Litttle progress since MIller-Urey?

[erik simpson]

Some reported progress in abiogenesis research:

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160425/ncomms11328/full/ncomms11328.html

[Kalkidas]

On 4/25/2016 9:36 AM, erik simpson wrote:
> Some reported progress in abiogenesis research:
>
> http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160425/ncomms11328/full/ncomms11328.html

"could have been..."

"may have been..."

"may have been..."

"may have been"

"could have..."

"could have been..."

"might have..."

"could be..."

"might address..."

"could represent..."

10 times in 8 pages. Yes, I think it is safe to say that abiogenesis is
still a matter for sheer speculation.

[Bill Rogers]

Wait, I thought scientists were rigidly dogmatic. Why are they using all those conditionals and qualifiers?

[Kalkidas]

The O.P. implied that there has been "more than a little progress" in
abiogenesis since Miller-Urey. I am criticizing that claim. The number
of "could, may, might" disclaimer phrases in the cited paper seems to
indicate that the field of abiogenesis is still very much on the
imaginary platform.

But the idea of perpetual progress in science is somewhat dogmatic...

[Peter Nyikos]

Because they aren't dealing with an issue on which a lot of
public support is riding, like the issue of whether birds are
[descended from] dinosaurs. There, dogmatists like Prum and
our own John Harshman consider the case closed: birds are dinosaurs,
no ifs, ands or buts.

And last year, over ten co-authors did an article in the journal _Auk_,
lambasting Feduccia and other hold-outs, for daring to continue going
against the "settled science." IIRC _Auk_ did not allow a rebuttal from
Feduccia et. al. because this article was a "review" of an article by
one or more Feduccia partisans.-

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

[Kalkidas]

The dogmatism is "abiogenesis *must* have happened. Any alterenative
explanation for the origin of the first life is anathema to science".
This furnishes the impetus for abiogeneticists to keep on speculating
although they never come to any definite conclusions.

I suppose you could call eliminating the RNA world from consideration
"progress" of a sort. But the via negativa has not historically been
very fruitful, since the number of imagined possibilities seems always
to increase more rapidly than the elimination of impossibilities.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 9:58:49 PM UTC-4, Kalkidas wrote:
> On 4/25/2016 6:45 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
> > On 4/25/2016 6:00 PM, Bill Rogers wrote:
> >> On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 7:58:49 PM UTC-4, Kalkidas wrote:
> >>> On 4/25/2016 9:36 AM, erik simpson wrote:
> >>>> Some reported progress in abiogenesis research:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160425/ncomms11328/full/ncomms11328.html
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> "could have been..."
> >>>
> >>> "may have been..."
> >>>
> >>> "may have been..."
> >>>
> >>> "may have been"
> >>>
> >>> "could have..."
> >>>
> >>> "could have been..."
> >>>
> >>> "might have..."
> >>>
> >>> "could be..."
> >>>
> >>> "might address..."
> >>>
> >>> "could represent..."
> >>>
> >>> 10 times in 8 pages. Yes, I think it is safe to say that abiogenesis is
> >>> still a matter for sheer speculation.
> >>
> >> Wait, I thought scientists were rigidly dogmatic. Why are they using
> >> all those conditionals and qualifiers?
> >
> > The O.P. implied that there has been "more than a little progress" in
> > abiogenesis since Miller-Urey.

Well, I'd say getting nucleotides of any sort is real progress, but the
nucleotidides are still just "building blocks". It's like saying that
now that we not only have bricks, but also steel girders, we are
well on our way to building a 160 story skyscraper.

> > I am criticizing that claim. The number
> > of "could, may, might" disclaimer phrases in the cited paper seems to
> > indicate that the field of abiogenesis is still very much on the
> > imaginary platform.

It is still in the embryonic state, just like Intelligent Design (ID) theory.

> > But the idea of perpetual progress in science is somewhat dogmatic...
>
> The dogmatism is "abiogenesis *must* have happened. Any alterenative
> explanation for the origin of the first life is anathema to science".
> This furnishes the impetus for abiogeneticists to keep on speculating
> although they never come to any definite conclusions.

Absolutely, and it was one of the most enthusiastic, Nobel Laureate
biochemist Christian de Duve, who paradoxically ruined my childlike
faith in abiogenesis when I was 50 years old. His _Vital Dust: Life
As a Cosmic Imperative_ swept under the rug the colossal gap between
a tRNA-like molecule with attached amino acid, to our full-fledged
polypeptide translation mechanism. Did he really think his readers
would fail to notice this sleight of hand?

> I suppose you could call eliminating the RNA world from consideration
> "progress" of a sort.

I don't think it was eliminated; rather, a proto-RNA world is postulated
as a kind of prebiotic-evolutionary precursor of a real RNA world.

> But the via negativa has not historically been
> very fruitful, since the number of imagined possibilities seems always
> to increase more rapidly than the elimination of impossibilities.

Agreed.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina

http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/
nyikos "at" math.sc.edu

[jillery]

It is the nature of research about abiogenesis specifically, and about
historical events generally, that one can't say with certainty what
actually happened. My impression is even you know this, and if the
cited article's authors were more emphatic, you would be right there
to criticize them for making claims beyond what the evidence supports.
So your last sentence above doesn't accurately describe the actual
problem here. Instead, the problem is your knee-jerk
pseudo-skepticism. Either they are too qualified as above, or they
are too dogmatic, as you characterize elsewhere. Real science can't
win with you.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[eridanus]

this totally normal. Science is not looking for supernatural causes.
Until recently we barely understood the formation of clouds, or the rain.
I am not sure if these matters are already totally settled. Then, if we
are impotent to explain clouds or the rain in detail, we can say that Zeus
gather the clouds and make them rain. The bolts, lightening and thunder
are caused by divine Zeus when he is angry.

eridanus

[Burkhard]

That's how scientists will talk about any singular past event. You get
the same language in court when a forensic expert testifies. So if this
is your criteria, then yes, all our knowledge of the past, absent a time
machine, is speculation. Some just more plausible and more in line with
the data than others.

[Bill Rogers]

Once there was no life on earth. Then there was. So it seems obvious that abiogenesis happened. The only question is the mechanism. You think a God made it happen directly; others think God either was not involved or made it happen indirectly by creating a universe with the right physical laws and initial conditions for life to emerge and evolve as a result of those physical laws and initial conditions.

[Kalkidas]

True. But trusting a reconstruction of a crime scene from 6 months ago
seems -- to put it mildly -- a lot safer than trusting a reconstruction
of an event that allegedly happened 4.5 billion years ago.

Corpus delicti, anyone?

[jillery]

Yes, it would be ever so much easier if abiogenesis was a recent
event. If only scientists could change reality to suit their
preferences, the way you say you can.

[Peter Nyikos]

None, unlike in the case of "life as we know it," direct evidence for which
exists in the form of stromatolites.

>
> Yes, it would be ever so much easier if abiogenesis was a recent
> event.

Only if there were traces of prebiotic evolution. Recency is irrelevant.

> If only scientists could change reality to suit their
> preferences, the way you say you can.

I'd like to see some justification for that statement.

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

PS Less than an hour ago, I came across the following quote from
Joe Cummings, made just a tad over a year ago:

Of course, Jillery's general demeanour seems to be one of confrontation,
which is never very helpful.
In thread:
Subject: Re: What will the stone do?
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/talk.origins/M9pTTSnLDiQ/4w--Uok8FnMJ

In your reply to the post where he wrote that, you perfectly
illustrated that sentence, perhaps because irony -- REAL irony --
is totally lost on you.

You praised your post to which he was replying to the high heavens,
while posting completely wrongheaded criticism of his OP, to which
you in turn had been replying.

And through it all, you posted in a schoolmarmish manner that is
irritating enough when it comes from John Harshman. And unlike him,
you have no clout in this newsgroup.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/M9pTTSnLDiQ/4w--Uok8FnMJ
Message-ID: <pqrfial5i8pp0embt...@4ax.com>

[Peter Nyikos]

Correction: 3.5, or at most 3.9 billion years ago.

> Corpus delicti, anyone?

Good point. We do have fossils from 3.5 billion years ago of stromatolites,
which still can be found alive in Shark Bay, Australia. But there is no
direct evidence of prebiotic organisms.

What's more, despite some hopeful speculation about "nanobes" and
"nanobacteria," there are no known living organisms more primitive than
ordinary bacteria. Viruses do not qualify since they are dependent
on living cells for their reproduction.

The usual excuse is *ad hoc*: "They were wiped out by more successful
life forms."

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina

http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 11:33:47 AM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 9:13:47 AM UTC-4, Kalkidas wrote:

> > Corpus delicti, anyone?
>
> Good point. We do have fossils from 3.5 billion years ago of stromatolites,
> which still can be found alive in Shark Bay, Australia. But there is no
> direct evidence of prebiotic organisms.

The word "alive" is misleading. Just as in the much larger coral reefs
[the biggest by far is on the other side of Australia], the living
organisms are on the top surface, and they grow over untold numbers of
years as new layers are added, leading to the demise of older layers.
The actual dominant organisms are microscopic cyanobactera.

[Kalkidas]

Correction noted.

>
>> Corpus delicti, anyone?
>
> Good point. We do have fossils from 3.5 billion years ago of stromatolites,
> which still can be found alive in Shark Bay, Australia. But there is no
> direct evidence of prebiotic organisms.


>
> What's more, despite some hopeful speculation about "nanobes" and
> "nanobacteria," there are no known living organisms more primitive than
> ordinary bacteria. Viruses do not qualify since they are dependent
> on living cells for their reproduction.
>
> The usual excuse is *ad hoc*: "They were wiped out by more successful
> life forms."

To me, the *ad hoc* is that any arrangement of molecules can properly be
called "life" at all. Even if scientists could create a human body from
scratch with all its structures fully formed exactly as in a "living"
body, what is the evidence that the thing would start walking and
talking? Why would it not simply lie there and start decaying just like
a "newly dead" body?

It is the presence of the soul that makes a lump of molecules appear alive.

[Burkhard]

Sure, and the detailed theory will account for that, and express the
reliability of the theory. But that still means that you get the same
language that you seem to find indicative of a problem.

>
> Corpus delicti, anyone?

Not needed, as a matter of fact - there have been successful (and
reasonably safe ) convictions without one.
>

[Burkhard]

I thought it was a bold of lightening. Saw it in some documentary. The
guy who did it was a proper doctor and all.

[jillery]

My understanding is the "usual excuse" is they didn't fossilize, or
alternately, we don't recognize their fossils. Considering the
presumed nature of life that old, it's a plausible explanation.

[jillery]

What part of that statement do you doubt? Or are you just making a
rhetorical point?

I snipped your references to a post unrelated to anything in your
reply, my reply, this thread, or this topic. If you really want to
discuss it, create a separate post and mark it OFF-TOPIC. Better yet,
take it to email.

[Kalkidas]

I meant it in this sense:

"Corpus delicti (Latin: "body of the crime"; plural: corpora delicti) is
a term from Western jurisprudence referring to the principle that a
crime must have been proven to have occurred before a person can be
convicted of committing that crime."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_delicti

Except for, say, the U.S. Antitrust Laws, or during the reign of terror
of the French and other revolutions, etc., I am not aware of anyone
being convicted of a crime when it cannot be established that a crime
has occurred.

So, if abiogenesis cannot be proven to have occurred, how can any set of
chemical reactions be "convicted" of causing it?

[jillery]

As Bill Rogers already pointed out elsethread, there was a time when
there was no life on Earth. Now there is. QED.

And how do we know there was a time when there was no life on Earth?
Because we know there was a time when there was no Earth. QED,

I leave as an exercise for the reader how we know there was a time
when there was no Earth.

[Burkhard]

Well, from the geological record, we have pretty good reasons to believe
that there was a time on earth where there was no life. Since there is
arguably life now, abiogenesis of one form or the other seems to have
occurred. While no formal "proof" in the mathematical sense, any theory
that claims that life always existed on earth must explain away an awful
lot of data.

[Peter Nyikos]

The bizarre allegation that Kalkidas has claimed that he can change
reality to suit his preferences. The other part was such wishful thinking,
nobody in his senses would ask you to justify it.

> Or are you just making a
> rhetorical point?

No, but you are, with your demonstration of your double standards below.

> I snipped your references to a post unrelated to anything in your
> reply, my reply, this thread, or this topic.

You are talking about the PS I put in at the end of the post to which
you are replying, but you just can't see the connection.

The PS illustrated how your confrontational style hasn't changed materially
in the last year. Your bizarre allegation in reply to Kalkidas was confrontational, and now you are being confrontational with me
in preference to addressing my on-topic comments above.

> If you really want to
> discuss it, create a separate post and mark it OFF-TOPIC. Better yet,
> take it to email.

Ironic, coming from someone who only commented on the off-topic portion
of my pre-PS text. But then, as I showed in the PS, irony is something
that totally escapes you.

So while the connection of the PS with the rest of my post may have
been tenuous, you've made it prescient in its relevance.

By the way, the reason I put that PS in there is because you've
consistently ignored replies to purely on-topic replies by me to your
posts. Just a few days ago, you were shamelessly insincere about the reason
for your pretending my posts aren't there. Would you like to repeat
that statement-whose-insincerity-you-won't-acknowledge on this thread?

Peter Nyikos

PS Just in case that last paragraph wasn't clear enough: I wanted to
ensure that you would reply to my post, and thereby show that you
CAN see on-topic responses by me to what you write. You were even
helpful enough not to snip the on-topic responses, even though you
made no comment on them.

[Peter Nyikos]

Because of what it does: grow, metabolize, reproduce (almost always not
quite perfectly).

> Even if scientists could create a human body from
> scratch with all its structures fully formed exactly as in a "living"
> body, what is the evidence that the thing would start walking and
> talking? Why would it not simply lie there and start decaying just like
> a "newly dead" body?

> It is the presence of the soul that makes a lump of molecules appear alive.

A biochemist would say that it is the complex coordinated motion of
molecules, especially protein molecules, that make us "appear" alive.

One of the essential links in the reproduction of life as we know it
is the protein translation mechanism. One of the absolutely necessary
parts is the amazing fidelity with which aa-tRNA synthetases attach
just the right amino acid to its corresponding tRNA molecule. That
is what makes the genetic code what it is.

And that amazing fidelity is partly explained by the shape of the
synthetase (a protein enzyme) and partly by the way it is in
perpetual motion, glomming onto the right amino acid and the right
tRNA molecule.

Life is a fascinating thing to those who understand enough biochemistry.
Unfortunately, expertise in biochemistry is just as hard to come by
in this godforsaken newsgroup as is expertise in paleontology. It's
in the hands of us amateurs, and has been since the death of "El Cid"
and the departure of "Roger Shrubber" -- and even he was an amateur,
albeit a knowledgeable one.

Peter Nyikos
Professor of Mathematics
U. of S. Carolina, Columbia -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 1:03:47 PM UTC-4, Kalkidas wrote:
> On 4/26/2016 9:24 AM, Burkhard wrote:
> > Kalkidas wrote:

> "Corpus delicti (Latin: "body of the crime"; plural: corpora delicti) is
> a term from Western jurisprudence referring to the principle that a
> crime must have been proven to have occurred before a person can be
> convicted of committing that crime."
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_delicti

I keep forgetting the definition, so thanks for the reminder. this time,
I thought it referred to the body of a murder victim.

And that's why my replies about it were worded in terms of fossils
or extant organisms. We just don't have the remains.

[I *have* known for many years that *Habeas corpus* doesn't refer to
literal bodies either. It's a legal term that I would love to see
applied more often. People on Usenet all too frequently accuse others
in such general terms that one cannot figure out just what actual actions
are being alluded to.]

> Except for, say, the U.S. Antitrust Laws, or during the reign of terror
> of the French and other revolutions, etc., I am not aware of anyone
> being convicted of a crime when it cannot be established that a crime
> has occurred.

In the same part of the US Constitution where *habeas corpus* is
mandated except in case of war, it also absolutely prohibits
bills of attainder. These were laws passed to make someone a criminal
simply without any cause at all. I can't recall the actual case,
but I remember reading about how someone who could not have any
crimes pinned on him, was made a felon by an act of the British Parliament.
This happened before the US Constitution was written.

To us living today this act of Parliament seems unspeakably bizarre,
but similar atrocities happened during the French Revolution.

> So, if abiogenesis cannot be proven to have occurred, how can any set of
> chemical reactions be "convicted" of causing it?

It's a matter of showing that it COULD have taken place in the few
(maybe only one) hundred million years that is allotted to it. If
that could be done, the apparatus of propaganda could kick into high
gear all over the US higher education system, including the most
prestigious "Catholic" universities, like Notre Dame and Georgetown.

However, so far is this from having been done, the research is still in its
embryonic state. [It would be an undeserved compliment to say it is in its
infancy.]

Peter Nyikos
Professor of Mathematics

U. of S. Carolina, Columbia SC -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Kalkidas]

Well, they may glibly say that, but when you think about it, that
statement is no less vague than "God did it". Because when you ask them
what they mean by "coordinated", they will have to invoke the
metaphysical, mystical, intangible entity they call "the laws of
physics". And the laws of physics, being metaphysical, mystical,
intangible entities, have no ability to push concrete, mundane, tangible
molecules around.

[jillery]

On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 16:52:38 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

Ok, and what is your standing on this point, counselor? Appointing
yourself defender of all those who refuse to back up their bald
assertions doesn't qualify.

>> Or are you just making a
>> rhetorical point?
>
>No, but you are, with your demonstration of your double standards below.

So you deliberately inject your polemically egregious noise into a
thread in order to introduce my alleged double standards, which have
nothing to do with the topic in either case. Is anybody surprised?

>> I snipped your references to a post unrelated to anything in your
>> reply, my reply, this thread, or this topic.
>
>You are talking about the PS I put in at the end of the post to which
>you are replying, but you just can't see the connection.
>
>The PS illustrated how your confrontational style hasn't changed materially
>in the last year.

Only in your wet dreams.

>Your bizarre allegation in reply to Kalkidas was confrontational, and now you are being confrontational with me
>in preference to addressing my on-topic comments above.

To the contrary, I am confrontational with you in direct response to
you being confrontational with me. Your allegedly on-topic comments
aren't relevant to that. My on-topic confrontational allegations
appropriate and measured to your off-topic confrontational
allegations.

>> If you really want to
>> discuss it, create a separate post and mark it OFF-TOPIC. Better yet,
>> take it to email.
>
>Ironic, coming from someone who only commented on the off-topic portion
>of my pre-PS text. But then, as I showed in the PS, irony is something
>that totally escapes you.

When X is a direct reply to Y, then X is not off-topic. Just sayin'.

>So while the connection of the PS with the rest of my post may have
>been tenuous, you've made it prescient in its relevance.

Not possible, as your PS remains entirely irrelevant. It's just more
of your polemically egregious noise.

>By the way, the reason I put that PS in there is because you've
>consistently ignored replies to purely on-topic replies by me to your
>posts.

I have no doubt you believe your replies are on-topic. That is not my
understanding. And when determining to what I reply, the latter is
the final determinant.

>Just a few days ago, you were shamelessly insincere about the reason
>for your pretending my posts aren't there. Would you like to repeat
>that statement-whose-insincerity-you-won't-acknowledge on this thread?

Does repeating your off-topic comment make it any less off-topic? The
answer to both questions is the same.

>
>Peter Nyikos
>
>PS Just in case that last paragraph wasn't clear enough: I wanted to
>ensure that you would reply to my post, and thereby show that you
>CAN see on-topic responses by me to what you write. You were even
>helpful enough not to snip the on-topic responses, even though you
>made no comment on them.

I can see all of your replies, whether or not they are on-topic.
That's a truism not in dispute. Instead, the relevant question is
whether one should have to sift through egregiously polemical noise in
order to any alleged on-topic comments. In almost all cases, the
answer is "no".

[John Stockwell]

On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 5:58:49 PM UTC-6, Kalkidas wrote:
> On 4/25/2016 9:36 AM, erik simpson wrote:
> > Some reported progress in abiogenesis research:
> >
> > http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160425/ncomms11328/full/ncomms11328.html
>
> "could have been..."
>
> "may have been..."
>
> "may have been..."
>
> "may have been"
>
> "could have..."
>
> "could have been..."
>
> "might have..."
>
> "could be..."
>
> "might address..."
>
> "could represent..."
>
> 10 times in 8 pages. Yes, I think it is safe to say that abiogenesis is
> still a matter for sheer speculation.

Maybe you should read the rest of the words, instead of cherrypicking?

-John

[Kalkidas]

When I read a scientific paper, I look for degree to which the author(s)
engage in sheer speculation. Anyone can imagine scenarios in which some
piece of evidence "may be" related with some other piece of evidence.
But that is not science, it's only daydreaming.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 17:24:06 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:

And you might want to note that "corpus delicti" doesn't
refer to a physical body, but to the "body of the offense".
In this case, to the evidence related to the event.
--

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

[Steady Eddie]

On Monday, 25 April 2016 19:48:49 UTC-6, Kalkidas wrote:
> On 4/25/2016 6:00 PM, Bill Rogers wrote:

> > On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 7:58:49 PM UTC-4, Kalkidas wrote:
> >> On 4/25/2016 9:36 AM, erik simpson wrote:
> >>> Some reported progress in abiogenesis research:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160425/ncomms11328/full/ncomms11328.html
> >>
> >> "could have been..."
> >>
> >> "may have been..."
> >>
> >> "may have been..."
> >>
> >> "may have been"
> >>
> >> "could have..."
> >>
> >> "could have been..."
> >>
> >> "might have..."
> >>
> >> "could be..."
> >>
> >> "might address..."
> >>
> >> "could represent..."
> >>
> >> 10 times in 8 pages. Yes, I think it is safe to say that abiogenesis is
> >> still a matter for sheer speculation.
> >

> > Wait, I thought scientists were rigidly dogmatic. Why are they using all those conditionals and qualifiers?
>
> The O.P. implied that there has been "more than a little progress" in
> abiogenesis since Miller-Urey. I am criticizing that claim. The number
> of "could, may, might" disclaimer phrases in the cited paper seems to
> indicate that the field of abiogenesis is still very much on the
> imaginary platform.
>
> But the idea of perpetual progress in science is somewhat dogmatic...

Well said.
+1

[jillery]

Of course, cherrypicking those phrases doesn't show the author(s)
engaged in sheer speculation. It just shows you know how to pick
cherries. Just sayin'.

[Rolf]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fl12ibl25hqarkl4l...@4ax.com...

I've never seen the writer show any knowledge or insight in matters
scientific.
With respect to how and why life exist on this planet, we can only do our
best to investige possible pathways in light of our understandig of nature.
And the things we already know. About physics, chemistry, biology and much
else within probability as contributing factors AFAIK, nothing is known
that says that natural causes for the origins of life on earth can be ruled
out. To the contrary, the subject has been studied for a long time and new
information is coming to light all the time. Revertion to the religious
alternative is not an option. Suggest the writer bide his time and study
more relevant subjects in the meantime. He won't be getting anywhere for the
time being and the question won't run away. Reading about what science has
been doing so far is fascinating reading and may perhaps give laypeople an
idea about how thoroughly the subject has been studied by science.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 10:39:59 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:

To someone who doesn't understand the support for the
scenarios (or rejects it for reasons of personal belief), or
how science works, that conclusion is probably the best
which can be expected. Wrong, but not unexpected.

IOW, the difference between "daydreaming" and "constructing
valid scenarios" lies in the knowledge, or lack thereof, of
the reader.

What's your opinion of QM? SR? GR? All "daydreaming", right?

(Kalki will now ignore the above, leaving it
unchallenged...)

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 11:26:28 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com>:

Is it? Perhaps if someone could provide the data which shows
that we're losing knowledge in science, while claiming that
it's increasing, you could support that assertion. So, when
do you intend to do so?

>Well said.
>+1

Of course you think so; you're as scientifically illiterate
as Kalkidas, and have a related and well-gored ox.

[Peter Nyikos]

Stop playing at courtroom drama; you aren't good at it. But since you've
started...

Your "those who refuse to back up their bald assertions" is irrelevant
and inadmissible as an argument for the charge you made against him.

As to "standing": this is like a class action suit against you.
You have made similarly outrageous comments against me, many times,
during the five plus years that you and I have interacted.

However, my time for bringing up charges against you comes later. You
have made a surrealistic allegation against Kalkidas, and libel by
you through making that allegation is the specific thing
that you are charged with today.

And now, quit stalling and put up your evidence, or admit to having
committed libel.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 18:06:26 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

You're the one who started it, advocating for some alleged wrong of
your own invention to some 3rd party.

>Your "those who refuse to back up their bald assertions" is irrelevant
>and inadmissible as an argument for the charge you made against him.

Are you claiming that Kalky has backed up his bald assertions? Where
is your evidence?

>As to "standing": this is like a class action suit against you.

Then show your authority to be the representative of the alleged
claimants. And show your documentation of the alleged claimants.

>You have made similarly outrageous comments against me, many times,
>during the five plus years that you and I have interacted.

And I have documented every one of my allegedly outrageous comments
against you, whatever you think they may be. If only I could say the
same for you.

>However, my time for bringing up charges against you comes later. You
>have made a surrealistic allegation against Kalkidas, and libel by
>you through making that allegation is the specific thing
>that you are charged with today.

Once again, show your standing for bringing up those charges.

>And now, quit stalling and put up your evidence, or admit to having
>committed libel.

Show your standing to represent the alleged victims, or be dismissed
with prejudice.

[eridanus]

as Kalkidas is a believer in a god creator, we can ask him

a) "how it is an eternal god, some day decided to create the universe, and
a few days later he made the animals and humans?"

b) "What was the purpose of god to do this?" and

c) "why he waited an eternity to do it?"

When he would have a rational reply to those questions I would be able
to explain to him "how the abiogenesis started".

I have plenty of time to find an explanation for abiogenesis.
Eridanus

[Peter Nyikos]

"started it" refers to my having said I would like to see some
justification for your bizarre allegation that "Kalkidas has claimed
that he can change reality to suit his preferences." But this response
to an off-topic personal insult by you came a few lines AFTER
corrected a naive on-topic claim of yours with a pair of on-topic
statements.

And you have yet to even acknowledge that I had disagreed with
you, being far more interested in off-topic flameage.

Polemicist that you are, you editorialized by calling my comments "allegedly
on-topic" when you knew damn well that they were just as on-topic
as the claims you made about abiogenesis -- and they were
on the exact same subject, too. I repeat from above:

Only if there were traces of prebiotic evolution.
Recency is irrelevant.

> >Your "those who refuse to back up their bald assertions" is irrelevant
> >and inadmissible as an argument for the charge you made against him.
>
>
> Are you claiming that Kalky has backed up his bald assertions? Where
> is your evidence?

Whether this allegation is true or false, is irrelevant to your bizarre
accusation that "Kalkidas has claimed that he can change reality
to suit his preferences."

We can take up this new allegation of yours later; its only purpose
was to stall the investigation into your bizarre accusation.

> >As to "standing": this is like a class action suit against you.

> Then show your authority to be the representative of the alleged
> claimants. And show your documentation of the alleged claimants.

All the authority I need are the concepts of truth and justice and
fair play. Hypocrite that you are, YOU have teamed up with Gans and
Ron O against me without any palaver about your "standing".

I've humored you so far in your polemical "courtroom trial" game.
But enough is enough: you are a dedicated perpetrator of injustice,
and the more people there are in talk.origins who know this,
the better off this newsgroup will be.

That's all the justification I need to bring charges of libel
against you, and the longer you stall about justifying your
bizarre allegation, the stronger the case for those charges becomes.

>
> >You have made similarly outrageous comments against me, many times,
> >during the five plus years that you and I have interacted.
>
>
> And I have documented every one of my allegedly outrageous comments
> against you,

That "documentation" in well over 90% of the cases simply consisted
of you labeling something by me with an outrageous comment, such
as "In your wet dreams."

You flirt with epistemological nihilism when you call that "documentation
of every one". Even Humpty Dumpty might have hesitated before making
words suit him that blatantly. Unsupported bald assertions about
quoted statements are what you are talking about, over 90% of
the time.

> whatever you think they may be. If only I could say the
> same for you.

You could say anything under the sun about me; the trick is to
back it up. Which you do not do in over 99% of the cases where
you make derogatory claims about me.

More importantly perhaps, you don't try to deal with 90% of the
on-topic corrections and emendations I make to your on-topic statements.
As on this sub-thread.

>
> >However, my time for bringing up charges against you comes later. You
> >have made a surrealistic allegation against Kalkidas, and libel by
> >you through making that allegation is the specific thing
> >that you are charged with today.
>
>
> Once again, show your standing for bringing up those charges.

This hypocritical, self-serving bilge by you is rejected. You even admitted
to Ron O, after aiding and abetting him on numerous unsupported
charges about how I treat him, that you were doing it for yourself
rather than for him.

> >And now, quit stalling and put up your evidence, or admit to having
> >committed libel.
>
> Show your standing to represent the alleged victims, or be dismissed
> with prejudice.

Stop acting like you get to change the normal procedures of talk.origins.
Even John Harshman, who has lots of clout in talk.origins [unlike you,
who have none], does not have the power to do that. By the way, one of
the things you resent about John is his attempt to do just that, isn't it?

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 9:08:46 PM UTC-4, Kalkidas wrote:
> On 4/26/2016 5:37 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 12:13:47 PM UTC-4, Kalkidas wrote:
> >> On 4/26/2016 8:32 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 9:13:47 AM UTC-4, Kalkidas wrote:

> >>>> Corpus delicti, anyone?
> >>>
> >>> Good point. We do have fossils from 3.5 billion years ago of stromatolites,
> >>> which still can be found alive in Shark Bay, Australia. But there is no
> >>> direct evidence of prebiotic organisms.

I wrote as much in reply to jillery, who completely ignored it and
instead started playing "courtroom drama" in a desperate attempt
to avoid having to support or retract a ridiculous comment she made
to you:

If only scientists could change reality to suit their
preferences, the way you say you can.

I'm keeping jillery's feet to the fire, but it might be helpful
if you had some idea what the hell jillery is referring to.

Of course, it isn't up to you (or anyone else) to refute this bizarre allegation of "change reality ... the way you say you can." If jillery
were really as knowledgeable about legal standards as she self-servingly
pretends to be, she knows that "one cannot prove a negative" is a
rock-bottom legal principle.

> >>> What's more, despite some hopeful speculation about "nanobes" and
> >>> "nanobacteria," there are no known living organisms more primitive than
> >>> ordinary bacteria. Viruses do not qualify since they are dependent
> >>> on living cells for their reproduction.
> >>>
> >>> The usual excuse is *ad hoc*: "They were wiped out by more successful
> >>> life forms."
> >>
> >> To me, the *ad hoc* is that any arrangement of molecules can properly be
> >> called "life" at all.
> >
> > Because of what it does: grow, metabolize, reproduce (almost always not
> > quite perfectly).
> >
> >> Even if scientists could create a human body from
> >> scratch with all its structures fully formed exactly as in a "living"
> >> body, what is the evidence that the thing would start walking and
> >> talking? Why would it not simply lie there and start decaying just like
> >> a "newly dead" body?
> >
> >> It is the presence of the soul that makes a lump of molecules appear alive.
> >
> > A biochemist would say that it is the complex coordinated motion of
> > molecules, especially protein molecules, that make us "appear" alive.
>
> Well, they may glibly say that, but when you think about it, that
> statement is no less vague than "God did it". Because when you ask them
> what they mean by "coordinated", they will have to invoke the
> metaphysical, mystical, intangible entity they call "the laws of
> physics".

Not really. Decades of observation of the "clever" motions of
enzymes is enough to explain the activities of cells. It's a bit
of a stretch to extrapolate from cells to complicated creatures
like ourselves, but since you believe bacteria to be alive,
we need not travel down that road to refute parity with "God did it."

What can you say about God's ways that can compare with the things
I wrote at the end of the post to which you are replying, and
to which you made no comment?

> And the laws of physics, being metaphysical, mystical,
> intangible entities, have no ability to push concrete, mundane, tangible
> molecules around.

To paraphrase Galileo, "And yet they move."

Peter Nyikos
Professor of Mathematics
U. of S. Carolina, Columbia -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

PS I would like to see some feedback to what I wrote below, last time.

[jillery]

On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 06:07:26 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

Yes, that's what I'm talking about. What you "would like" isn't
relevant to my reply, Kalky's reply, this thread, this topic, or this
newsgroup.

>But this response
>to an off-topic personal insult by you came a few lines AFTER
>corrected a naive on-topic claim of yours with a pair of on-topic
>statements

Right here would be a good place for you to state explicitly what
you're talking about.

>And you have yet to even acknowledge that I had disagreed with
>you, being far more interested in off-topic flameage.

Even if true, it would be because your "disagree" is almost certainly
irrelevant polemical flameage. Tu quoque back atcha bozo.

>Polemicist that you are, you editorialized by calling my comments "allegedly
>on-topic"

Apparently you're saying you *don't* allege that your comments are
on-topic. If so, that would be a surprising and refreshing admission
from you.

>when you knew damn well that they were just as on-topic
>as the claims you made about abiogenesis -- and they were
>on the exact same subject, too. I repeat from above:
>
> Only if there were traces of prebiotic evolution.
> Recency is irrelevant.

Apparently you think recent traces wouldn't be easier to find and
verify than traces almost 4 billion years old. If so, the mind
boggles.

>> >Your "those who refuse to back up their bald assertions" is irrelevant
>> >and inadmissible as an argument for the charge you made against him.
>>
>>
>> Are you claiming that Kalky has backed up his bald assertions? Where
>> is your evidence?
>
>Whether this allegation is true or false, is irrelevant to your bizarre
>accusation that "Kalkidas has claimed that he can change reality
>to suit his preferences."

If my allegation is true, then it's not bizarre. What's truly bizarre
is that you start pimping your BIG LIE so soon.

>We can take up this new allegation of yours later; its only purpose
>was to stall the investigation into your bizarre accusation.

I know of no new allegation of mine. Apparently you're confused that
I challenged *your* claim that Kalky backed up his bald assertions.

>> >As to "standing": this is like a class action suit against you.
>
>> Then show your authority to be the representative of the alleged
>> claimants. And show your documentation of the alleged claimants.
>
>All the authority I need are the concepts of truth and justice and
>fair play. Hypocrite that you are, YOU have teamed up with Gans and
>Ron O against me without any palaver about your "standing".

You forgot to mention "and the American way". What a maroon!

Neither Gans nor Ron O are involved here. That you injected them here
is just another example of your egregiously polemical noise. That
you injected yourself here is to continue your egregiously polemical
rants against me.

>I've humored you so far in your polemical "courtroom trial" game.

"Tis I who humors your courtroom trial game. Tu quoque back atcha,
counselor.

>But enough is enough: you are a dedicated perpetrator of injustice,
>and the more people there are in talk.origins who know this,
>the better off this newsgroup will be.

You have shown time and again that you have no idea what truth,
justice, and fair play actually mean. Your concepts of hypocrisy,
injustice, and polemics are valid only in your wet dreams.

>That's all the justification I need to bring charges of libel
>against you, and the longer you stall about justifying your
>bizarre allegation, the stronger the case for those charges becomes.

Apparently you think you can bully me into submission. You never
learn. Your words above are baseless self-serving noise. You have no
standing here. Begone before someone drops a house on you.

>> >You have made similarly outrageous comments against me, many times,
>> >during the five plus years that you and I have interacted.
>>
>>
>> And I have documented every one of my allegedly outrageous comments
>> against you,
>
>That "documentation" in well over 90% of the cases simply consisted
>of you labeling something by me with an outrageous comment, such
>as "In your wet dreams."

Oh yes, leave it to the math perfessor to toss out baseless
percentages. And FYI "in your wet dreams" is not my documentation.
It's my characterization of your grasp of reality.

>You flirt with epistemological nihilism when you call that "documentation
>of every one". Even Humpty Dumpty might have hesitated before making
>words suit him that blatantly. Unsupported bald assertions about
>quoted statements are what you are talking about, over 90% of
>the time.

Of course, you can't and won't back up that egregiously polemical 90%
any more than you back you your percentages for DP or abiogenesis. You
just pull them out of your puckered sphincter and hope nobody calls
you on it. Too bad for you that I do.

>> whatever you think they may be. If only I could say the
>> same for you.
>
>You could say anything under the sun about me; the trick is to
>back it up. Which you do not do in over 99% of the cases where
>you make derogatory claims about me.

Yet another egregiously polemical percentage. The only person you're
fooling with these is yourself, but then, that's sooo easy.

>More importantly perhaps, you don't try to deal with 90% of the
>on-topic corrections and emendations I make to your on-topic statements.
>As on this sub-thread.

Sorry, but your egregiously polemical opinion of your gaseous rectal
emissions doesn't count.

>> >However, my time for bringing up charges against you comes later. You
>> >have made a surrealistic allegation against Kalkidas, and libel by
>> >you through making that allegation is the specific thing
>> >that you are charged with today.
>>
>>
>> Once again, show your standing for bringing up those charges.
>
>This hypocritical, self-serving bilge by you is rejected.

And I reject your egregiously polemical rejection.

>You even admitted
>to Ron O, after aiding and abetting him on numerous unsupported
>charges about how I treat him, that you were doing it for yourself
>rather than for him.

<YAWN>

>> >And now, quit stalling and put up your evidence, or admit to having
>> >committed libel.

Show your standing or be discharged with prejudice.

>> Show your standing to represent the alleged victims, or be dismissed
>> with prejudice.
>
>Stop acting like you get to change the normal procedures of talk.origins.
>Even John Harshman, who has lots of clout in talk.origins [unlike you,
>who have none],

I have exactly as much "clout" as you, which is none. You don't get
to say what the procedures are any more than I do.

OTOH you have injected yourself into this thread for the purpose of
continuing your egregiously polemical rants against me. Your
allegedly on-topic comments don't justify your massive amounts of
self-serving noise and lies, allegedly all over something the
allegedly aggrieved party has in fact said nothing about. You have no
standing to make your egregiously polemical claims against me. Your
just a puckered sphincter who can't help but be just another smelly
asshole.

>does not have the power to do that. By the way, one of
>the things you resent about John is his attempt to do just that, isn't it?

And have you stopped beating your wife?

[jillery]

On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 07:26:25 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:


>Of course, it isn't up to you (or anyone else) to refute this bizarre allegation of "change reality ... the way you say you can." If jillery
>were really as knowledgeable about legal standards as she self-servingly
>pretends to be, she knows that "one cannot prove a negative" is a
>rock-bottom legal principle.

I didn't ask anybody to prove a negative. This is just another
example of you practicing THE BIG LIE.

And this is how I document your egregiously polemical rants against
me.

[Kalkidas]

I disagree that the activities of cells has been "explained" by
chemistry. My requirement for an explanation is an answer to "why"
questions, not merely "how" questions.

I would not accept an "explanation" of an factory's operations if it
ignored the owner, managers, workers, and customers of the factory, but
merely described the patterns of operation of the machines.

We inhabit a simulation which was created to accommodate our desire to
avoid surrendering to the Lord. We are, in effect, in prison. No amount
of meddling with the furnishings of the interior of the prison will in
any way help us to escape.

Biochemistry is meddling with the furnishings of the interior of the
prison. It will ultimately be useless, and is highly likely to start a
fire that will burn up all the furnishings, leaving us more miserable
than before, and still in prison.

[Tim Norfolk]

On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 8:23:40 AM UTC-4, eridanus wrote:
<snip>

>
> c) "why he waited an eternity to do it?"
>
> When he would have a rational reply to those questions I would be able
> to explain to him "how the abiogenesis started".
>
> I have plenty of time to find an explanation for abiogenesis.
> Eridanus

<snip>

How does one wait an actual eternity to do something?

[Robert Camp]

Would you also not accept "how" answers for the production of harmonics
on instrument strings, seasonal erosion and deposition of beach sands,
and the interactions of chemical bonds?

> I would not accept an "explanation" of an factory's operations if it
> ignored the owner, managers, workers, and customers of the factory, but
> merely described the patterns of operation of the machines.

Which approach merely reflects the nature of your petition for
explanation - you assume the activity of owners, managers, etc. In the
case of factories this is not a controversial assumption. In the case of
cells it is at once both credulous and presumptuous.

>>>> One of the essential links in the reproduction of life as we know it
>>>> is the protein translation mechanism. One of the absolutely necessary
>>>> parts is the amazing fidelity with which aa-tRNA synthetases attach
>>>> just the right amino acid to its corresponding tRNA molecule. That
>>>> is what makes the genetic code what it is.
>>>>
>>>> And that amazing fidelity is partly explained by the shape of the
>>>> synthetase (a protein enzyme) and partly by the way it is in
>>>> perpetual motion, glomming onto the right amino acid and the right
>>>> tRNA molecule.
>>>>
>>>> Life is a fascinating thing to those who understand enough
>>>> biochemistry.
>>>> Unfortunately, expertise in biochemistry is just as hard to come by
>>>> in this godforsaken newsgroup as is expertise in paleontology. It's
>>>> in the hands of us amateurs, and has been since the death of "El Cid"
>>>> and the departure of "Roger Shrubber" -- and even he was an amateur,
>>>> albeit a knowledgeable one.
>
> We inhabit a simulation which was created to accommodate our desire to
> avoid surrendering to the Lord. We are, in effect, in prison. No amount
> of meddling with the furnishings of the interior of the prison will in
> any way help us to escape.

Also, don't forget that "it is very true that a great catastrophe
occurred on this planet and in the other 75 planets which formed this
[Galactic] Confederacy 75 million years ago. It has since that time been
a desert, and it has been the lot of just a handful to try to push its
technology up to a level where someone might adventure forward,
penetrate the catastrophe, and undo it."

> Biochemistry is meddling with the furnishings of the interior of the
> prison. It will ultimately be useless, and is highly likely to start a
> fire that will burn up all the furnishings, leaving us more miserable
> than before, and still in prison.

Plus, Xenu is sure to be displeased.

[Kalkidas]

If you claim that "explains" music, then no.

>seasonal erosion and deposition of beach sands,

If you claim that "explains" a walk on the beach, then no.

> and the interactions of chemical bonds?

If you claim that "explains" life, then no.

>
>> I would not accept an "explanation" of an factory's operations if it
>> ignored the owner, managers, workers, and customers of the factory, but
>> merely described the patterns of operation of the machines.
>
> Which approach merely reflects the nature of your petition for
> explanation - you assume the activity of owners, managers, etc. In the
> case of factories this is not a controversial assumption. In the case of
> cells it is at once both credulous and presumptuous.

The presumption is yours. Cells also have owners, managers, workers, and
customers, as does everything else in the universe. Your conceit is that
you want to drag down everything to the lowest common denominator--
impersonal mechanism -- and deprive everything of purpose, reducing it
to mere function.

You must really hate being a person.

[Burkhard]

Reading Moby Dick helps

[Robert Camp]

That certainly "explains" it. There's obviously no fooling a thoughtful
intellect like yours.

[Kalkidas]

Is it not so?

[eridanus]

i am 78 years old. Assuming I will die in 4 or 5 years, this is the time I have to find an answer to abiogenesis. I doubt that Kalkidas could answer
my questions in 4 or 5 years. Any one younger have time to find an explanation
for abiogenesis while Kalkidas could find some replies for my questions
on why god waited an eternity to create the universe, and what was its purpose with this creation. Was god bored of being along a whole eternity and
created the universe to entertain itself punishing humans with plagues, floods,
tsunamis, droughts, glacial ages, a hell to watch them suffering in an eternal
hell? Or was he pretending to enjoy himself hearing humans singings its
praises, of listening to his howls of terror in hell or with other tortures?

Eridanus

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 11:40:06 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

[Crickets...]

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 22:31:37 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:

Unfortunately, that only *seems* like eternity...

For a 2-eternity wait, try anything by Dostoyevsky or
Tolstoy. Or James Fenimore Cooper...

[Steady Eddie]

That isn't my assertion.
LOL!

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 18:07:40 -0700 (PDT), the following

It's not? Perhaps you don't know what "dogmatic" means...

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/dogma
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/dogmatic

Note that both refer to proclamations made as
incontrovertible truth; IOW without (or in contravention of)
data.

>LOL!

Well, that seems to be the limit of your knowledge,
scientific and otherwise.

[Peter Nyikos]

Why not answer the question that was posed? Do inanimate events
require a "why"? If you claim they do, then please tell me the
"why" that you think is needed for the next "how" question:

> >seasonal erosion and deposition of beach sands,
>
> If you claim that "explains" a walk on the beach, then no.

Why on earth do you think he (Robert Camp) would claim that?
Seasonal erosion and deposition of beach sands went on
for billions of years before ANY organism evolved that was
capable of taking a walk on the beach!

[Granted, Robert Camp doesn't strike me as someone who is sufficiently
interested in science to make comments like the one I've made,
but still...]

> > and the interactions of chemical bonds?
>
> If you claim that "explains" life, then no.

Why do you keep talking like this? YOU claimed that the "how" is not
good enough -- but this is no way to hint at the kind of "why" you are
fishing for.

> >
> >> I would not accept an "explanation" of an factory's operations if it
> >> ignored the owner, managers, workers, and customers of the factory, but
> >> merely described the patterns of operation of the machines.
> >
> > Which approach merely reflects the nature of your petition for
> > explanation - you assume the activity of owners, managers, etc. In the
> > case of factories this is not a controversial assumption. In the case of
> > cells it is at once both credulous and presumptuous.
>
> The presumption is yours. Cells also have owners, managers, workers, and
> customers, as does everything else in the universe.

We are "customers" for the beauty of snow crystals. But it is only
in the last few million years that animals evolved that could
appreciate that kind of beauty.

I've always been amazed at how, despite the fact that deposition
of water molecules takes place independently on the six branches
of a snow crystal, they have such perfect, minutely detailed
sixfold symmetry. Would you accept a purely geometric explanation
for this, if you were shown one?

> Your conceit is that
> you want to drag down everything to the lowest common denominator--
> impersonal mechanism -- and deprive everything of purpose, reducing it
> to mere function.

You are going to the opposite extreme in avoiding the actual questions
asked by Camp.

> You must really hate being a person.

That may be the case with the militant atheist Daniel Dennett, hates
the arguments for the existence of a soul so much that he tries to
explain consciousness away as an illusion. It may even be true of
John Wilkins, a former regular here at t.o., who claims that he
is a zombie. But what you've seen from Camp on this thread hardly
warrants such a conclusion.

Concluded in my next reply to this post of yours.

Peter Nyikos
Professor of Math, U. of S. Carolina -- standard disclaimer--

[Kalkidas]

If I colloquially ask "why is the sky blue", and I am told something
about atmospheric diffraction and rods, cones and retinas, that is not
an answer to my question.

I am asking about the *experience* of the blueness of the sky, not about
the electromagnetic spectrum. I am asking why is there an experience of
blueness when looking at the sky. Neither Maxwell's equations nor the
neurosciences say anything about the *experience* of electromagnetic
radiation. Science doesn't explain qualia, so its claim to be the sole
reliable arbiter of truth about the world is grossly overstated.

>>> seasonal erosion and deposition of beach sands,
>>
>> If you claim that "explains" a walk on the beach, then no.
>
> Why on earth do you think he (Robert Camp) would claim that?
> Seasonal erosion and deposition of beach sands went on
> for billions of years before ANY organism evolved that was
> capable of taking a walk on the beach!
>
> [Granted, Robert Camp doesn't strike me as someone who is sufficiently
> interested in science to make comments like the one I've made,
> but still...]
>
>>> and the interactions of chemical bonds?
>>
>> If you claim that "explains" life, then no.
>
> Why do you keep talking like this? YOU claimed that the "how" is not
> good enough -- but this is no way to hint at the kind of "why" you are
> fishing for.

I am fishing for purpose in the great sea of existential despair that is
modern science.

>>>> I would not accept an "explanation" of an factory's operations if it
>>>> ignored the owner, managers, workers, and customers of the factory, but
>>>> merely described the patterns of operation of the machines.
>>>
>>> Which approach merely reflects the nature of your petition for
>>> explanation - you assume the activity of owners, managers, etc. In the
>>> case of factories this is not a controversial assumption. In the case of
>>> cells it is at once both credulous and presumptuous.
>>
>> The presumption is yours. Cells also have owners, managers, workers, and
>> customers, as does everything else in the universe.
>
> We are "customers" for the beauty of snow crystals. But it is only
> in the last few million years that animals evolved that could
> appreciate that kind of beauty.

Are you playing devil's advocate, or do you really think Darwinism is
the truth?

>
> I've always been amazed at how, despite the fact that deposition
> of water molecules takes place independently on the six branches
> of a snow crystal, they have such perfect, minutely detailed
> sixfold symmetry. Would you accept a purely geometric explanation
> for this, if you were shown one?

I would accept it as a "how" answer, but not a "why" answer. Knowing
about auto mechanics doesn't tell me why I would want to drive anywhere
in the first place.

>> Your conceit is that
>> you want to drag down everything to the lowest common denominator--
>> impersonal mechanism -- and deprive everything of purpose, reducing it
>> to mere function.
>
> You are going to the opposite extreme in avoiding the actual questions
> asked by Camp.

He already has the answers he will accept. All he wants is something to
ridicule as "a belief" or "an ideology".

>> You must really hate being a person.
>
> That may be the case with the militant atheist Daniel Dennett, hates
> the arguments for the existence of a soul so much that he tries to
> explain consciousness away as an illusion. It may even be true of
> John Wilkins, a former regular here at t.o., who claims that he
> is a zombie. But what you've seen from Camp on this thread hardly
> warrants such a conclusion.

A real zombie couldn't think "I am a zombie", since a real zombie isn't
a self.

[Peter Nyikos]

On this, I am in total agreement with you. But science doesn't
deal with the whole of reality. There are atheists who think it
does, but they are deluding themselves.

> >>> seasonal erosion and deposition of beach sands,
> >>
> >> If you claim that "explains" a walk on the beach, then no.
> >
> > Why on earth do you think he (Robert Camp) would claim that?
> > Seasonal erosion and deposition of beach sands went on
> > for billions of years before ANY organism evolved that was
> > capable of taking a walk on the beach!
> >
> > [Granted, Robert Camp doesn't strike me as someone who is sufficiently
> > interested in science to make comments like the one I've made,
> > but still...]
> >
> >>> and the interactions of chemical bonds?
> >>
> >> If you claim that "explains" life, then no.
> >
> > Why do you keep talking like this? YOU claimed that the "how" is not
> > good enough -- but this is no way to hint at the kind of "why" you are
> > fishing for.
>
> I am fishing for purpose in the great sea of existential despair that is
> modern science.

For all its faults, science has given us a magnificent door on
innumerable aspects of our world. Not to mention entertainment:
where would "Jurassic Park" be without the researches of paleontologists?
Where would "Martian" be without the research of planetary science
and astronautics?

And enthralling views of our solar system, including our first real look at Neptune, made possible by the Voyager spacecraft.

And high drama: the days of nail-biting anguish as we wondered whether
the Apollo 13 astronauts would make it back to earth alive, and then
headlines bringing some relief, like the one I still remember from
a Pittsburgh daily newspaper:

OPTIMISM BUILDING UP AS APOLLO ZIPS HOME

and the tremendous relief and spontaneous cheering when the
television showed the moment of splashdown of the capsule
with the astronauts in it.

Does all of this leave you cold? Then you may have a soul,
but it is dead to a great deal.

> >>>> I would not accept an "explanation" of an factory's operations if it
> >>>> ignored the owner, managers, workers, and customers of the factory, but
> >>>> merely described the patterns of operation of the machines.
> >>>
> >>> Which approach merely reflects the nature of your petition for
> >>> explanation - you assume the activity of owners, managers, etc. In the
> >>> case of factories this is not a controversial assumption. In the case of
> >>> cells it is at once both credulous and presumptuous.
> >>
> >> The presumption is yours. Cells also have owners, managers, workers, and
> >> customers, as does everything else in the universe.
> >
> > We are "customers" for the beauty of snow crystals. But it is only
> > in the last few million years that animals evolved that could
> > appreciate that kind of beauty.
>
> Are you playing devil's advocate, or do you really think Darwinism is
> the truth?

I am convinced of the common descent of animals, at least. Why not?
Even the Vatican has no problem with the descent of our bodies, as long
as the creation of each person's soul is accepted.

> >
> > I've always been amazed at how, despite the fact that deposition
> > of water molecules takes place independently on the six branches
> > of a snow crystal, they have such perfect, minutely detailed
> > sixfold symmetry. Would you accept a purely geometric explanation
> > for this, if you were shown one?
>
> I would accept it as a "how" answer, but not a "why" answer. Knowing
> about auto mechanics doesn't tell me why I would want to drive anywhere
> in the first place.
>
> >> Your conceit is that
> >> you want to drag down everything to the lowest common denominator--
> >> impersonal mechanism -- and deprive everything of purpose, reducing it
> >> to mere function.
> >
> > You are going to the opposite extreme in avoiding the actual questions
> > asked by Camp.
>
> He already has the answers he will accept. All he wants is something to
> ridicule as "a belief" or "an ideology".

He indeed wields the most obnoxious polemic in this newsgroup, AFAIK.
He is one of those who seem to have the motto: "The purpose of
posting to talk.origins is to win debates." Jillery is another.

> >> You must really hate being a person.
> >

> > That may be the case with the militant atheist Daniel Dennett, [who] hates

> > the arguments for the existence of a soul so much that he tries to
> > explain consciousness away as an illusion. It may even be true of
> > John Wilkins, a former regular here at t.o., who claims that he
> > is a zombie. But what you've seen from Camp on this thread hardly
> > warrants such a conclusion.
>
> A real zombie couldn't think "I am a zombie", since a real zombie isn't
> a self.
>
> > Concluded in my next reply to this post of yours.

Still to come. I may only have time for it later this week.

[Kalkidas]

Common descent is all right. But is it common descent from the bottom up
or from the top down? Is it evolution from some simple molecular
structure, or devolution from the most complex being?

The Vedic version, which I have no reason to doubt, is the latter:
common descent, not from simple to complex but from complex to simple,
by loss rather than gain of features.

[jillery]

On Mon, 2 May 2016 11:36:48 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>> > You are going to the opposite extreme in avoiding the actual questions
>> > asked by Camp.
>>
>> He already has the answers he will accept. All he wants is something to
>> ridicule as "a belief" or "an ideology".
>
>He indeed wields the most obnoxious polemic in this newsgroup, AFAIK.
>He is one of those who seem to have the motto: "The purpose of
>posting to talk.origins is to win debates." Jillery is another.

If so, then you're our leader. You think you always win because you
can never admit when you lost. It's what you do. You can't help
yourself.

[John Stockwell]

On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 11:43:43 AM UTC-6, Kalkidas wrote:
> On 4/27/2016 10:20 AM, John Stockwell wrote:

> > On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 5:58:49 PM UTC-6, Kalkidas wrote:
> >> On 4/25/2016 9:36 AM, erik simpson wrote:
> >>> Some reported progress in abiogenesis research:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160425/ncomms11328/full/ncomms11328.html
> >>
> >> "could have been..."
> >>
> >> "may have been..."
> >>
> >> "may have been..."
> >>
> >> "may have been"
> >>
> >> "could have..."
> >>
> >> "could have been..."
> >>
> >> "might have..."
> >>
> >> "could be..."
> >>
> >> "might address..."
> >>
> >> "could represent..."
> >>
> >> 10 times in 8 pages. Yes, I think it is safe to say that abiogenesis is
> >> still a matter for sheer speculation.
> >

> > Maybe you should read the rest of the words, instead of cherrypicking?
>
> When I read a scientific paper, I look for degree to which the author(s)
> engage in sheer speculation. Anyone can imagine scenarios in which some
> piece of evidence "may be" related with some other piece of evidence.
> But that is not science, it's only daydreaming.

Apparently, that is all you look for. Actually speculations that are
within the real of possibility as supported by existing science are
within the realm of science. Hypotheses always start out as a speculation.

No, it is your hatred of science, and in particular, your hatred of
humanity that is the problem. Combine that with the infantilization of
thought encouraged by your religion, and all you are left to be able to
do is to cherrypick "may have's" out of papers.

-John

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 3:13:28 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 2 May 2016 11:36:48 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> > You are going to the opposite extreme in avoiding the actual questions
> >> > asked by Camp.
> >>
> >> He already has the answers he will accept. All he wants is something to
> >> ridicule as "a belief" or "an ideology".
> >
> >He indeed wields the most obnoxious polemic in this newsgroup, AFAIK.
> >He is one of those who seem to have the motto: "The purpose of
> >posting to talk.origins is to win debates." Jillery is another.
>
>
> If so, then you're our leader.

You think you've scored a debating point with this Pee Wee Hermanism,
don't you?

> You think you always win because you
> can never admit when you lost.

I never think I win, except when arguing evolution with someone
who claims to be a creationist, like "Dr. Dr. Kleinman" or
Ray Martinez.

I almost never lose, though, because I choose my stands very,
very carefully, and I argue for them rationally. You on the other hand
will even descend into what looks like madness in order to avoid
losing, like your last long post where you tenaciously refused to
support your implicit accusation of insanity against Kaldidas:

If only scientists could change reality to suit their
preferences, the way you say you can.

You think you won every single argument in that long post, don't you?


What follows from you is a mindless bot that you fling in at the
ends of dozens if not hundreds of unsupportable claims:

> It's what you do. You can't help
> yourself.

Your closing line is another bot, but there is a rational reason
for it, which I've described elsewhere.

> This space is intentionally not blank.

But it goes against your ideology to acknowledge such mild praise
from me, doesn't it? Since you can't score debating points against it,
you ignore it, so complete is your thirst for revenge against me.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Mon, 2 May 2016 12:55:21 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

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

>On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 3:13:28 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 May 2016 11:36:48 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > You are going to the opposite extreme in avoiding the actual questions
>> >> > asked by Camp.
>> >>
>> >> He already has the answers he will accept. All he wants is something to
>> >> ridicule as "a belief" or "an ideology".
>> >
>> >He indeed wields the most obnoxious polemic in this newsgroup, AFAIK.
>> >He is one of those who seem to have the motto: "The purpose of
>> >posting to talk.origins is to win debates." Jillery is another.
>>
>>
>> If so, then you're our leader.
>
>You think you've scored a debating point with this Pee Wee Hermanism,
>don't you?

You think you know what I think, don't you?

I can do this all day. You make it so easy. Tu quoque back atcha,
bozo.

>> You think you always win because you
>> can never admit when you lost.
>
>I never think I win, except when arguing evolution with someone
>who claims to be a creationist, like "Dr. Dr. Kleinman" or
>Ray Martinez.
>
>I almost never lose, though, because I choose my stands very,
>very carefully, and I argue for them rationally.

You mean like when you obsess about my nic? Or my email address? Or
whether bats use sonar? Or the existence of the flying spaghetti
monster? Can you spell "irony"? I knew you could.

<snip rockhead's remaining repetitive and irrelevant egregious
polemics>

--

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 2:38:40 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 10:39:59 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:

>
> >On 4/27/2016 10:20 AM, John Stockwell wrote:
> >> On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 5:58:49 PM UTC-6, Kalkidas wrote:
> >>> On 4/25/2016 9:36 AM, erik simpson wrote:
> >>>> Some reported progress in abiogenesis research:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160425/ncomms11328/full/ncomms11328.html
> >>>
> >>> "could have been..."
> >>>
> >>> "may have been..."
> >>>
> >>> "may have been..."
> >>>
> >>> "may have been"
> >>>
> >>> "could have..."
> >>>
> >>> "could have been..."
> >>>
> >>> "might have..."
> >>>
> >>> "could be..."
> >>>
> >>> "might address..."
> >>>
> >>> "could represent..."
> >>>
> >>> 10 times in 8 pages. Yes, I think it is safe to say that abiogenesis is
> >>> still a matter for sheer speculation.
> >>
> >> Maybe you should read the rest of the words, instead of cherrypicking?
> >
> >When I read a scientific paper, I look for degree to which the author(s)
> >engage in sheer speculation. Anyone can imagine scenarios in which some
> >piece of evidence "may be" related with some other piece of evidence.
> >But that is not science, it's only daydreaming.
>

> To someone who doesn't understand the support for the
> scenarios (or rejects it for reasons of personal belief), or
> how science works, that conclusion is probably the best
> which can be expected. Wrong, but not unexpected.
>
> IOW, the difference between "daydreaming" and "constructing
> valid scenarios" lies in the knowledge, or lack thereof, of
> the reader.

Or of the daydreamer/constructor, no?

Have you read John Harshman's own answer to Kalki's post, where
John seems to think even daydreaming is a part of science?

> What's your opinion of QM? SR? GR? All "daydreaming", right?
>
> (Kalki will now ignore the above, leaving it
> unchallenged...)

You gave him an excuse by not spelling out "QM" "SR" and "GR".

Care to tell ME what the latter two stand for [QM = Quantum Mechanics]?

Or will you pull a super-jillery on me by claiming I have no standing
to be asking such questions?

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

If you had been egregiously and polemically trolling Bob Casanova the
way you do me, then you would have no standing, because you would have
destroyed all credibility that your question is nothing more than the
latest example of your chronic compulsion.

However, that is not the case here. Instead, your assertion on which
you base your question, that Bob's failure to identify his
abbreviations gives Kalky an excuse to ignore Bob's point, is too
self-serving to take seriously. If Kalky is ignorant of what those
abbreviations mean, it's up to him to ask Bob, not you.

You don't have the authority to excuse anybody for ignoring a valid
point relevant to the discussion, including yourself.

[jillery]

On Tue, 03 May 2016 11:51:22 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

The fact that you inject your egregiously polemical rant into a thread
between Kalky and Bob Casanova shows that your compulsion is
completely out of control. Pissing in all the wells makes you look
really stupid.

[Peter Nyikos]

I had another senior moment this morning, writing "John Harshman" instead
of "John Stockwell" as I should have.

I was replying to Bob Casanova, who drew a sharp distinction
between constructing valid scenarios and daydreaming:

______________________excerpt from reply to Bob_______________

>
> To someone who doesn't understand the support for the
> scenarios (or rejects it for reasons of personal belief), or
> how science works, that conclusion is probably the best
> which can be expected. Wrong, but not unexpected.
>
> IOW, the difference between "daydreaming" and "constructing
> valid scenarios" lies in the knowledge, or lack thereof, of
> the reader.

Or of the daydreamer/constructor, no?

Have you read John [Stockwell's] own answer to Kalki's post, where

John seems to think even daydreaming is a part of science?

========== end of excerpt, with correction in brackets============

I'd say at least half of the daydreaming I do, especially
in matters that touch on science, lies within the realm
of possibility.

For instance, I wrote the following just yesterday in reply to
Thrinaxodon in sci.bio.paleontology, where [s]he is slowly
weaning him/herself away from the trolling of yesteryear
which almost destroyed that newsgroup.

______________________excerpt____________________________
By the way: one of my early teen-age fantasies was to be among the first
humans making contact with "space alien" visitors, and telling them about
earth paleontology. At one point my fantasy had me talking about diapsids,
synapsids, etc. and showing them a human skull, putting my index finger
through the space between the zygomatic arch and the rest of the skull,
and telling them that this is homologous to the synapsid fenestra.
============== end of excerpt
from
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/hobXNAaPGQ0/bZxYKIyZAAAJ

> Hypotheses always start out as a speculation.
>
> No, it is your hatred of science, and in particular, your hatred of
> humanity that is the problem. Combine that with the infantilization of
> thought encouraged by your religion, and all you are left to be able to
> do is to cherrypick "may have's" out of papers.

I was flabbergasted to see that Kalky thinks we live in a simulation,
but strangely enough, some scientists think that way too, only
they speculate about our universe being a computer simulation,
not some divine simulation.

I've read about them in a far-reaching book by the renowned writer
of physics-related books for the general public, Paul Davies.
Here in the USA it has the title, _The Goldilocks Enigma_.

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

PS I'd better add that Davies does not subscribe to this
daydream/speculation about us being part of some grand simulation.

[John Stockwell]

Kalky is a follower of an Hindu derived religion, wherein the world we experience is an illusion (the Maya). Our fixation on the illusion is
what keeps us, according to that belief system, from seeing that we
are all parts of the Godhead (Brahman).

>
> I've read about them in a far-reaching book by the renowned writer
> of physics-related books for the general public, Paul Davies.
> Here in the USA it has the title, _The Goldilocks Enigma_.

It is currently speculated that spacetime is granular at the
Planck-Length (10^{-35} or so meters) so with space-time being
grannular, ultimately the universe is discretized, which reminds
one of computer simulations of continuous processes. So a computational
model of reality follows.

We would no longer need philosophers and theologians, we would
have systems analysts.

The question of Creation becomes one of
determining if there is a Programmer, and if we are living in
faulty simulation influenced by the Original Bug. Magic would
be achieved by hacking the Software. Are we merely data resulting
from the simulation and are deleted when we die, or are we generated
by an immortal Subroutine that will be called again. Are our errors
logged for future analysis? Will our bugs be fixed, or will we
be simply deleted?

-John

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 3 May 2016 07:33:45 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

Could be; the proof is in the result.

>Have you read John Harshman's own answer to Kalki's post, where
>John seems to think even daydreaming is a part of science?

And John is correct, as perusal of Einstein's initial
thoughts about relativity make quite clear. It's not part of
the scientific method per se, but it certainly initiates
many scientific investigations. It's not a pejorative.

You seem to equate "daydreaming" with "fantasizing", which
is incorrect; AFAIK most hypothesizing begins with what most
would call "daydreaming", when it doesn't start as noted in
my sig.

>> What's your opinion of QM? SR? GR? All "daydreaming", right?
>>
>> (Kalki will now ignore the above, leaving it
>> unchallenged...)
>
>You gave him an excuse by not spelling out "QM" "SR" and "GR".

Possibly, but I suspect it's more a case of the fact that he
has refused for several months to reply to *anything* I
post, since I posted questions he couldn't answer a few
times.

>Care to tell ME what the latter two stand for [QM = Quantum Mechanics]?

Yes; it's a common abbreviation, no more esoteric than SR or
GR. Of course, it could be further divided, but I didn't
want to strain his comprehension too far on the first cut.

>Or will you pull a super-jillery on me by claiming I have no standing
>to be asking such questions?

Why do you find it necessary to both insult me and mention
jillery, also insultingly, in one question?

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 3:43:24 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, 3 May 2016 07:33:45 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>
> >On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 2:38:40 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 10:39:59 -0700, the following appeared
> >> in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:
> >>
> >> >On 4/27/2016 10:20 AM, John Stockwell wrote:
> >> >> On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 5:58:49 PM UTC-6, Kalkidas wrote:


> >> >When I read a scientific paper, I look for degree to which the author(s)
> >> >engage in sheer speculation. Anyone can imagine scenarios in which some
> >> >piece of evidence "may be" related with some other piece of evidence.
> >> >But that is not science, it's only daydreaming.
> >>
> >> To someone who doesn't understand the support for the
> >> scenarios (or rejects it for reasons of personal belief), or
> >> how science works, that conclusion is probably the best
> >> which can be expected. Wrong, but not unexpected.
> >>
> >> IOW, the difference between "daydreaming" and "constructing
> >> valid scenarios" lies in the knowledge, or lack thereof, of
> >> the reader.
> >
> >Or of the daydreamer/constructor, no?
>
> Could be; the proof is in the result.
>

> >Have you read John [Stockwell's] own answer to Kalki's post, where

> >John seems to think even daydreaming is a part of science?

The brackets fixed up a senior-moment error on my part.

> And John is correct, as perusal of Einstein's initial
> thoughts about relativity make quite clear. It's not part of
> the scientific method per se, but it certainly initiates
> many scientific investigations. It's not a pejorative.

So why did your contrast center on the difference between
"daydreaming" and "construction of valid scenarios"? What
point were you trying to make with it?

> You seem to equate "daydreaming" with "fantasizing", which
> is incorrect; AFAIK most hypothesizing begins with what most
> would call "daydreaming", when it doesn't start as noted in
> my sig.

You seem to have different connotations of "daydreaming" than I do.
The way I use the word, it means either "letting the mind wander"
without any overt control over the content, or fantasizing for
pleasure. And I mean "pleasure" in the broadest possible sense,
like the pleasure of imagining myself lecturing to a bunch of intelligent,
friendly extraterrestrials on earth paleontology. [I gave an account
of one such early teen daydream of mine to Stockwell on this thread.]

> >> What's your opinion of QM? SR? GR? All "daydreaming", right?
> >>
> >> (Kalki will now ignore the above, leaving it
> >> unchallenged...)
> >
> >You gave him an excuse by not spelling out "QM" "SR" and "GR".
>
> Possibly, but I suspect it's more a case of the fact that he
> has refused for several months to reply to *anything* I
> post, since I posted questions he couldn't answer a few
> times.
>
> >Care to tell ME what the latter two stand for [QM = Quantum Mechanics]?
>
> Yes; it's a common abbreviation, no more esoteric than SR or
> GR.

To me, those two ARE esoteric. I don't think the first "hit" I got for
SR was what you had in mind: http://www.srone.com/

I take it you didn't have SRone in mind. Were you referring to
the programming language which was further down in the hits?
I've heard of Pascal, Basic, ANSI Fortran, ALGOL, COBOL, etc.
but SR is a new one on me.

As for GR, here's what Wikipedia has for it just in the subcategory
of Science and Technology:

.gr, the internet country code top-level domain for Greece
GamesRadar, a website owned by Future Publishing
General relativity, a theory of gravitation proposed by Albert Einstein
Glucocorticoid receptor, a ligand-activated intracytoplasmatic transcription factor
Glutathione reductase, an important cellular antioxidative enzyme
Gutenberg-Richter law, in seismology
Google Reader, an RSS reader service from Google
Gradian, a unit of plane angle
Gradshteyn and Ryzhik aka Table of Integrals, Series, and Products, a classical book in mathematics
Grain (measure) (gr), a unit of mass
Graphics Resolution, a graphics mode for Apple II-family computers
Grashof number, noted as "Gr" in physics
GR, The METAR reporting code for hail 5 mm (0.20 in) or greater in diameter

I suppose you meant General Relativity, but I don't recall ever coming
across that abbreviation for it.

> Of course, it could be further divided, but I didn't
> want to strain his comprehension too far on the first cut.

What are you dividing? You've lost me.

> >Or will you pull a super-jillery on me by claiming I have no standing
> >to be asking such questions?
>
> Why do you find it necessary to both insult me and mention
> jillery, also insultingly, in one question?

It was a rhetorical question, not meant to insult you, just
calling attention to a destructive game jillery has been playing
on this thread. And I carefully wrote "super-jillery" to indicate
that I was satirizing her.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Wed, 4 May 2016 05:14:19 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>> >Or will you pull a super-jillery on me by claiming I have no standing
>> >to be asking such questions?
>>
>> Why do you find it necessary to both insult me and mention
>> jillery, also insultingly, in one question?
>
>It was a rhetorical question, not meant to insult you,

So it has nothing to do with Bob's comments, which makes it irrelevant
noise, and is just another example of you pissing in the well.

>just
>calling attention to a destructive game jillery has been playing
>on this thread. And I carefully wrote "super-jillery" to indicate
>that I was satirizing her.

Satire, as in when the Rwandan soldiers asks their victim "short
sleeve or long sleeve?" just before they chop off her arms with a
machete. That's your kind of satire.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 8:18:23 AM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 3:43:24 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 May 2016 07:33:45 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
> > <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
> >
> > >On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 2:38:40 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:

> > >> What's your opinion of QM? SR? GR? All "daydreaming", right?
> > >>
> > >> (Kalki will now ignore the above, leaving it
> > >> unchallenged...)
> > >
> > >You gave him an excuse by not spelling out "QM" "SR" and "GR".

<snip>

> > >Care to tell ME what the latter two stand for [QM = Quantum Mechanics]?
> >
> > Yes; it's a common abbreviation, no more esoteric than SR or
> > GR.
>
> To me, those two ARE esoteric. I don't think the first "hit" I got for
> SR was what you had in mind: http://www.srone.com/
>
> I take it you didn't have SRone in mind. Were you referring to
> the programming language which was further down in the hits?
> I've heard of Pascal, Basic, ANSI Fortran, ALGOL, COBOL, etc.
> but SR is a new one on me.

Ah, I think I have it. Among the many disambiguations of SR in
Wikipedia, there is Special Relativity. Like GR for General Relativity,
I can't recall coming across this use of SR before, whereas I've seen
the two theories spelled out thousands of times.

The reason I missed it at first is that this Wiki page is not listed
in the first two pages of the "hits" I got for "SR" in the Yahoo
search I used. To make it worse, the Wiki page for Sr [with lower case r]
is the very first "hit" I got, and it's useless except for a line at
the top which I missed on my first look:

This article is about the abbreviation Sr. For the acronym,
see SR (disambiguation).

Peter Nyikos

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 4 May 2016 05:14:19 -0700 (PDT), the following

That daydreaming about a subject by one with background
knowledge in that subject frequently leads to productive
work, whereas daydreaming about a subject of which one is
essentially ignorant, or about fantasies (unicorns, or
angels dancing on pins, for example), don't. If, for
example, you were to daydream about a particular math issue,
that would potentially lead to productive work, while if
Kalkidas were to daydream about a serious scientific subject
it wouldn't (at least, not from what I've see of his
"knowledge" of science).

>> You seem to equate "daydreaming" with "fantasizing", which
>> is incorrect; AFAIK most hypothesizing begins with what most
>> would call "daydreaming", when it doesn't start as noted in
>> my sig.
>
>You seem to have different connotations of "daydreaming" than I do.

Yes,I do, as noted above. But as I also noted, the
connotations to be taken depend on the daydreamer.

>The way I use the word, it means either "letting the mind wander"
>without any overt control over the content, or fantasizing for
>pleasure. And I mean "pleasure" in the broadest possible sense,
>like the pleasure of imagining myself lecturing to a bunch of intelligent,
>friendly extraterrestrials on earth paleontology. [I gave an account
>of one such early teen daydream of mine to Stockwell on this thread.]
>
>
>> >> What's your opinion of QM? SR? GR? All "daydreaming", right?
>> >>
>> >> (Kalki will now ignore the above, leaving it
>> >> unchallenged...)
>> >
>> >You gave him an excuse by not spelling out "QM" "SR" and "GR".
>>
>> Possibly, but I suspect it's more a case of the fact that he
>> has refused for several months to reply to *anything* I
>> post, since I posted questions he couldn't answer a few
>> times.
>>
>> >Care to tell ME what the latter two stand for [QM = Quantum Mechanics]?
>>
>> Yes; it's a common abbreviation, no more esoteric than SR or
>> GR.
>
>To me, those two ARE esoteric. I don't think the first "hit" I got for
>SR was what you had in mind: http://www.srone.com/

Sorry; I can't help what you found through Gurgle. The terms
have been used occasionally in t.o for as long as I've been
here, about 20 years now. "Esoteric" is venue-dependent,
just as the connotations of "daydream" are dependent on the
daydreamer.

And sorry; I misread your question to be a request for a
confirmation that QM is Quantum Mechanics. So to answer what
you actually asked, SR is Special Relativity and GR is
General Relativity.

>I take it you didn't have SRone in mind. Were you referring to
>the programming language which was further down in the hits?
>I've heard of Pascal, Basic, ANSI Fortran, ALGOL, COBOL, etc.
>but SR is a new one on me.
>
>As for GR, here's what Wikipedia has for it just in the subcategory
>of Science and Technology:
>
> .gr, the internet country code top-level domain for Greece
> GamesRadar, a website owned by Future Publishing
> General relativity, a theory of gravitation proposed by Albert Einstein
> Glucocorticoid receptor, a ligand-activated intracytoplasmatic transcription factor
> Glutathione reductase, an important cellular antioxidative enzyme
> Gutenberg-Richter law, in seismology
> Google Reader, an RSS reader service from Google
> Gradian, a unit of plane angle
> Gradshteyn and Ryzhik aka Table of Integrals, Series, and Products, a classical book in mathematics
> Grain (measure) (gr), a unit of mass
> Graphics Resolution, a graphics mode for Apple II-family computers
> Grashof number, noted as "Gr" in physics
> GR, The METAR reporting code for hail 5 mm (0.20 in) or greater in diameter
>
>I suppose you meant General Relativity, but I don't recall ever coming
>across that abbreviation for it.

Again, it's appeared here multiple times.

>> Of course, it could be further divided, but I didn't
>> want to strain his comprehension too far on the first cut.
>
>What are you dividing? You've lost me.

Your original question - QM. I may be misusing "divided",
but there are at least three "quantum" fields of study...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_dynamics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics

....none of which, unfortunately, I'm competent to discuss in
any depth. :-(

>> >Or will you pull a super-jillery on me by claiming I have no standing
>> >to be asking such questions?
>>
>> Why do you find it necessary to both insult me and mention
>> jillery, also insultingly, in one question?
>
>It was a rhetorical question, not meant to insult you, just
>calling attention to a destructive game jillery has been playing
>on this thread. And I carefully wrote "super-jillery" to indicate
>that I was satirizing her.

It was unnecessary to the discussion, and its content seemed
to me to be more than a bit "proactive defensive". But never
mind.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 3:03:28 PM UTC-4, Kalkidas wrote:
> On 5/2/2016 11:36 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> > I am convinced of the common descent of animals, at least. Why not?
> > Even the Vatican has no problem with the descent of our bodies, as long
> > as the creation of each person's soul is accepted.
>
> Common descent is all right. But is it common descent from the bottom up
> or from the top down? Is it evolution from some simple molecular
> structure, or devolution from the most complex being?

Bottom up, for the most part. But complex things do often evolve into
simpler things. Were it not so, the most promising routes towards
Irreducible Complexity would not have existed, and so at least one
Talk.Origins Archive FAQ would be without merit.

The big unknown is whether God exists. A Yes answer makes it highly
plausible that God fashioned the first bacterium, and maybe the
first eukaryote. After that, a nudge here and there is all that
evolution needed.

But since I have little confidence in a Yes answer, I favor the
hypothesis of there being a multiverse in which ours is one
of the rarest of rare universes: a universe where life not only
has a chance to begin and evolve into intelligent beings, all
without outside intervention, but also DID have that history.

> The Vedic version, which I have no reason to doubt, is the latter:
> common descent, not from simple to complex but from complex to simple,
> by loss rather than gain of features.

Paleontology gives me plenty of reason to doubt that.

The Vedic view has a cyclic theory of history at its foundation; some
pessimists say that we are in the Kali Yuga, the Age of Darkness.

Are you familiar with Mircea Eliade's _Cosmos and History_? In it he
writes about the ancient world, and primitive societies, having religions
that had a cyclic history at their foundations, until the Jews made a decisive break and gave the world a linear view of history. Christianity has carried
the torch forward.

Science owes more to Christianity than atheistic scientists are willing
to acknowledge.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --
U. of S. Carolina at Columbia

[Kalkidas]

On 5/4/2016 2:05 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 3:03:28 PM UTC-4, Kalkidas wrote:
>> On 5/2/2016 11:36 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
>>> I am convinced of the common descent of animals, at least. Why not?
>>> Even the Vatican has no problem with the descent of our bodies, as long
>>> as the creation of each person's soul is accepted.
>>
>> Common descent is all right. But is it common descent from the bottom up
>> or from the top down? Is it evolution from some simple molecular
>> structure, or devolution from the most complex being?
>
> Bottom up, for the most part. But complex things do often evolve into
> simpler things. Were it not so, the most promising routes towards
> Irreducible Complexity would not have existed, and so at least one
> Talk.Origins Archive FAQ would be without merit.
>
> The big unknown is whether God exists. A Yes answer makes it highly
> plausible that God fashioned the first bacterium, and maybe the
> first eukaryote. After that, a nudge here and there is all that
> evolution needed.

Well, a "God" who might or might not exist is a contingent being, and
therefore can't really be God. The real God is the source of everything,
and since there are things, there is God. He exists without the
possibility of not existing.

> But since I have little confidence in a Yes answer, I favor the
> hypothesis of there being a multiverse in which ours is one
> of the rarest of rare universes: a universe where life not only
> has a chance to begin and evolve into intelligent beings, all
> without outside intervention, but also DID have that history.
>
>> The Vedic version, which I have no reason to doubt, is the latter:
>> common descent, not from simple to complex but from complex to simple,
>> by loss rather than gain of features.
>
> Paleontology gives me plenty of reason to doubt that.

Paleontology, being a product of human speculation, is inferior to
divinely revealed knowledge. Our senses are imperfect, we make mistakes,
we have a tendency to cheat, and we are subject to illusion. Divine
revelation has no such defects.

>
> The Vedic view has a cyclic theory of history at its foundation; some
> pessimists say that we are in the Kali Yuga, the Age of Darkness.

Yes, we are in one of the kali-yugas. This too shall pass...

>
> Are you familiar with Mircea Eliade's _Cosmos and History_? In it he
> writes about the ancient world, and primitive societies, having religions
> that had a cyclic history at their foundations, until the Jews made a decisive break and gave the world a linear view of history. Christianity has carried
> the torch forward.
>
> Science owes more to Christianity than atheistic scientists are willing
> to acknowledge.

Yes, science has practically the same linear view of history as the
Abrahamic religions.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 4 May 2016 14:26:21 -0700, the following appeared in

talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:

>On 5/4/2016 2:05 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 3:03:28 PM UTC-4, Kalkidas wrote:
>>> On 5/2/2016 11:36 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>
>>>> I am convinced of the common descent of animals, at least. Why not?
>>>> Even the Vatican has no problem with the descent of our bodies, as long
>>>> as the creation of each person's soul is accepted.
>>>
>>> Common descent is all right. But is it common descent from the bottom up
>>> or from the top down? Is it evolution from some simple molecular
>>> structure, or devolution from the most complex being?
>>
>> Bottom up, for the most part. But complex things do often evolve into
>> simpler things. Were it not so, the most promising routes towards
>> Irreducible Complexity would not have existed, and so at least one
>> Talk.Origins Archive FAQ would be without merit.
>>
>> The big unknown is whether God exists. A Yes answer makes it highly
>> plausible that God fashioned the first bacterium, and maybe the
>> first eukaryote. After that, a nudge here and there is all that
>> evolution needed.
>
>Well, a "God" who might or might not exist is a contingent being, and
>therefore can't really be God. The real God is the source of everything,
>and since there are things, there is God. He exists without the
>possibility of not existing.

You seem to think that the mere conception that God exists
means that God exists, which is poor logic.

Feel free to ignore this.

>> But since I have little confidence in a Yes answer, I favor the
>> hypothesis of there being a multiverse in which ours is one
>> of the rarest of rare universes: a universe where life not only
>> has a chance to begin and evolve into intelligent beings, all
>> without outside intervention, but also DID have that history.
>>
>>> The Vedic version, which I have no reason to doubt, is the latter:
>>> common descent, not from simple to complex but from complex to simple,
>>> by loss rather than gain of features.
>>
>> Paleontology gives me plenty of reason to doubt that.
>
>Paleontology, being a product of human speculation, is inferior to
>divinely revealed knowledge. Our senses are imperfect, we make mistakes,
>we have a tendency to cheat, and we are subject to illusion. Divine
>revelation has no such defects.

And it's inconceivable that we might be in error when we
perceive what we think is divine revelation?

Feel free to ignore this.

>> The Vedic view has a cyclic theory of history at its foundation; some
>> pessimists say that we are in the Kali Yuga, the Age of Darkness.
>
>Yes, we are in one of the kali-yugas.

And you know this is not an error...how?

Feel free to ignore this.

> This too shall pass...

>> Are you familiar with Mircea Eliade's _Cosmos and History_? In it he
>> writes about the ancient world, and primitive societies, having religions
>> that had a cyclic history at their foundations, until the Jews made a decisive break and gave the world a linear view of history. Christianity has carried
>> the torch forward.
>>
>> Science owes more to Christianity than atheistic scientists are willing
>> to acknowledge.
>
>Yes, science has practically the same linear view of history as the
>Abrahamic religions.

"Linear view" as contrasted with what? Please be specific.

Feel free to ignore this.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 04 May 2016 09:44:54 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

So, we're in agreement on all of this?

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 5:28:21 PM UTC-4, Kalkidas wrote:
> On 5/4/2016 2:05 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> > The big unknown is whether God exists. A Yes answer makes it highly
> > plausible that God fashioned the first bacterium, and maybe the
> > first eukaryote. After that, a nudge here and there is all that
> > evolution needed.
>
> Well, a "God" who might or might not exist is a contingent being, and
> therefore can't really be God.

So, perhaps our universe was designed by a contingent being.
Why should that bother us? Our whole universe is contingent,
although a few people here, like Harshman, like the idea that
our universe exists of necessity. There are prestigious physicists who think
the same way.

> The real God is the source of everything,
> and since there are things, there is God. He exists without the
> possibility of not existing.
>
> > But since I have little confidence in a Yes answer, I favor the
> > hypothesis of there being a multiverse in which ours is one
> > of the rarest of rare universes: a universe where life not only
> > has a chance to begin and evolve into intelligent beings, all
> > without outside intervention, but also DID have that history.
> >
> >> The Vedic version, which I have no reason to doubt, is the latter:
> >> common descent, not from simple to complex but from complex to simple,
> >> by loss rather than gain of features.
> >
> > Paleontology gives me plenty of reason to doubt that.
>
> Paleontology, being a product of human speculation, is inferior to
> divinely revealed knowledge. Our senses are imperfect, we make mistakes,
> we have a tendency to cheat, and we are subject to illusion. Divine
> revelation has no such defects.

Which divine revalation? The Bible? The Koran? The Vedas? The Upanishads?
The Bhagavad-Gita?

As to paleontology, here is something Stuart Kauffman (whose name may
be familiar to you, and is certainly familiar to jonathan) wrote
in reply to Deepak Chopra on that newsgroup/list that I told you about:

----------------- begin included post___________________________

Yes. from below:

[Alfredo wrote:] - I am not assuming a world outside experience, I am assuming
a world *outside consciousness* and have many arguments to support this
claim. For the moment, I just reinforced Dr. Kauffmann愀 argument about
fossils. It should be sufficient to show that Dr. Chopra愀 view is flawed.

IF Deepak wishes to say somehow we materialize the fossil record from our
consciousness or any other retrocausal interoperation of QM, then does that
apply to continental drift, gowandaland, and all for which there is now very
good evidence? The east coast of S america fits the W coast of Africal, que no?
Did we somehow materialize geomorpholgy and mount everest and the larger
mountain next to me in Santa Fe that blew its top scattering ash to Arkansa
some millions of years ago? We could not find out about unknown features of the
past such as these and fossils were the past not real, and independent of us,
late arrivals on the cosmic time scale. Come on Deepak, you can have love and
compassion without being, well, nearly fraudulent. Stu Kauffman

=================== end of included post

Here are Chopra's words to which Alfredo and Stu are objecting:

Consciousness is that in which experience occurs ,
in which experience is known and out of which experience
is made including the experience of that which we call our body/ mind
There is only experience and the knowing of experience
The rest is a story also a self created experience

Chopra has yet to reply to Kauffman. Can you rebut Kauffman for him?
The thread is on:

Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Invitation for Fourth International Conference "Science and Scientist - 2016"

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --

U. of South Carolina at Columbia

[Kalkidas]

On 5/10/2016 5:21 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 5:28:21 PM UTC-4, Kalkidas wrote:
>> On 5/4/2016 2:05 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
>>> The big unknown is whether God exists. A Yes answer makes it highly
>>> plausible that God fashioned the first bacterium, and maybe the
>>> first eukaryote. After that, a nudge here and there is all that
>>> evolution needed.
>>
>> Well, a "God" who might or might not exist is a contingent being, and
>> therefore can't really be God.
>
> So, perhaps our universe was designed by a contingent being.
> Why should that bother us? Our whole universe is contingent,
> although a few people here, like Harshman, like the idea that
> our universe exists of necessity. There are prestigious physicists who think
> the same way.

I am more interested in God than a contingent demigod. Why waste time
with secondary causes when the prime cause is available?

>> The real God is the source of everything,
>> and since there are things, there is God. He exists without the
>> possibility of not existing.
>>
>>> But since I have little confidence in a Yes answer, I favor the
>>> hypothesis of there being a multiverse in which ours is one
>>> of the rarest of rare universes: a universe where life not only
>>> has a chance to begin and evolve into intelligent beings, all
>>> without outside intervention, but also DID have that history.
>>>
>>>> The Vedic version, which I have no reason to doubt, is the latter:
>>>> common descent, not from simple to complex but from complex to simple,
>>>> by loss rather than gain of features.
>>>
>>> Paleontology gives me plenty of reason to doubt that.
>>
>> Paleontology, being a product of human speculation, is inferior to
>> divinely revealed knowledge. Our senses are imperfect, we make mistakes,
>> we have a tendency to cheat, and we are subject to illusion. Divine
>> revelation has no such defects.
>
> Which divine revalation? The Bible? The Koran? The Vedas? The Upanishads?
> The Bhagavad-Gita?

Well that is the $64 question, isn't it? The point is, if divine
revelation is there, we would do well to find out *which* revelation.

>
> As to paleontology, here is something Stuart Kauffman (whose name may
> be familiar to you, and is certainly familiar to jonathan) wrote
> in reply to Deepak Chopra on that newsgroup/list that I told you about:
>
> ----------------- begin included post___________________________
>
> Yes. from below:
>
> [Alfredo wrote:] - I am not assuming a world outside experience, I am assuming
> a world *outside consciousness* and have many arguments to support this

> claim. For the moment, I just reinforced Dr. Kauffmann´s argument about
> fossils. It should be sufficient to show that Dr. Chopra´s view is flawed.

I disagree with Chopra because I have heard him claim (elsewhere) that
the individual personality is an illusion. And whatever a "world outside
consciousness" is supposed to be, it has no more appeal to me than "food
outside of taste and nourishment".

> IF Deepak wishes to say somehow we materialize the fossil record from our
> consciousness or any other retrocausal interoperation of QM, then does that
> apply to continental drift, gowandaland, and all for which there is now very
> good evidence? The east coast of S america fits the W coast of Africal, que no?
> Did we somehow materialize geomorpholgy and mount everest and the larger
> mountain next to me in Santa Fe that blew its top scattering ash to Arkansa
> some millions of years ago? We could not find out about unknown features of the
> past such as these and fossils were the past not real, and independent of us,
> late arrivals on the cosmic time scale. Come on Deepak, you can have love and
> compassion without being, well, nearly fraudulent. Stu Kauffman

I don't know if Chopra said those things, but it wouldn't surprise me.
The new-agers are very fond of ascribing to "us" the acts only God can
perform.

That is the sad result of imbibing Mayavada philosophy.

> =================== end of included post
>
> Here are Chopra's words to which Alfredo and Stu are objecting:
>
> Consciousness is that in which experience occurs ,
> in which experience is known and out of which experience
> is made including the experience of that which we call our body/ mind
> There is only experience and the knowing of experience
> The rest is a story also a self created experience

Sounds like a truism to me. It is wrong if he ignores the supreme
consciousness and thinks that it's all about "us". He probably does
think that, as he is definitely a new-age Mayavadi.