
>> >well as a receiver, who both understand the information.
>>
>>
>> A rather shallow conclusion, even from you.
>

>One must wade gently into the depths of knowledge.
>Grashopper.

Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.

>So, in the case of the cell, there's much to discuss.

Anytime you feel like actually discussing something...

[RSNorman]

On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 23:16:28 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 18:17:03 UTC-6, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 14:24:29 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
>> <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Well, how about the fact that for functional information to exist, it must have a sender and a
>> >receiver that both understand the information?
>>
>>
>> What about it? Assuming for argument's sake that it's a scientific
>> fact, what conclusions do you, Steady Eddie, make from it?
>> --
>> This space is intentionally not blank.
>
>Well, I'm glad you asked.
>The conclusion I make is that, since functional information pervades the cell, there is a sender, as
>well as a receiver, who both understand the information.

Actually that is one of the features raised by John Wilkins in his
argument that the cell does not process "information" but merely does
it job according to biochemistry and physical chemistry. There is
"information processing" that occurs in a way separate from the
Shannon communication channel with sender, channel, and receiver.

A few months ago I wrote a long multi-part screed here on how cells
process information but it was all in a materialistic framework.

[Steady Eddie]

On Tuesday, 1 September 2015 21:03:14 UTC-6, Steady Eddie wrote:
> I hate posting, but this is just an outstanding video:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s
>
> Any time you want to take me up on one of these topics, let me know..
>
> "Ed Reynolds 2 months ago

> Wow! A tour-de-force scientific reality check for Darwinian origin-of-life theorizing.
> Well done!

> Reply · 5"

How about this:

"24:36-25:19
The chicken-and-egg problem of evolving proteins and tRNA at the same time." (Ed Reynolds)

[Mark Isaak]

So what's the problem? Catalytic RNA came first.

[Steady Eddie]

LOL, is that "the truth", Mark?
Vaclav Havel would not say such a stupid thing.

You have no evidence that "catalytic" RNA somehow sprang into existence and started producing
proteins necessary to produce DNA and RNA, which are necessary to produce proteins.

Your only justification for your asinine statement is that you think it MUST have happened that
way because it is the best of the pathetic guesses evolutinoists can make.
That doesn't mean it is "possible", and if you think it through for about 30 seconds you realize
that it ISN'T possible for life to have arisen that way without intelligent direction.

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/26/15 9:48 AM, Steady Eddie wrote:
> On Friday, 25 September 2015 09:46:59 UTC-6, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 9/24/15 7:47 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 1 September 2015 21:03:14 UTC-6, Steady Eddie wrote:
>>>> I hate posting, but this is just an outstanding video:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s
>>>>
>>>> Any time you want to take me up on one of these topics, let me know..
>>>>
>>>> "Ed Reynolds 2 months ago
>>>> Wow! A tour-de-force scientific reality check for Darwinian origin-of-life theorizing.
>>>> Well done!
>>>> Reply · 5"
>>>
>>> How about this:
>>>
>>> "24:36-25:19
>>> The chicken-and-egg problem of evolving proteins and tRNA at the same time." (Ed Reynolds)
>>
>> So what's the problem? Catalytic RNA came first.
>

> LOL, is that "the truth", Mark?
> Vaclav Havel would not say such a stupid thing.
>
> You have no evidence that "catalytic" RNA somehow sprang into existence and started producing
> proteins necessary to produce DNA and RNA, which are necessary to produce proteins.
>
> Your only justification for your asinine statement is that you think it MUST have happened that
> way because it is the best of the pathetic guesses evolutinoists can make.
> That doesn't mean it is "possible", and if you think it through for about 30 seconds you realize
> that it ISN'T possible for life to have arisen that way without intelligent direction.

You didn't answer my question. All I can tell from your response is
that you reject Christianity utterly.

[Steady Eddie]

Well?
Do you want to discuss the content of 24:36-25:19, the chicken-and-egg problem, or not?

[jillery]

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 10:04:39 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

>Well?


Deep subject.

>Do you want to discuss the content of 24:36-25:19, the chicken-and-egg problem, or not?

Did you? It was waiting for your to post your usual noise, and you
didn't disappoint.

[Steady Eddie]

Good. Now it's your turn to make your noise.

[jillery]

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:51:33 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

>Good. Now it's your turn to make your noise.

So you're not interested in discussing the content of 24:36-25:19. Is
anybody surprised?

[Steady Eddie]

Don't you want to comment on it?
Or do you want me to sum it up?

[jillery]

On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 20:23:02 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

I would very much like to read a cogent, concise, thorough and
unbiased summation from you about the content of 24:36-25:19.

No, "+1" and "LOL" don't qualify.

[Steady Eddie]

The host just played a few seconds from the beginning of an online animation, entitled:
"Protein Synthesis (DNA transcription, translation and folding)".
He played the animation until we saw how the
polymerase facilitates DNA translation. Then the question arose:

How did the protein called RNA polymerase happen to show up, when DNA can't translate the building instructions for polymerase without polymerase?
How did this small piece of an incredibly complex, precise system originate? Not the way it is replicated now, because now it's a self-feeding loop, and it's impossible to tell which would have come first, if they
were to have just shown up by chance, one after the other.

You often claim that parts of a putatively IC system were just lolygagging around the cell somewhere for millions of years, picking up work wherever they could, until this "dream job" came along, where the part could finally become part of something worthy of the part's precision and effectiveness.

Of course, I'm being facetious, but, well, the full animation that this snip was taken from is only two
minutes long, and it shows the whole process of:
"Protein synthesis (DNA transcription, translation and folding)":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erOP76_qLWA#t=22

It's just high school biology, but even at the cartoon level (i.e. my level), you can see a whole lot of glaring
"chicken-and-egg" conundrums for an unguided origin of all of these components.
For example: What do you suppose the "chaperones" were doing when it came time to fold proteins?
I don't suppose there'd be much chaperoning work to do before the protein-folding industry evolved.
Perhaps it just slouched around a lipid bubble for a few million years until things picked up.

[jillery]

>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 19:58:27 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I hate posting, but this is just an outstanding video:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s

[...]

On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 14:57:49 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 22:01:01 UTC-6, jillery wrote:
>>
>> I would very much like to read a cogent, concise, thorough and
>> unbiased summation from you about the content of 24:36-25:19.
>>
>> No, "+1" and "LOL" don't qualify.
>

>The host just played a few seconds from the beginning of an online animation, entitled:
>"Protein Synthesis (DNA transcription, translation and folding)".
>He played the animation until we saw how the
>polymerase facilitates DNA translation. Then the question arose:
>
>How did the protein called RNA polymerase happen to show up, when DNA can't translate the building instructions for polymerase without polymerase?
>How did this small piece of an incredibly complex, precise system originate? Not the way it is replicated now, because now it's a self-feeding loop, and it's impossible to tell which would have come first, if they
>were to have just shown up by chance, one after the other.
>
>You often claim that parts of a putatively IC system were just lolygagging around the cell somewhere for millions of years, picking up work wherever they could, until this "dream job" came along, where the part could finally become part of something worthy of the part's precision and effectiveness.
>
>Of course, I'm being facetious,

Of course. You can't help yourself.

> but, well, the full animation that this snip was taken from is only two
>minutes long, and it shows the whole process of:
>"Protein synthesis (DNA transcription, translation and folding)":
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erOP76_qLWA#t=22
>
>It's just high school biology, but even at the cartoon level (i.e. my level), you can see a whole lot of glaring
>"chicken-and-egg" conundrums for an unguided origin of all of these components.
>For example: What do you suppose the "chaperones" were doing when it came time to fold proteins?
>I don't suppose there'd be much chaperoning work to do before the protein-folding industry evolved.
>Perhaps it just slouched around a lipid bubble for a few million years until things picked up.

Is that the best you can come up with after two months of asinine
evasions?

What your original cite, and your new cite, illustrate is some of the
mechanisms of modern cells. That's what organic molecules do after
almost four billion years of evolution.

But that's not how the first cells worked. They didn't use chaperone
molecules because they didn't use large complex proteins. They didn't
use complex systems to duplicate DNA because they didn't use DNA.
All they had to do was metabolize and reproduce, no matter how
inefficiently, since there was no competition, by definition.

The complexity of modern cells evolved over time. That's why your
cited animation isn't evidence of a paradox.

You demand from me a detailed, step-by-step description of how
Evolution created the first cells. In reply, I demand from you a
detailed, step-by-step description of how your Designer created the
first cells. You can't answer me any better than I can answer you. We
are both equally ignorant about the origin of first life. What makes
your assumption of a Designer weaker than my assumption of unguided
natural processes, is that mine identifies a way to find out the
answers. Your assumption doesn't even ask the questions.

[Steady Eddie]

That's what you think.

> But that's not how the first cells worked. They didn't use chaperone
> molecules because they didn't use large complex proteins. They didn't
> use complex systems to duplicate DNA because they didn't use DNA.
> All they had to do was metabolize and reproduce, no matter how
> inefficiently, since there was no competition, by definition.

Oh, is that all?
Mind telling my how this system may have WORKED?

> The complexity of modern cells evolved over time. That's why your
> cited animation isn't evidence of a paradox.

I'm about done with you cowardly dogs.
What does time have to do with the fact that extant life appeared without an intelligent designer?
You think the likelihood of inanimate chemicals POOFING into life would increase over time?
If so, lay down and I'll sing you another lullaby.

> You demand from me a detailed, step-by-step description of how
> Evolution created the first cells. In reply, I demand from you a
> detailed, step-by-step description of how your Designer created the
> first cells. You can't answer me any better than I can answer you. We
> are both equally ignorant about the origin of first life. What makes
> your assumption of a Designer weaker than my assumption of unguided
> natural processes, is that mine identifies a way to find out the
> answers. Your assumption doesn't even ask the questions.
> --
> This space is intentionally not blank.

Well, I'm glad you admit that you are ignorant about the origin of first life, according to your science.

[jillery]

On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 17:02:27 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie

Of course, and I'm not the only one. So do the molecular biologists
whose work your cite illustrates.

>> But that's not how the first cells worked. They didn't use chaperone
>> molecules because they didn't use large complex proteins. They didn't
>> use complex systems to duplicate DNA because they didn't use DNA.
>> All they had to do was metabolize and reproduce, no matter how
>> inefficiently, since there was no competition, by definition.
>
>Oh, is that all?
>Mind telling my how this system may have WORKED?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Current_models>

Of course, whether you accept this as an answer depends on what you
mean by WORKED.

>> The complexity of modern cells evolved over time. That's why your
>> cited animation isn't evidence of a paradox.
>
>I'm about done with you cowardly dogs.

I assume that you mean you can't stand being proved wrong all the
time.

>What does time have to do with the fact that extant life appeared without an intelligent designer?

Since you asked so rudely, I should wait two months to answer you, but
you caught me in a forgiving mood. Lucky you.

Assume first life is the simplest system still capable of supporting
metabolism and reproduction. Assume Evolution occurs by small
incremental steps. Then to get from that simplest first life to
complex extant life via Evolution, it requires a lot of time. I don't
know about you, but to me, almost 4 billion years is a lot of time.

>You think the likelihood of inanimate chemicals POOFING into life would increase over time?

Chemicals, inanimate or otherwise, don't POOF into life. POOFING is a
concept reserved for IDiots and other Creationists.

>If so, lay down and I'll sing you another lullaby.

How is the above more incredible than your magical Designer?

>> You demand from me a detailed, step-by-step description of how
>> Evolution created the first cells. In reply, I demand from you a
>> detailed, step-by-step description of how your Designer created the
>> first cells. You can't answer me any better than I can answer you. We
>> are both equally ignorant about the origin of first life. What makes
>> your assumption of a Designer weaker than my assumption of unguided
>> natural processes, is that mine identifies a way to find out the
>> answers. Your assumption doesn't even ask the questions.
>

>Well, I'm glad you admit that you are ignorant about the origin of first life, according to your science.

And I'm glad you admit you're ignorant about your Designer. And the
check's in the mail.

[Steady Eddie]

Probably most of them, yes.

> >> But that's not how the first cells worked. They didn't use chaperone
> >> molecules because they didn't use large complex proteins. They didn't
> >> use complex systems to duplicate DNA because they didn't use DNA.
> >> All they had to do was metabolize and reproduce, no matter how
> >> inefficiently, since there was no competition, by definition.
> >
> >Oh, is that all?
> >Mind telling my how this system may have WORKED?
>
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Current_models>
>
> Of course, whether you accept this as an answer depends on what you
> mean by WORKED.

That's speculation.
There's nothing wrong with speculation, until you start confusing it with fact.

> >> The complexity of modern cells evolved over time. That's why your
> >> cited animation isn't evidence of a paradox.
> >
> >I'm about done with you cowardly dogs.
>
>
> I assume that you mean you can't stand being proved wrong all the
> time.
>
>
> >What does time have to do with the fact that extant life appeared without an intelligent designer?
>
>
> Since you asked so rudely, I should wait two months to answer you, but
> you caught me in a forgiving mood. Lucky you.
>
> Assume first life is the simplest system still capable of supporting
> metabolism and reproduction.

You mean something that no one has observed or can conceive of .
Check.

> Assume Evolution occurs by small
> incremental steps. Then to get from that simplest first life to
> complex extant life via Evolution, it requires a lot of time. I don't
> know about you, but to me, almost 4 billion years is a lot of time.

And how long do you think it took to get that simplest first life?

> >You think the likelihood of inanimate chemicals POOFING into life would increase over time?
>
>
> Chemicals, inanimate or otherwise, don't POOF into life. POOFING is a
> concept reserved for IDiots and other Creationists.

That's what you think.

> >If so, lay down and I'll sing you another lullaby.
>
>
> How is the above more incredible than your magical Designer?

It DOESN'T HAVE A CAUSE.
POOF! Out of nowhere!
It doesn't matter how long the poofing took, it's still lacking a cause capable of producing what we see
today.

[jillery]

On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 18:36:45 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie

That's hypotheses. There's a difference.

>There's nothing wrong with speculation, until you start confusing it with fact.

Remind yourself that you wrote "may". An appropriate response need
only be plausible.

>> >> The complexity of modern cells evolved over time. That's why your
>> >> cited animation isn't evidence of a paradox.
>> >
>> >I'm about done with you cowardly dogs.
>>
>>
>> I assume that you mean you can't stand being proved wrong all the
>> time.
>>
>>
>> >What does time have to do with the fact that extant life appeared without an intelligent designer?
>>
>>
>> Since you asked so rudely, I should wait two months to answer you, but
>> you caught me in a forgiving mood. Lucky you.
>>
>> Assume first life is the simplest system still capable of supporting
>> metabolism and reproduction.
>
>You mean something that no one has observed or can conceive of .
>Check.

That no one has observed first life is a truism not in dispute. That
you can't conceive of first life isn't relevant.

>> Assume Evolution occurs by small
>> incremental steps. Then to get from that simplest first life to
>> complex extant life via Evolution, it requires a lot of time. I don't
>> know about you, but to me, almost 4 billion years is a lot of time.
>
>And how long do you think it took to get that simplest first life?

That's not relevant to your previous question.

>> >You think the likelihood of inanimate chemicals POOFING into life would increase over time?
>>
>>
>> Chemicals, inanimate or otherwise, don't POOF into life. POOFING is a
>> concept reserved for IDiots and other Creationists.
>
>That's what you think.

You keep saying that as if it's relevant.

>> >If so, lay down and I'll sing you another lullaby.
>>
>>
>> How is the above more incredible than your magical Designer?
>
>It DOESN'T HAVE A CAUSE.

It's your magical Designer that doesn't have a cause. OTOH every
single chemical in a cell can be manufactured starting with nonliving
materials.


>POOF! Out of nowhere!


It's your magical Designer that you POOF! out of nowhere. OTOH I
described no poofery. You seem to think life is a material substance.
What you fail to understand is that life is not a material thing but a
process; no poofery required.

>It doesn't matter how long the poofing took, it's still lacking a cause capable of producing what we see
>today.

To quote someone you regard so highly, that's what you think.

[Steady Eddie]

Hypotheses not demonstrated to be possible is speculation.

>
> >There's nothing wrong with speculation, until you start confusing it with fact.
>
>
> Remind yourself that you wrote "may". An appropriate response need
> only be plausible.
>
>
> >> >> The complexity of modern cells evolved over time. That's why your
> >> >> cited animation isn't evidence of a paradox.
> >> >
> >> >I'm about done with you cowardly dogs.
> >>
> >>
> >> I assume that you mean you can't stand being proved wrong all the
> >> time.
> >>
> >>
> >> >What does time have to do with the fact that extant life appeared without an intelligent designer?
> >>
> >>
> >> Since you asked so rudely, I should wait two months to answer you, but
> >> you caught me in a forgiving mood. Lucky you.
> >>
> >> Assume first life is the simplest system still capable of supporting
> >> metabolism and reproduction.
> >
> >You mean something that no one has observed or can conceive of .
> >Check.
>
>
> That no one has observed first life is a truism not in dispute. That
> you can't conceive of first life isn't relevant.

Oh, and you can conceive of what you call first life was made of?
Go ahead, enlighten me; how did it work?

> >> Assume Evolution occurs by small
> >> incremental steps. Then to get from that simplest first life to
> >> complex extant life via Evolution, it requires a lot of time. I don't
> >> know about you, but to me, almost 4 billion years is a lot of time.
> >
> >And how long do you think it took to get that simplest first life?
>
>
> That's not relevant to your previous question.

It's relevant to your previous statement.

>
> >> >You think the likelihood of inanimate chemicals POOFING into life would increase over time?
> >>
> >>
> >> Chemicals, inanimate or otherwise, don't POOF into life. POOFING is a
> >> concept reserved for IDiots and other Creationists.
> >
> >That's what you think.
>
>
> You keep saying that as if it's relevant.
>
>
> >> >If so, lay down and I'll sing you another lullaby.
> >>
> >>
> >> How is the above more incredible than your magical Designer?
> >
> >It DOESN'T HAVE A CAUSE.
>
>
> It's your magical Designer that doesn't have a cause. OTOH every
> single chemical in a cell can be manufactured starting with nonliving
> materials.

Yes, and every brick building can be built starting with bricks. That doesn't explain how they got built.

[jillery]

On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 17:44:21 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie

Possible is a subset of plausible.

>> >There's nothing wrong with speculation, until you start confusing it with fact.
>>
>>
>> Remind yourself that you wrote "may". An appropriate response need
>> only be plausible.
>>
>>
>> >> >> The complexity of modern cells evolved over time. That's why your
>> >> >> cited animation isn't evidence of a paradox.
>> >> >
>> >> >I'm about done with you cowardly dogs.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I assume that you mean you can't stand being proved wrong all the
>> >> time.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >What does time have to do with the fact that extant life appeared without an intelligent designer?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Since you asked so rudely, I should wait two months to answer you, but
>> >> you caught me in a forgiving mood. Lucky you.
>> >>
>> >> Assume first life is the simplest system still capable of supporting
>> >> metabolism and reproduction.
>> >
>> >You mean something that no one has observed or can conceive of .
>> >Check.
>>
>>
>> That no one has observed first life is a truism not in dispute. That
>> you can't conceive of first life isn't relevant.
>
>Oh, and you can conceive of what you call first life was made of?
>Go ahead, enlighten me; how did it work?

Those are two different questions. It would really help if your
criticisms and complaints were at least coherent.

>> >> Assume Evolution occurs by small
>> >> incremental steps. Then to get from that simplest first life to
>> >> complex extant life via Evolution, it requires a lot of time. I don't
>> >> know about you, but to me, almost 4 billion years is a lot of time.
>> >
>> >And how long do you think it took to get that simplest first life?
>>
>>
>> That's not relevant to your previous question.
>
>It's relevant to your previous statement.

Go ahead and explain how you think your question is relevant to my

previous statement.


>> >> >You think the likelihood of inanimate chemicals POOFING into life would increase over time?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Chemicals, inanimate or otherwise, don't POOF into life. POOFING is a
>> >> concept reserved for IDiots and other Creationists.
>> >
>> >That's what you think.
>>
>>
>> You keep saying that as if it's relevant.
>>
>>
>> >> >If so, lay down and I'll sing you another lullaby.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> How is the above more incredible than your magical Designer?
>> >
>> >It DOESN'T HAVE A CAUSE.
>>
>>
>> It's your magical Designer that doesn't have a cause. OTOH every
>> single chemical in a cell can be manufactured starting with nonliving
>> materials.
>
>Yes, and every brick building can be built starting with bricks. That doesn't explain how they got built.

And your Designer inference doesn't explain how they got built. You
seem to have trouble understanding that your magical Designer provides
no advantage over unguided natural processes, and so adds an
unnecessary additional agent to your chain of reasoning.

[Steady Eddie]

That's an "I don't have a clue" in Jillery.

[jillery]

On Sun, 8 Nov 2015 07:49:08 -0800 (PST), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >> That no one has observed first life is a truism not in dispute. That
>> >> you can't conceive of first life isn't relevant.
>> >
>> >Oh, and you can conceive of what you call first life was made of?
>> >Go ahead, enlighten me; how did it work?
>>
>>
>> Those are two different questions. It would really help if your
>> criticisms and complaints were at least coherent.
>
>That's an "I don't have a clue" in Jillery.

Neither do you. The difference is I admit my ignorance. You're just
one of many IDiots who focus on what is unknown, and deny
discomforting reality.