The atheism of J. Coyne Re: Intelligent Design Book Meets Obstacle

[pnyikos]

On Apr 4, 6:41 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> pnyikos wrote:
> > On Apr 3, 11:00 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> pnyikos wrote:
> >>> On Apr 2, 10:10 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>> pnyikos wrote:
> >>>>> On Mar 30, 11:58 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> pnyikos wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Mar 28, 6:02 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> pnyikos wrote:
> >>>>> [about the Discovery Institute (DI):]
> >>>>>>>>> They keep affirming that ID sticks close
> >>>>>>>>> to the methodology of science, even though the conclusion that this or
> >>>>>>>>> that is designed makes it morally certain that THEY have a
> >>>>>>>>> supernatural designer in mind.
> >>>>>>>> What they affirm doesn't necessarily conform to what they actually do.
> >>>>>>>> And of course it doesn't.
> >>>>>>> You haven't shown me this.  Mark Isaak and John Stockwell have found a
> >>>>>>> couple of promising leads to back you up, but have yet to make a case
> >>>>>>> for them.
> >>>>>>> And they aren't from the conference.  It isn't even known right now
> >>>>>>> whether Dembski or Abel participated.
> >>>>>> Again, we're working on incomplete information, but that doesn't mean we
> >>>>>> don't know how to bet. You're looking for ironclad proof, and everyone
> >>>>>> else is offering pretty good suggestive evidence. We certainly have good
> >>>>>> evidence that though the DI may affirm their commitment to science,
> >>>>>> their actual commitment is to religion.

I had been talking about Jerry Coyne to Frank J, now it was John
Harshman's turn:

> >>> Sauce for the goose,sauce for the gander: you probably saw what I
> >>> wrote about Coyne to Frank J, and I'd say that even though Coyne may
> >>> affirm his commitment to science, his real commitment is to atheism.
>
> >> You can say anything you like, of course. But that doesn't make it true.
> >> Jerry Coyne is a famous fly geneticist. I particularly treasure his book
> >> Speciation, written with H. Allen Orr.

Co-authoring a science book is not the same thing as doing science,
which is what you seem to be laying all your stress on below, John.

> > I didn't say his real commitment was always to atheism, but judging
> > from the way he misrepresented even someone like Kenneth Miller, who
> > is on the same evolutionary page he is on, I'd say my description is
> > accurate as of three years ago.
>
> You can still say what you like. But comparing Jerry Coyne's science to
> the "science" of any DI fellow,

Scott Minnich reported in the Dover trial on some excellent science by
him and his collaborators.

Are you applying a double standard here, counting every science paper
Coyne wrote (even if it makes no mention of atheism) with the one
lightly-peer-reviewed paper where Minnich did mention ID?

>on the basis of some comment he made
> about Ken Miller, is just bizarre.

You conveniently ignore the atheism/Christianity comparison. Coyne's
misrepresentation was part of his campaign against the compatibility
of science and religion, even the deistic evolutionism of Miller.
Coyne even took on the NAS and NCSE for its endorsement of this
compatibility. See the links in:

http://www.millerandlevine.com/evolution/Coyne-Accommodation.htm

That Coyne would stoop so low as to misrepresent someone to strengthen
his case against that compatibility, speaks volumes about where
atheism ranks among his priorities.

> >> Your accusations are nonsensical.
>
> > No more so than yours, and the foundation is stronger: although many
> > ID theorists make the mistake of presenting opinions as though they
> > were facts, I haven't known any to deliberately misrepresent the
> > positions of people.
>
> So now Coyne is a liar?

He lied about Miller. And about Behe, not that THAT should cause you
any concern. See my reply to Frank J's last post to this thread.

You even replied to that post, but I see you kept some of the stuff
you deleted [and you deleted practically everything] out of your
awareness.

> That does seem to be your go-to position on so
> many things.

Yes, I happen to care very deeply about truth and honesty. Don't you?

> > Note, I said ID theorists, not creationists.
>
> > And I think that the reason goes back to what Voltaire had in mind
> > when he said, "if there were no God, it would be necessary to invent
> > one.  Have you ever seen the paragraphs following the quote?
>
> In fact I haven't. What are they?

From a memory decades old: one of the things he said was that if he
was at the mercy of some powerful prince who decided to grind him in a
pestle, the only thing that could effectively stop the prince was fear
of what might happen to him in the hereafter.

And he had at least one historical precedent to back him up...

Aldous Huxley, in _Grey Eminence_, relates how a French queen was
about to give the go-ahead to an army to sack a city during the Thirty
Years' War, and the monk after whom the book was named thundered at
her that if the city was sacked, the deaths of its citizens would be
on her head, and she would be in peril of losing her immortal soul.

Huxley mentioned that ordinary appeals would not have worked, but this
queen was "primitive enough" [or words to that effect] that this crude
appeal worked, and the city was not sacked.

> >>>  And the same goes for Kwok,  and Forrest, and the anonymous twit in
> >>> scienceblogs that I wrote about and you keep claiming is irrelevant.
> >> It is indeed irrelevant.
>
> > Their behavior is far more egregious than that of Coyne (at least,
> > what I've seen from Coyne so far) and so the foundation is even
> > stronger here.
>
> Still don't care.
>
> > Mind you, I've known since the age of 19, when I read Plato's
> > dialogues *Gorgias*, and especially the first two books of _The
> > Republic_  that it is possible for a person to not believe in God and
> > yet be a highly moral, honest person.

And in the sense of not believing that there is a God (though not
disbelieving it either) I have experienced it myself ever since about
three years later.

> > But that's a bit  like all the things I've said about a worldwide
> > flood, etc, where you say that, to a mathematician, belief in
> > creationism is not a logical consequence of belief in a worldwide
> > flood, but in practical everyday life it is a different matter.
> > And my experience on Usenet and other forums is that a person is far
> > more likely to have no qualms about lying (and even resorting to
> > slander) to win an argument if he is an atheist, than if he is a
> > Christian.  Atheists have no commandment against bearing false witness
> > against one's neighbor.
>
> Again you surprise and disappoint me. I would have thought better of
> you.

Really? I would have thought otherwise after your bizarre voicing of
suspicions that I don't think evolution is possible, after all these
years of evidence that I am an ardent evolution promoter.

> So you're adopting the common sneer that for atheists there is no
> basis for morality?

No. Note that I said, "a bit like". As I said above, I know there
are other bases, and I did qualify myself by saying "far more likely"--
and there are many exceptions.

You may be one of them.

To be continued later -- duty calls.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

Very short on time, I attend to one issue that I brought up again in
my first reply and leave the rest for later:

On Apr 4, 6:41 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> pnyikos wrote:

> > You even had the gall to voice suspicions about me trying to argue
> > that evolution never happens.  When I challenged you on this, you made
> > some incredibly feeble comments about how I disagree with you about
> > systematics!!!
>
> I don't recognize this exchange. I believe I said that the end of the
> road on which you were set was that evolution can't happen,

It still looks like a voicing of suspicions to me:

"You seem to be implicitly claiming that
evolution in general is impossible, and
that no protein can evolve a new function."

It was only afterwards that you indirectly made the interpretation you
give now [documented below], but you were making the elementary
blunder of extrapolating from abiogenesis to biological evolution.
The "exaptor of the gaps" exchange we had, starting with my reply to
the post where your bizarre words appear, should have made that
clear.

> which is
> different. Nor did anything I said about systematics have anything to do
> with that.

You made some sort of connection with the words "As in the
example ...":

______________ begin excerpt_______________
>> You seem to be implicitly claiming that evolution
>> in general is impossible,

> What on earth gave you such a bizarre idea??? You know me better than
> to think I would implicitly claim such a thing -- I, who have
> criticized your cladophile systematics partly because it calls last
> common ancestors "fictitious."

You often appear not to understand the implications of what you say.
As
in the example you give of my (=pretty much everyone's) systematics.

>> and that no protein can evolve a new function.
============ end of excerpt
from http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/50e6e33a42bda4c9

If you scroll down to the end of that post, you will see yourself
acknowledging a difference between what I was talking about and what
you thought the "the implications of what [I] say" are -- and where
you falsely suspected my argument would (or even COULD) lead.

> >  I challenged you on that too, and said that if you couldn't come up
> > with a better example, your earlier suspicions remain bizarre.

I did this in my reply to the post whose url I give above.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

It can be. As it happens, Speciation contains quite a bit of synthesis
of previous results. At any rate, he's published a great many journal
papers.

>>> I didn't say his real commitment was always to atheism, but judging
>>> from the way he misrepresented even someone like Kenneth Miller, who
>>> is on the same evolutionary page he is on, I'd say my description is
>>> accurate as of three years ago.
>> You can still say what you like. But comparing Jerry Coyne's science to
>> the "science" of any DI fellow,
>
> Scott Minnich reported in the Dover trial on some excellent science by
> him and his collaborators.

How do you know it's excellent science? Did you read his papers? Or did
he just say it was excellent science?

> Are you applying a double standard here, counting every science paper
> Coyne wrote (even if it makes no mention of atheism) with the one
> lightly-peer-reviewed paper where Minnich did mention ID?

Whatever does atheism have to do with anything here? Nor have I
mentioned Minnich at all.

>> on the basis of some comment he made
>> about Ken Miller, is just bizarre.
>
> You conveniently ignore the atheism/Christianity comparison.

As well I should. It's a silly comparison.

> Coyne's
> misrepresentation was part of his campaign against the compatibility
> of science and religion, even the deistic evolutionism of Miller.
> Coyne even took on the NAS and NCSE for its endorsement of this
> compatibility. See the links in:
>
> http://www.millerandlevine.com/evolution/Coyne-Accommodation.htm
>
> That Coyne would stoop so low as to misrepresent someone to strengthen
> his case against that compatibility, speaks volumes about where
> atheism ranks among his priorities.

First, it's your claim that he's misrepresenting, and further that he's
doing so on purpose. Second, what he does when he isn't doing science is
not relevant, unless you want to claim that his science itself has some
kind of bias. And in that case, I'd like to see some evidence.

>>>> Your accusations are nonsensical.
>>> No more so than yours, and the foundation is stronger: although many
>>> ID theorists make the mistake of presenting opinions as though they
>>> were facts, I haven't known any to deliberately misrepresent the
>>> positions of people.
>> So now Coyne is a liar?
>
> He lied about Miller. And about Behe, not that THAT should cause you
> any concern. See my reply to Frank J's last post to this thread.

This is your so far unsupported assertion.

> You even replied to that post, but I see you kept some of the stuff
> you deleted [and you deleted practically everything] out of your
> awareness.

There was one thing I wanted to comment on.

>> That does seem to be your go-to position on so
>> many things.
>
> Yes, I happen to care very deeply about truth and honesty. Don't you?

Caring about truth doesn't imply shotgun accusations of lying.

>>> Note, I said ID theorists, not creationists.
>>> And I think that the reason goes back to what Voltaire had in mind
>>> when he said, "if there were no God, it would be necessary to invent
>>> one. Have you ever seen the paragraphs following the quote?
>> In fact I haven't. What are they?
>
> From a memory decades old: one of the things he said was that if he
> was at the mercy of some powerful prince who decided to grind him in a
> pestle, the only thing that could effectively stop the prince was fear
> of what might happen to him in the hereafter.
>
> And he had at least one historical precedent to back him up...
>
> Aldous Huxley, in _Grey Eminence_, relates how a French queen was
> about to give the go-ahead to an army to sack a city during the Thirty
> Years' War, and the monk after whom the book was named thundered at
> her that if the city was sacked, the deaths of its citizens would be
> on her head, and she would be in peril of losing her immortal soul.
>
> Huxley mentioned that ordinary appeals would not have worked, but this
> queen was "primitive enough" [or words to that effect] that this crude
> appeal worked, and the city was not sacked.

Oddly, that seems not to have happened very often, enough so that the
story makes a notable exception to the actions of "Christian" rulers.
Sorry, but I've forgotten why you bring this up, unless it's another
claim that atheists can have no basis for morality.

>>>>> And the same goes for Kwok, and Forrest, and the anonymous twit in
>>>>> scienceblogs that I wrote about and you keep claiming is irrelevant.
>>>> It is indeed irrelevant.
>>> Their behavior is far more egregious than that of Coyne (at least,
>>> what I've seen from Coyne so far) and so the foundation is even
>>> stronger here.
>> Still don't care.
>>
>>> Mind you, I've known since the age of 19, when I read Plato's
>>> dialogues *Gorgias*, and especially the first two books of _The
>>> Republic_ that it is possible for a person to not believe in God and
>>> yet be a highly moral, honest person.
>
> And in the sense of not believing that there is a God (though not
> disbelieving it either) I have experienced it myself ever since about
> three years later.

Shall I give you a pat on the back, or can you reach for yourself?

>>> But that's a bit like all the things I've said about a worldwide
>>> flood, etc, where you say that, to a mathematician, belief in
>>> creationism is not a logical consequence of belief in a worldwide
>>> flood, but in practical everyday life it is a different matter.
>>> And my experience on Usenet and other forums is that a person is far
>>> more likely to have no qualms about lying (and even resorting to
>>> slander) to win an argument if he is an atheist, than if he is a
>>> Christian. Atheists have no commandment against bearing false witness
>>> against one's neighbor.
>> Again you surprise and disappoint me. I would have thought better of
>> you.
>
> Really? I would have thought otherwise after your bizarre voicing of
> suspicions that I don't think evolution is possible, after all these
> years of evidence that I am an ardent evolution promoter.

I have no such suspicions, nor have I ever said any such thing. Nor do I
see what that has to do with your charming lapse here.

>> So you're adopting the common sneer that for atheists there is no
>> basis for morality?
>
> No. Note that I said, "a bit like". As I said above, I know there
> are other bases, and I did qualify myself by saying "far more likely"--
> and there are many exceptions.

Why should those be exceptions? Why "far more likely"? Monkeys have
morality. Is it a result of fear of god?

> You may be one of them.

Thank you for that faint praise. But your claim is just about as
horrendous as I had supposed. You should really be ashamed.

[John Harshman]

pnyikos wrote:
> Very short on time, I attend to one issue that I brought up again in
> my first reply and leave the rest for later:
>
> On Apr 4, 6:41 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> pnyikos wrote:
>
>>> You even had the gall to voice suspicions about me trying to argue
>>> that evolution never happens. When I challenged you on this, you made
>>> some incredibly feeble comments about how I disagree with you about
>>> systematics!!!
>> I don't recognize this exchange. I believe I said that the end of the
>> road on which you were set was that evolution can't happen,
>
> It still looks like a voicing of suspicions to me:
>
> "You seem to be implicitly claiming that
> evolution in general is impossible, and
> that no protein can evolve a new function."
>
> It was only afterwards that you indirectly made the interpretation you
> give now [documented below], but you were making the elementary
> blunder of extrapolating from abiogenesis to biological evolution.
> The "exaptor of the gaps" exchange we had, starting with my reply to
> the post where your bizarre words appear, should have made that
> clear.

I think it should be clear that I was not saying you think evolution is
impossible, only that you were not following the implications of what
you said. And it should have been clear at the time too.

I see no problem here. You don't like my example. I do.

[pnyikos]

On Apr 4, 6:41 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> pnyikos wrote:

> > On Apr 3, 11:00 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> pnyikos wrote:

> >>> And here's some testimony by Minnich in the Dover trial about how an
> >>> unquestioning commitment to natural causes affects  discourse on
> >>> abiogenesis, reminiscent of our little debate on the thread on the
> >>> protein takeover:
> >>> __________________
> >>> 10 Q. Dr. Minnich, why isn't this just the
> >>> 11 argument from incredulity?
> >>> 12 A. I mean, that's -- Dawkins makes that
> >>> 13 argument that because I can't imagine a
> >>> 14 mechanism that would produce this that I
> >>> 15 suffer from incredulity, and I'm, darn it,
> >>> 16 you know, we are trained to be skeptics. We
> >>> 17 are trained to look at things through, you know,
> >>> 18 a very narrow lens. We're to be our own worst
> >>> 19 critics, and it seems like in any other practice
> >>> 20 of science that's how we operate, except when it
> >>> 21 comes to an explanation of the origin of these
> >>> 22 systems, and then we're accused of being, you
> >>> 23 know, suffering from incredulity because we
> >>> 24 can't imagine how these came about.
> >>> 25 We don't have the intermediates. Again
> >>>        84
> >>> 1 for any biochemical pathway we don't have the
> >>> 2 phylogenetic history for any biochemical pathway
> >>> 3 or subcellular organelle. Yet as a scientist I
> >>> 4 am supposed to accept this without blinking that
> >>> 5 this is a product of a Darwinian mechanism,
> >>> pp83-84 in
> >>>http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/day20pm.pdf
> >> I see nothing in that testimony that resembles what I see in science.

> > The last sentence could easily be about lots of things you've written,
> > including on the protein takeover thread and  on Panda's Thumb.
>
> We disagree.

Yes, we disagree on whether I am supposed to accept that exaptation,
which no one so far can even imagine the intermediates for (despite
the tentative identification of paralogs), really is a better
explanation for the protein takeover than design.

I may be the only ID promoter in the world who thinks the design, if
it happened, was due to a species of ca. human level intelligence
whose bodies are made of cells with only simple proteins, and
ribozymes as the enzymes.

[deletia of things dealt with in second reply]

> >> Your credulity with regard to any IDer is showing again.
>
> > Can you defend this bizarre comment any better than you did that other
> > one?
>
> > Do you even have the guts to say exactly what it is in Minnich's words
> > that you take issue with?  And why?
>
> Well, he mischaracterizes what an argument from incredulity is. It isn't
> that he can't imagine a mechanism. It's that he thinks something is
> impossible because he can't imagine a mechanism.

No. He thinks design is a better hypothesis because nobody in the
world has imagined a mechanism, except for the one "exaptation of Type
3 secretory system plus a filament plus..." which he has undercut with
his research.

> And he doesn't even
> discuss that. Strawman.

That's because it is YOUR strawman. He does discuss what he actually
thinks (see above) in quite a lot of detail.

What's more (irony of ironies!) the one person who has done most in
the opposite direction, and in the direction of showing that the
clotting and immune cascades are not nearly as hard to evolve as Behe
originally thought they were....

...is Kenneth Miller, a believing Roman Catholic, whom atheist Coyne
has attacked dishonestly as part of a general campaign whose slogan
is:

"when one makes pronouncements about faith that involve assertions
about science, the science always suffers."
-- quoted in http://www.millerandlevine.com/evolution/Coyne-Accommodation.htm

And to what pronouncement does this *especially* refer? Why, the
pronouncement that religious faith and science are compatible!

Why, if it weren't for Kenneth Miller (and maybe Keith Robison -- I
aim to find out whether he actually got his idea for the argument by
autocatalycity for the clotting system from Miller) the "Exaptor of
the Gaps" argument would still be functioning as a science
stopper....

...on the level of the "molecular machines" of which Behe and Minnich
speak. Keep reading.

>Further, we do have a phylogenetic history for
> many biochemical pathways and subcellular organelles. I'll just mention
> mitochondria as a for instance.

Minnich doesn't take issue with those in any testimony I have seen.
Almost all of it has to do with his forte, the bacterial flagellum.

And mitochondria are a prime case of knocking down a strawman. By the
time Behe came out with DBB and revolutionized the ID landscape,
Margulis's theory was well known and widely accepted.

In fact, Behe goes into length about it on pp. 188-189 of _DBB_. And
here is one place where some rash person might accuse him of lying: he
claims that "stifled laughs and smirks ...greeted Margulis's proposal"
that mitochondria are exapted from symbiotic prokaryotes.

But Behe also addresses the question on p. 189: "can symbiosis explain
the origin of complex biochemical systems?" And his answer is that it
cannot, because symbiosis by definition involves pre-existing
organisms, with their full biochemical components already in place.

> And finally, I don't recall every having
> been asked to "just accept this without blinking". I used the word
> "credulity" because you just seem to accept whatever Minnich says.

And I use the words "outrageous fallacy" for you jumping to this
conclusion on the basis of me quoting just a few things from Minnich
to illustrate a few points.

I also use the words "double standard" for the behavior of someone who
relentlessly attacks ID and its proponents (except me: you are much
more careful with me, because I can and will fight back) on the one
hand...

... and on the other hand, expects me to balance my corrections of
false and distorted claims about ID with criticism of ID proponents
that amounts to adding a little bit to y'all's massive overkill.

Concluded in next reply.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Apr 4, 6:41 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> pnyikos wrote:
> > On Apr 3, 11:00 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> pnyikos wrote:

> >>>>Please stop making gratuitous attacks on people who aren't
> >>>> involved here. What you say, even if true, is irrelevant.
>
> >>> It shows that you are just like them in your dogmatic insistence that
> >>> ID proponents "all know" that the designer in every instance is
> >>> supernatural.
> >> So show me an exception.
>
> > I said "in every instance" and Behe and Minnich both seem to be
> > exceptions.
>
> Where did you say "in every instance"?

In the preceding "round" of posts. It's still up there:

... "all know" that the designer in every instance is
supernatural.

> Behe is certainly not an
> exception. He said said repeatedly that he believes the creator is
> Jesus/God.

.Creator of the universe. Just try asking Kenneth Miller whether that
equates to believing that the designer of every irreducibly complex
"molecular machine" is Jesus/God, intervening in his creation to tweak
things along for every single irreducibly complex machine, no matter
how simple.

The fun will really begin if you tell him you are a long-time regular
of talk.origins, opposed to ID. He'll probably think you are either
joking, or a clueless creationist of the Martinez variety.

> He just says he can't distinguish that from the alien
> hypothesis scientifically. I don't have any idea about Minnich. Do you?

I'm only halfway through reading the cross-examination, so I can't
tell for sure. One thing that enormously clouds the issue is that
Minnich used an incredibly naive definition of "supernatural" in his
deposition, to include every possible design by a human-level-or-
higher intelligence. So any "alien designer" is "supernatural" by his
unfortunate use of words.

This got somewhat clarified during the cross-examination but I still
need to see how it plays out.

> >>> Minnich evidently does not know it, and he contradicts it repeatedly
> >>> in his Nov 3 2005 pm testimony.  But he is also an ardent ID
> >>> proponent.
> >> I missed the part where he said he doesn't know it.
> >>  Certainly there is
> >> nothing of that sort in the bit you quoted.
>
> > It's elsewhere in his testimony on Nov 3 2005 PM.
> > Same url as above.
>
> Come now. You're constantly asking me for things you could easily google
> for yourself. Your turn.

Only things about which you make comments -- or shop talk about
paleontology, where you might have come across some stuff (say, on the
Dinosaur list or Paleolist) not easily found by googling.

> > And this is another thing about you that is beginning to irk me.  It
> > is as though you were trying to goad me into doing 1000 line posts by
> > documenting everything I say on the spot, and giving all my arguments
> > for something in one go.
>
> No. All I ask is that if you make some claim, you be willing to back it up.

Your wording could have been less confrontational, like asking simply,
"where did he say that?"

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

Design is problematic, as it can explain anything at all, and so it's
hard to figure out where it would fall in the spectrum of explanation.
We have no particular evidence for design; your only "evidence" is that
we have no clear and detailed natural explanation.

> I may be the only ID promoter in the world who thinks the design, if
> it happened, was due to a species of ca. human level intelligence
> whose bodies are made of cells with only simple proteins, and
> ribozymes as the enzymes.

I would bet on that. Nor do we so far have any argument for why you or
we should believe that.

> [deletia of things dealt with in second reply]
>
>>>> Your credulity with regard to any IDer is showing again.
>>> Can you defend this bizarre comment any better than you did that other
>>> one?
>>> Do you even have the guts to say exactly what it is in Minnich's words
>>> that you take issue with? And why?
>> Well, he mischaracterizes what an argument from incredulity is. It isn't
>> that he can't imagine a mechanism. It's that he thinks something is
>> impossible because he can't imagine a mechanism.
>
> No. He thinks design is a better hypothesis because nobody in the
> world has imagined a mechanism, except for the one "exaptation of Type
> 3 secretory system plus a filament plus..." which he has undercut with
> his research.

I fail to see the distinction. He thinks it's impossible because nobody
so far has imagined a mechanism. Therefore design?

>> And he doesn't even
>> discuss that. Strawman.
>
> That's because it is YOUR strawman. He does discuss what he actually
> thinks (see above) in quite a lot of detail.

See above, where?

> What's more (irony of ironies!) the one person who has done most in
> the opposite direction, and in the direction of showing that the
> clotting and immune cascades are not nearly as hard to evolve as Behe
> originally thought they were....
>
> ...is Kenneth Miller, a believing Roman Catholic, whom atheist Coyne
> has attacked dishonestly as part of a general campaign whose slogan
> is:
>
> "when one makes pronouncements about faith that involve assertions
> about science, the science always suffers."
> -- quoted in http://www.millerandlevine.com/evolution/Coyne-Accommodation.htm

I fail to see why that's ironic. You seem to believe in the law of
contagion. Apparently, Jerry must think that if Ken Miller has ever made
a pronouncement about faith, all his science must be suspect. Not at all
the point.

> And to what pronouncement does this *especially* refer? Why, the
> pronouncement that religious faith and science are compatible!
>
> Why, if it weren't for Kenneth Miller (and maybe Keith Robison -- I
> aim to find out whether he actually got his idea for the argument by
> autocatalycity for the clotting system from Miller) the "Exaptor of
> the Gaps" argument would still be functioning as a science
> stopper....
>
> ...on the level of the "molecular machines" of which Behe and Minnich
> speak. Keep reading.

I will, but it's painful to do.

>> Further, we do have a phylogenetic history for
>> many biochemical pathways and subcellular organelles. I'll just mention
>> mitochondria as a for instance.
>
> Minnich doesn't take issue with those in any testimony I have seen.
> Almost all of it has to do with his forte, the bacterial flagellum.

So what does "any biochemical pathway or subcellular organelle" mean to
you? What does it mean to Minnich? Does it really mean "the bacterial
flagellum and nothing else"? If so, why not say that instead?

> And mitochondria are a prime case of knocking down a strawman. By the
> time Behe came out with DBB and revolutionized the ID landscape,
> Margulis's theory was well known and widely accepted.

So why did Minnich say what he said?

> In fact, Behe goes into length about it on pp. 188-189 of _DBB_. And
> here is one place where some rash person might accuse him of lying: he
> claims that "stifled laughs and smirks ...greeted Margulis's proposal"
> that mitochondria are exapted from symbiotic prokaryotes.
>
> But Behe also addresses the question on p. 189: "can symbiosis explain
> the origin of complex biochemical systems?" And his answer is that it
> cannot, because symbiosis by definition involves pre-existing
> organisms, with their full biochemical components already in place.

No, that can't be true, because mitochondria can't survive on their own.
The eukaryote-mitochondrion system is irreducibly complex. Remove the
mitochondria, the cell dies. Remove the cell, the mitochondrion dies.
Obviously, neither could have evolved without the other. Or perhaps it's
a fine example of how IC can evolve. Did Behe mention that?

>> And finally, I don't recall every having
>> been asked to "just accept this without blinking". I used the word
>> "credulity" because you just seem to accept whatever Minnich says.
>
> And I use the words "outrageous fallacy" for you jumping to this
> conclusion on the basis of me quoting just a few things from Minnich
> to illustrate a few points.

And yet when I look closely at what Minnich said in the quoted bits, you
deny he really meant what he said.

> I also use the words "double standard" for the behavior of someone who
> relentlessly attacks ID and its proponents (except me: you are much
> more careful with me, because I can and will fight back) on the one
> hand...

Try not to inflate your self-importance too much here. It's already
about to burst.

> ... and on the other hand, expects me to balance my corrections of
> false and distorted claims about ID with criticism of ID proponents
> that amounts to adding a little bit to y'all's massive overkill.

I have no idea where you got that from. I'm merely asking you to take an
unbiased look at the DI and at prominent IDers.

[John Harshman]

pnyikos wrote:
> On Apr 4, 6:41 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> pnyikos wrote:
>>> On Apr 3, 11:00 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> pnyikos wrote:
>>>>>> Please stop making gratuitous attacks on people who aren't
>>>>>> involved here. What you say, even if true, is irrelevant.
>>>>> It shows that you are just like them in your dogmatic insistence that
>>>>> ID proponents "all know" that the designer in every instance is
>>>>> supernatural.
>>>> So show me an exception.
>>> I said "in every instance" and Behe and Minnich both seem to be
>>> exceptions.
>> Where did you say "in every instance"?
>
> In the preceding "round" of posts. It's still up there:
>
> ... "all know" that the designer in every instance is
> supernatural.
>
>> Behe is certainly not an
>> exception. He said said repeatedly that he believes the creator is
>> Jesus/God.
>
> .Creator of the universe.

And of life.

> Just try asking Kenneth Miller whether that
> equates to believing that the designer of every irreducibly complex
> "molecular machine" is Jesus/God, intervening in his creation to tweak
> things along for every single irreducibly complex machine, no matter
> how simple.

Miller doesn't believe that. But Behe does, with possible rare
exceptions, since he believes IC is not impossible to evolve, merely so
unlikely that there can be very few examples.

In fact I wonder how you can imagine that your ideas can be compatible
with Behe's. He thinks that many systems that evolved within eukaryotes,
even within metazoans, are unlikely to have come about naturally. Your
aliens would have had to intervene at many points in over the course of
billions of years, up to the late Precambrian at least, in order to fit
Behe's views. How do you reconcile that?

> The fun will really begin if you tell him you are a long-time regular
> of talk.origins, opposed to ID. He'll probably think you are either
> joking, or a clueless creationist of the Martinez variety.

You would certainly be clueless in some way. Of course Miller may
believe in some sort of intervention some time in the history of life. I
think he's intimated as much. Just way less than Behe.

>> He just says he can't distinguish that from the alien
>> hypothesis scientifically. I don't have any idea about Minnich. Do you?
>
> I'm only halfway through reading the cross-examination, so I can't
> tell for sure. One thing that enormously clouds the issue is that
> Minnich used an incredibly naive definition of "supernatural" in his
> deposition, to include every possible design by a human-level-or-
> higher intelligence. So any "alien designer" is "supernatural" by his
> unfortunate use of words.
>
> This got somewhat clarified during the cross-examination but I still
> need to see how it plays out.
>
>>>>> Minnich evidently does not know it, and he contradicts it repeatedly
>>>>> in his Nov 3 2005 pm testimony. But he is also an ardent ID
>>>>> proponent.
>>>> I missed the part where he said he doesn't know it.
>>>> Certainly there is
>>>> nothing of that sort in the bit you quoted.
>>> It's elsewhere in his testimony on Nov 3 2005 PM.
>>> Same url as above.
>> Come now. You're constantly asking me for things you could easily google
>> for yourself. Your turn.
>
> Only things about which you make comments -- or shop talk about
> paleontology, where you might have come across some stuff (say, on the
> Dinosaur list or Paleolist) not easily found by googling.

I don't read either of those. And in fact in almost every case the
answers to questions you ask me can be found by googling, as I have
demonstrated to you frequently.

>>> And this is another thing about you that is beginning to irk me. It
>>> is as though you were trying to goad me into doing 1000 line posts by
>>> documenting everything I say on the spot, and giving all my arguments
>>> for something in one go.
>> No. All I ask is that if you make some claim, you be willing to back it up.
>
> Your wording could have been less confrontational, like asking simply,
> "where did he say that?"

If you allude to something Minnich says, and you quote Minnich in the
same post, it's a reasonable inference that you're claiming to have
quoted him saying that. And you can't expect me to read the whole
lengthy document looking for what you've already found and could very
easily have quoted briefly.

[pnyikos]

Note to people in alt.agnosticism: you can catch up on this
particular argument with the last google page in the standard view of
this thread:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/a3e047afa9ad668c/cf4bd3b5f9f1b3da

On Apr 16, 1:46 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 16, 8:56 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > On Apr 5, 5:16 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > pnyikos wrote:
>

> > [snip of some things covered earlier, some to be covered later]
>
> > > > Why would so many people be hostile, not just skeptical, towards
> > > > directed panspermia, were it not for a visceral belief in "Mother
> > > > Earth did it easily," so convenient for atheism?
>
> > > Careful, now. Of course panspermia is equally convenient for atheism,
> > > isn't it?
>
> > Not if they accept my main argument for it, which is that abiogenesis
> > is an extremely unlikely occurrence even on a planet as favorable to
> > it as the early earth.
>
> That doesn't seem to follow.

You snipped my argument for it below. John Harshman replied to it
this afternoon, and I've countered with two replies a little while
ago.

> > In fact, I have gone on record in Panda's Thumb as follows:
>
> > "... if anyone comes up with detailed scenarios that make the
> > occurrence of life based on a biochemistry as complicated as ours
> > considerably more than a one-in-a-galaxy occurrence, I would count it
> > as evidence against earth life being a result of directed panspermia.
> > If it turned out to be as likely as Carl Sagan thought it was in
> > _Cosmos_ I’d consider it as falsifying my hypothesis."
> > --http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/02/springer-gets-s.html#comment-...
>
> Nor do I find anything here that speaks to how panspermia might be
> inconvenient for atheism.

It wasn't meant to argue for that. See my challenge to Harshman about
it--can you meet that challenge?

> > >That's exactly a fine counterargument to your position.
>
> > Actually, you have not attempted to undermine my statement about a
> > visceral belief in "Mother Earth did it easily" being congenial to
> > atheism.  It's atheism's first line of defense against a modern
> > Argument from Design.
>
> This is one of those "You keep using that word..." moments.

Huh?

> Atheism neither requires nor bothers with defense against design
> arguments.
>
You're joking, aren't you? Dawkins "bothered" a great deal in _The
Blind Watchmaker_. Read his kind words for Paley, and why he took
such pains to dispose of Paley's arguments. And Behe wasn't much
easier on Paley, because he has better reasons than Paley's.

The robo-moderator does not allow crossposting to alt.atheism, so I
settled for crossposting it to alt.agnosticism.

> Your particularly confused reasoning works (and even then, barely)
> only if you conflate "atheism" with criticism of ID or criticism of
> panspermia, neither of which is sensible.

The above wasn't meant to be reasoning for my position. You deleted
the reasoning for it.

> If you go on to discuss this with John please feel no need to respond
> to me. But I am wondering what you are thinking here.

Keep following my discussions with Harshman, and feel free to join in.

Peter Nyikos

[Robert Camp]

On Apr 16, 7:53 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Note to people in alt.agnosticism:  you can catch up on this
> particular argument with the last google page in the standard view of
> this thread:
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/a3e0...

>
> On Apr 16, 1:46 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 16, 8:56 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Apr 5, 5:16 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > > pnyikos wrote:
>
> > > [snip of some things covered earlier, some to be covered later]
>
> > > > > Why would so many people be hostile, not just skeptical, towards
> > > > > directed panspermia, were it not for a visceral belief in "Mother
> > > > > Earth did it easily," so convenient for atheism?
>
> > > > Careful, now. Of course panspermia is equally convenient for atheism,
> > > > isn't it?
>
> > > Not if they accept my main argument for it, which is that abiogenesis
> > > is an extremely unlikely occurrence even on a planet as favorable to
> > > it as the early earth.
>
> > That doesn't seem to follow.
>
> You snipped my argument for it below.

My comment had nothing to do with what came below. It had to do with
whether unlikely abiogenesis (were this an accurate representation)
presents a difficulty for atheism. It doesn't

> John Harshman replied to it
> this afternoon, and I've countered with two replies a little while
> ago.
>
> > > In fact, I have gone on record in Panda's Thumb as follows:
>
> > > "... if anyone comes up with detailed scenarios that make the
> > > occurrence of life based on a biochemistry as complicated as ours
> > > considerably more than a one-in-a-galaxy occurrence, I would count it
> > > as evidence against earth life being a result of directed panspermia.
> > > If it turned out to be as likely as Carl Sagan thought it was in
> > > _Cosmos_ I’d consider it as falsifying my hypothesis."
> > > --http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/02/springer-gets-s.html#comment-...
>
> > Nor do I find anything here that speaks to how panspermia might be
> > inconvenient for atheism.
>
> It wasn't meant to argue for that.

Yet you presented it as if it was.

> See my challenge to Harshman about
> it--can you meet that challenge?

> > > >That's exactly a fine counterargument to your position.
>
> > > Actually, you have not attempted to undermine my statement about a
> > > visceral belief in "Mother Earth did it easily" being congenial to
> > > atheism.  It's atheism's first line of defense against a modern
> > > Argument from Design.
>
> > This is one of those "You keep using that word..." moments.
>
> Huh?

Rent "The Princess Bride."

> > Atheism neither requires nor bothers with defense against design
> > arguments.
>
> You're joking, aren't you?

No, but I did misspeak. I meant to say that atheism don't depend upon
any particular reading of panspermism (this is another example of how
your conflation of ID or "design" with panspermia confuses these
issues).

> Dawkins "bothered" a great deal in _The
> Blind Watchmaker_.  Read his kind words for Paley, and why he took
> such pains to dispose of Paley's arguments.  And Behe wasn't much
> easier on Paley, because he has better reasons than Paley's.

You are far more impressed with Behe than his output merits.

RLC

[pnyikos]

On Apr 17, 12:24 am, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 16, 7:53 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Note to people in alt.agnosticism:  you can catch up on this
> > particular argument with the last google page in the standard view of
> > this thread:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/a3e0...
>
> > On Apr 16, 1:46 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 16, 8:56 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 5, 5:16 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > pnyikos wrote:
>
> > > > [snip of some things covered earlier, some to be covered later]
>
> > > > > > Why would so many people be hostile, not just skeptical, towards
> > > > > > directed panspermia, were it not for a visceral belief in "Mother
> > > > > > Earth did it easily," so convenient for atheism?
>
> > > > > Careful, now. Of course panspermia is equally convenient for atheism,
> > > > > isn't it?
>
> > > > Not if they accept my main argument for it, which is that abiogenesis
> > > > is an extremely unlikely occurrence even on a planet as favorable to
> > > > it as the early earth.
>
> > > That doesn't seem to follow.
>
> > You snipped my argument for it below.
>
> My comment had nothing to do with what came below. It had to do with
> whether unlikely abiogenesis (were this an accurate representation)
> presents a difficulty for atheism. It doesn't

It does, with the difficulty increasing as the unlikeliness increases.

I explained this in my most recent replies to Harshman. Have you
been reading them, like I recommended?

> > John Harshman replied to it
> > this afternoon, and I've countered with two replies a little while
> > ago.
>
> > > > In fact, I have gone on record in Panda's Thumb as follows:
>
> > > > "... if anyone comes up with detailed scenarios that make the
> > > > occurrence of life based on a biochemistry as complicated as ours
> > > > considerably more than a one-in-a-galaxy occurrence, I would count it
> > > > as evidence against earth life being a result of directed panspermia.
> > > > If it turned out to be as likely as Carl Sagan thought it was in
> > > > _Cosmos_ I’d consider it as falsifying my hypothesis."
> > > > --http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/02/springer-gets-s.html#comment-...
>
> > > Nor do I find anything here that speaks to how panspermia might be
> > > inconvenient for atheism.
>
> > It wasn't meant to argue for that.
>
> Yet you presented it as if it was.

Not really, although the transition was too abrupt for either you or
Harshman to get my point.

I was emphasizing just how essential a part "unlikely abiogenesis"
plays in my argument for directed panspermia. And this was to suggest
that MY hypothesis of directed panspermia *could* pose a problem for
atheists even if one accepts that directed panspermia *per se* does
not.

The argument for why my hypothesis *does* pose a problem came later.

> > See my challenge to Harshman about
> > it--can you meet that challenge?
> > > > >That's exactly a fine counterargument to your position.
>
> > > > Actually, you have not attempted to undermine my statement about a
> > > > visceral belief in "Mother Earth did it easily" being congenial to
> > > > atheism.  It's atheism's first line of defense against a modern
> > > > Argument from Design.
>
> > > This is one of those "You keep using that word..." moments.
>
> > Huh?
>
> Rent "The Princess Bride."

Some of my daughters have seen it, so I'll ask them if they remember
that particular phrase.

> > > Atheism neither requires nor bothers with defense against design
> > > arguments.
>
> > You're joking, aren't you?
>
> No, but I did misspeak. I meant to say that atheism don't depend upon
> any particular reading of panspermism (this is another example of how
> your conflation of ID or "design" with panspermia confuses these
> issues).

There is no conflation, only an indirect connection. Our universe is
obviously a good one for the continuation and evolution of life once
it gets started--but if it is very unlikely to get started anywhere in
the universe, then atheists would be well advised to "flee to the
revealed word of Hawkins" [to paraphrase Philo in Hume's famous
dialogues] and postulate the existence of a super-astronomical number
of universes, with all the drawbacks that entails.

I've named one of them, and here is another. A huge number, probably
a majority, of atheists are ignorant of the fact that our universe
does not go infinitely far in all directions, like Euclidean 3-space
does. They are very comfortable with the idea that, *therefore*, our
universe is "all there is or was or ever will be" because there is
"obviously" nothing beyond it.

Even just realizing that our universe is probably more like a compact
"3-sphere" could be very unsettling to some of them; how much more
unsettling it could be, then, for them to also start thinking about
"all there is" being filled with a swarm of these compact universes--
and what's to keep one of them from crashing into our universe?

> >Dawkins "bothered" a great deal in _The
> > Blind Watchmaker_.  Read his kind words for Paley, and why he took
> > such pains to dispose of Paley's arguments.  And Behe wasn't much
> > easier on Paley, because he has better reasons than Paley's.
>
> You are far more impressed with Behe than his output merits.

"better" is a relative concept, and so "far more impressed..." is a
*non sequitur*.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

It wouldn't do you any good, as I was unable to find Peter's
explanation. I know he thinks one is there. Perhaps he's just too clever
for us.

>>> John Harshman replied to it
>>> this afternoon, and I've countered with two replies a little while
>>> ago.
>>>>> In fact, I have gone on record in Panda's Thumb as follows:
>>>>> "... if anyone comes up with detailed scenarios that make the
>>>>> occurrence of life based on a biochemistry as complicated as ours
>>>>> considerably more than a one-in-a-galaxy occurrence, I would count it
>>>>> as evidence against earth life being a result of directed panspermia.
>>>>> If it turned out to be as likely as Carl Sagan thought it was in
>>>>> _Cosmos_ I’d consider it as falsifying my hypothesis."
>>>>> --http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/02/springer-gets-s.html#comment-...
>>>> Nor do I find anything here that speaks to how panspermia might be
>>>> inconvenient for atheism.
>>> It wasn't meant to argue for that.
>> Yet you presented it as if it was.
>
> Not really, although the transition was too abrupt for either you or
> Harshman to get my point.

See? We're just stupid. Peter is much too clever for us to comprehend.

> I was emphasizing just how essential a part "unlikely abiogenesis"
> plays in my argument for directed panspermia. And this was to suggest
> that MY hypothesis of directed panspermia *could* pose a problem for
> atheists even if one accepts that directed panspermia *per se* does
> not.
>
> The argument for why my hypothesis *does* pose a problem came later.

But was again too subtle to notice. He really needs to learn how to talk
down to people.

Those stupid atheists. Fortunately, we have Peter to explain our ignorance.

> Even just realizing that our universe is probably more like a compact
> "3-sphere" could be very unsettling to some of them; how much more
> unsettling it could be, then, for them to also start thinking about
> "all there is" being filled with a swarm of these compact universes--
> and what's to keep one of them from crashing into our universe?

Sorry, I lost track. Was it the stupid atheists who think that, or was
it Peter?

>> >Dawkins "bothered" a great deal in _The
>>> Blind Watchmaker_. Read his kind words for Paley, and why he took
>>> such pains to dispose of Paley's arguments. And Behe wasn't much
>>> easier on Paley, because he has better reasons than Paley's.
>> You are far more impressed with Behe than his output merits.
>
> "better" is a relative concept, and so "far more impressed..." is a
> *non sequitur*.

How clever Peter is: his sentence about a non sequitur is itself a non
sequitur. Must be on purpose, because who could be so ironic by accident?

[Robert Camp]

You continue to assert this, yet it gets no more sensible.

I know you think that the following (of course I read it, I just
snipped it as confused and extraneous) rescues your illogic...

"Actually, you have not attempted to undermine my statement about a
visceral belief in "Mother Earth did it easily" being congenial to
atheism. It's atheism's first line of defense against a modern
Argument from Design."

...but it doesn't. It simply confuses the compatibility of atheism
with some particular origins hypothesis (abiogenesis) with opposition
to another (panspermia). As long as the latter doesn't invoke
supernatural cause it is no less convenient for atheism than is
abiogenesis.

If you think this misapprehension is rescued by...

"A fallback position is: "Our galaxy is so vast, and the conditions
favorable to abiogenesis occur so often, that the odds in favor of
it
having happened at least once in our galaxy are rather high, and there
are so many galaxies that the odds for intelligent life evolving at
least once in our universe are overwhelming. So just because we are
here, is no good argument for either the existence of a creator or the
existence of a near-infinity of universes."

...you are wrong. In fact, the last sentence is confusing enough that
I'm not sure whether your are making an argument or trying to
caricature a straw man of an atheist argument.

"If that fallback position ever became untenable, then the belief that
there is a near-infinity of universes would become a no-brainer for
any knowledgeable atheist. But as I pointed out, that position is not
without dangers for atheism, so Sagan's formula, "The Cosmos is all
there is or ever was or ever will be" [with "Cosmos" defined as "our
space-time continuum which began ca. 13 bya"] is the hypothesis most
congenial to atheism."

I seem to have missed how a multiverse scenario presents dangers for
atheism. Perhaps you might clarify.

> > > > > In fact, I have gone on record in Panda's Thumb as follows:
>
> > > > > "... if anyone comes up with detailed scenarios that make the
> > > > > occurrence of life based on a biochemistry as complicated as ours
> > > > > considerably more than a one-in-a-galaxy occurrence, I would count it
> > > > > as evidence against earth life being a result of directed panspermia.
> > > > > If it turned out to be as likely as Carl Sagan thought it was in
> > > > > _Cosmos_ I’d consider it as falsifying my hypothesis."
> > > > > --http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/02/springer-gets-s.html#comment-...
>
> > > > Nor do I find anything here that speaks to how panspermia might be
> > > > inconvenient for atheism.
>
> > > It wasn't meant to argue for that.
>
> > Yet you presented it as if it was.
>
> Not really, although the transition was too abrupt for either you or
> Harshman to get my point.

Yes, that must surely be the most parsimonious explanation.

> I was emphasizing just how essential a part "unlikely abiogenesis"
> plays in my argument for directed panspermia. And this was to suggest
> that MY hypothesis of directed panspermia *could* pose a problem for
> atheists even if one accepts that directed panspermia *per se* does
> not.

The probability of any abiogenic event (regardless of how unlikely) is
dependent, even if only in principle, upon calculations that do not
rely upon any supernatural variable. Regardless of how unlikely you
think the event would be on this planet, unless you are invoking
supernatural creation of your planet-seeding progenitors it had to
have happened naturally at least once somewhere in the cosmos.

This is simply not a difficulty for atheism. If there are individual
atheists whose perspective relies upon the belief that the universe is
chock full of life (and I don't doubt there must be some) then they
misunderstand the concept of atheism. If your argument is directed
toward that perspective then you misunderstand it as well.

> > > > Atheism neither requires nor bothers with defense against design
> > > > arguments.
>
> > > You're joking, aren't you?
>
> > No, but I did misspeak. I meant to say that atheism don't depend upon
> > any particular reading of panspermism (this is another example of how
> > your conflation of ID or "design" with panspermia confuses these
> > issues).
>
> There is no conflation, only an indirect connection.  Our universe is
> obviously a good one for the continuation and evolution of life once
> it gets started

I'm not really interested in arguing this point, but I just want to
note that your "obviously" here is an example of an entirely
unwarranted assumption. We simply don't know enough to come to that
conclusion. What we can say is that our planet and its solar
environment are obviously good for the evolution and continuation of
our kind of life (but then we'd all recognize that as an uninstructive
truism).

> --but if it is very unlikely to get started anywhere in
> the universe, then atheists would be well advised to "flee to the
> revealed word of Hawkins" [to paraphrase Philo in Hume's famous
> dialogues] and postulate the existence of a super-astronomical number
> of universes, with all the drawbacks that entails.

Again, "You keep using that word..." What is it about atheism that you
suppose depends upon untold numbers of abiogenic events crowding the
universe?

> I've named one of them,

I missed it.

> and here is another. A huge number, probably
> a majority, of atheists are ignorant of the fact that our universe
> does not go infinitely far in all directions, like Euclidean 3-space
> does. They are very comfortable with the idea that, *therefore*, our
> universe is "all there is or was or ever will be" because there is
> "obviously" nothing beyond it.

I presume you're suggesting this must be "another" "drawback" involved
with the postulation of multiple universes. What I can't figure out is
how you think this observation applies to atheists or anything atheism
entails.

> Even just realizing that our universe is probably more like a compact
> "3-sphere" could be very unsettling to some of them; how much more
> unsettling it could be, then, for them to also start thinking about
> "all there is" being filled with a swarm of these compact universes--
> and what's to keep one of them from crashing into our universe?

I can't imagine it being unsettling at all (accepting, for the moment,
your characterization). You do know that these are people who think
life ends...and then nothing, right?

> > >Dawkins "bothered" a great deal in _The
> > > Blind Watchmaker_.  Read his kind words for Paley, and why he took
> > > such pains to dispose of Paley's arguments.  And Behe wasn't much
> > > easier on Paley, because he has better reasons than Paley's.
>
> > You are far more impressed with Behe than his output merits.
>
> "better" is a relative concept, and so "far more impressed..." is a
> *non sequitur*.

No, it's not.

And I am now far less impressed with your command of the English
language.

RLC

[Robert Camp]

We are transparent, He sees many things, He sees plans within plans.

RLC

[pnyikos]

On Apr 18, 3:11 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 18, 11:02 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:

[huge snip]

> > >>  >Dawkins "bothered" a great deal in _The
> > >>> Blind Watchmaker_.  Read his kind words for Paley, and why he took
> > >>> such pains to dispose of Paley's arguments.  And Behe wasn't much
> > >>> easier on Paley, because he has better reasons than Paley's.
> > >> You are far more impressed with Behe than his output merits.
>
> > > "better" is a relative concept, and so "far more impressed..." is a
> > > *non sequitur*.

Camp, you presented no external evidence that I am at all impressed by
Behe, so I had to guess that you think "he has better reasons than
Paley's" is meant to be evidence that I am far more impressed by
Behe...etc.

> > How clever Peter is: his sentence about a non sequitur is itself a non
> > sequitur.

Challenge to both of you: explain why.

> > Must be on purpose, because who could be so ironic by accident?

AFAIK, this is GIGO.

> We are transparent, He sees many things, He sees plans within plans.

AFAIK, this is GIGO redux.

Peter Nyikos
> RLC

[Robert Camp]

On Apr 18, 12:30 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Apr 18, 3:11 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 18, 11:02 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> [huge snip]
>
> > > >> >Dawkins "bothered" a great deal in _The
> > > >>> Blind Watchmaker_. Read his kind words for Paley, and why he took
> > > >>> such pains to dispose of Paley's arguments. And Behe wasn't much
> > > >>> easier on Paley, because he has better reasons than Paley's.
> > > >> You are far more impressed with Behe than his output merits.
>
> > > > "better" is a relative concept, and so "far more impressed..." is a
> > > > *non sequitur*.
>
> Camp, you presented no external evidence that I am at all impressed by
> Behe, so I had to guess that you think "he has better reasons than
> Paley's" is meant to be evidence that I am far more impressed by
> Behe...etc.

No, my comment was not specific to that passage, it was a general
observation regarding your willingness to give some ID guys,
particularly Behe, a pass. You have cited him approvingly, sometimes
to my ear even adoringly, enough that I didn't think I needed to
provide evidence, nor do I intend to search through your posts and do
so now.

If you contend that you are no less critical of Behe than any other
confused ID creationist then I'll retract my statement and only bring
it up again if I have evidence to support it.

> > > How clever Peter is: his sentence about a non sequitur is itself a non
> > > sequitur.
>
> Challenge to both of you: explain why.

Because your use of the label "non sequitur" was in error.

> > > Must be on purpose, because who could be so ironic by accident?
>
> AFAIK, this is GIGO.

I thought it was droll, but that's just me.

> > We are transparent, He sees many things, He sees plans within plans.
>
> AFAIK, this is GIGO redux.

Google can help with "K"ing "F"ther. It's a paraphrase of a passage
from Dune.

RLC

[pnyikos]

On Apr 18, 4:09 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 18, 12:30 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 3:11 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 18, 11:02 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > [huge snip]
>
> > > > >> >Dawkins "bothered" a great deal in _The
> > > > >>> Blind Watchmaker_. Read his kind words for Paley, and why he took
> > > > >>> such pains to dispose of Paley's arguments. And Behe wasn't much
> > > > >>> easier on Paley, because he has better reasons than Paley's.
> > > > >> You are far more impressed with Behe than his output merits.
>
> > > > > "better" is a relative concept, and so "far more impressed..." is a
> > > > > *non sequitur*.
>
> > Camp, you presented no external evidence that I am at all impressed by
> > Behe, so I had to guess that you think "he has better reasons than
> > Paley's" is meant to be evidence that I am far more impressed by
> > Behe...etc.
>
> No, my comment was not specific to that passage, it was a general
> observation regarding your willingness to give some ID guys,
> particularly Behe, a pass.

It's up to y'all to show me how bad these people are, and with Behe,
people on your side have fallen flat on their face time and time
again.

"jillery," for example, tried to salvage Doolittle's falling flat on
his face as far as those genetically altered mice were concerned, and
I finally gave such an airtight analysis that [s]he ran away. When I
reminded her/him of this, 'e tried to claim that 'e must have gotten
fed up with my "trolling" but there was absolutely none either in the
post from which 'e ran away, nor in the one I did two steps back along
the path.

"jillery" had replied to that in great detail, without a single
complaint about anything I had written. My reply to that post was the
one from which 'e ran away.

Documentation on request.

When I see damaging evidence, I acknowledge it, like when I replied to
Harshman about a revealing piece of information about Dembski, "Game,
set and match to you. Congratulations."

> You have cited him approvingly, sometimes
> to my ear even adoringly,

I think your ear is hopelessly biased. If you disagree, provide
documentation.

> enough that I didn't think I needed to
> provide evidence, nor do I intend to search through your posts and do
> so now.

I'm very patient. Any time you feel like providing documentation,
I'll be glad to comment on it.

> If you contend that you are no less critical of Behe than any other
> confused ID creationist

Behe is not a creationist, except in Okimoto's use of the word, which
is OK in the big outside world but causes no end of confusion here in
t.o.

"less critical of" is too political for my taste. I criticize things
on a case by case basis, and I criticize Behe whenever I think it is
warranted, to the degree that I think it is warranted.

Same with everyone else in the world. Just contrast my replies to
Harshman and you with my replies to Stockwell and "jillery" on this
thread, for instance.

Special case: two replies to Harshman that were mostly about false
allegations about me by Okimoto. There again, I base my criticism on
the evidence.

> then I'll retract my statement and only bring
> it up again if I have evidence to support it.

So far, you've produced zero evidence. Does my reply motivate you to
continue making evidence-free allegations?

> > > > How clever Peter is: his sentence about a non sequitur is itself a non
> > > > sequitur.
>
> > Challenge to both of you: explain why.
>
> Because your use of the label "non sequitur" was in error.

It was based on what I saw. It still is.

And your "explanation" is just a bunch of unsupported allegations.

> > > > Must be on purpose, because who could be so ironic by accident?
>
> > AFAIK, this is GIGO.
>
> I thought it was droll, but that's just me.
>
> > > We are transparent, He sees many things, He sees plans within plans.
>
> > AFAIK, this is GIGO redux.
>
> Google can help with "K"ing "F"ther. It's a paraphrase of a passage
> from Dune.

Unless you tell me what the relevance to me is, I can't be bothered.

Peter Nyikos

[Robert Camp]

On Apr 19, 2:11 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Apr 18, 4:09 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 18, 12:30 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 18, 3:11 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 18, 11:02 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > [huge snip]

<snip extraneous stuff>

> > If you contend that you are no less critical of Behe than any other
> > confused ID creationist
>
> Behe is not a creationist, except in Okimoto's use of the word, which
> is OK in the big outside world but causes no end of confusion here in
> t.o.

I'm not familiar with Ron's usage. But "creationist" tends to be far
more confusing in the outside world where people don't understand that
there is a continuum of creationism, all the way from variants of
theistic evolution (Dobzhansky considered himself a creationist) to
rigid fundamentalist young earth nonsense.

Here in t.o people understand, for the most part, that ID is a part of
that continuum, and is rightly termed creationism. By the same token
we also understand that there is a broad spectrum of creationism
represented just in the list of the DI's Center for Science and
Culture fellows (a fair depiction of the state of ID) which runs from
the young-earth perspective of Paul Nelson to the more inclusive-of-
science but still creationist Behe.

Creationism is not monolithic. But it is invariably unscientific and
pedagogically inadmissible.

<snip more extraneous stuff>

> > then I'll retract my statement and only bring
> > it up again if I have evidence to support it.
>
> So far, you've produced zero evidence.  Does my reply motivate you to
> continue making evidence-free allegations?

Can you read? If so, were you able to parse the comment to which you
responded? If so, how is it you do not recognize in it the answer to
your question?

> > > > > How clever Peter is: his sentence about a non sequitur is itself a non
> > > > > sequitur.
>
> > > Challenge to both of you: explain why.
>
> > Because your use of the label "non sequitur" was in error.
>
> It was based on what I saw.  It still is.

And what you saw was, and still is, wrong.

RLC

<snip>

[pnyikos]

On Apr 19, 6:28 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 19, 2:11 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 18, 4:09 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 18, 12:30 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 18, 3:11 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 18, 11:02 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > > [huge snip]
>
> <snip extraneous stuff>
>
> > > If you contend that you are no less critical of Behe than any other
> > > confused ID creationist
>
> > Behe is not a creationist, except in Okimoto's use of the word, which
> > is OK in the big outside world but causes no end of confusion here in
> > t.o.
>
> I'm not familiar with Ron's usage.

It includes all belief in a creator, even deism. A number of regulars
here are not too happy with it. Did you read the first few posts on
this thread, before even I came in on it, for instance?

> But "creationist" tends to be far
> more confusing in the outside world where people don't understand that
> there is a continuum of creationism, all the way from variants of
> theistic evolution (Dobzhansky considered himself a creationist) to
> rigid fundamentalist young earth nonsense.

Do you include deism, which says that God took no further interest in
the universe after creating it at the instant of the big bang?

> Here in t.o people understand, for the most part, that ID is a part of
> that continuum, and is rightly termed creationism.

For what reason?

> By the same token
> we also understand that there is a broad spectrum of creationism
> represented just in the list of the DI's Center for Science and
> Culture fellows (a fair depiction of the state of ID) which runs from
> the young-earth perspective of Paul Nelson to the more inclusive-of-
> science but still creationist Behe.

I take it you assume Behe believes in common descent from prokaryotes,
with frequent divine tweaking of genomes to produce effects like what
Loren Eiseley mused about in _The Immense Journey_:

``Perhaps there also, among rotting fish heads and blue,
night-burning bog lights, moved the eternal mystery,
the careful finger of God. The increase was not much.
It was two bubbles, two thin-walled little balloons at the
end of the Snout's small brain. The cerebral hemispheres
had appeared.''

> Creationism is not monolithic. But it is invariably unscientific and
> pedagogically inadmissible.

So quoting the above from _The Immense Journey_ is pedagogically
inadmissible according to you?

> <snip more extraneous stuff>
>
> > > then I'll retract my statement and only bring
> > > it up again if I have evidence to support it.
>
> > So far, you've produced zero evidence.  Does my reply motivate you to
> > continue making evidence-free allegations?
>
> Can you read? If so, were you able to parse the comment to which you
> responded?

Yes. Why did you snip it as extraneous?

> If so, how is it you do not recognize in it the answer to
> your question?

Because I didn't fulfill your conditional clause that preceded, "then
I'll retract..."

Can you remember what it was?

> > > > > > How clever Peter is: his sentence about a non sequitur is itself a non
> > > > > > sequitur.
>
> > > > Challenge to both of you: explain why.
>
> > > Because your use of the label "non sequitur" was in error.
>
> > It was based on what I saw.  It still is.
>
> And what you saw was, and still is, wrong.

Why did you snip the evidence on which I based it?

Peter Nyikos

[Robert Camp]

Not usually, but I can accept that a case could be made for doing so.
Like many sociological labels, "creationist" seems to lend itself to
broad interpretation, depending upon who's doing the interpreting.
Part of that has to do with connotations one assigns to the label in
question. For example, I don't think "creationist" need always carry
negative implications, but I have to admit I almost always use it that
way and am still trying to train myself to adopt different habits of
usage. This is especially difficult because I have always seen
"creationist" as more of a label for oppressive behavior (assault on
science and education) than for an apolitical personal belief about
origins.

> > Here in t.o people understand, for the most part, that ID is a part of
> > that continuum, and is rightly termed creationism.
>
> For what reason?

Because the ID movement was born of conventional creationism, makes
common cause with YE and OE creationists, employs common political
tactics, and indulges in quite a few overlapping rhetorical
strategies. And though I cannot offer numbers as evidence, I think
it's probable that most ID proponents are actually YE or OE
creationists.

> > By the same token
> > we also understand that there is a broad spectrum of creationism
> > represented just in the list of the DI's Center for Science and
> > Culture fellows (a fair depiction of the state of ID) which runs from
> > the young-earth perspective of Paul Nelson to the more inclusive-of-
> > science but still creationist Behe.
>
> I take it you assume Behe believes in common descent from prokaryotes,
> with frequent divine tweaking of genomes to produce effects like what
> Loren Eiseley mused about in _The Immense Journey_:

I don't know the specifics of Behe's belief, except that he
continually employs logical fallacies (argument from incredulity,
flawed analogies, false dichotomies) in the service of "things-
evolution-could-not-have-done" rhetoric. At one time he believed in
and argued for front-loading, as far as I know he continues to argue
for the need for transcendental intervention.

If there's been a sea-change in his perspective I'm always willing to
revise my opinion.

>  ``Perhaps there also, among rotting fish heads and blue,
>     night-burning bog lights, moved the eternal mystery,
>     the careful finger of God.  The increase was not much.
>     It was two bubbles, two thin-walled little balloons at the
>     end of the Snout's small brain.  The cerebral hemispheres
>     had appeared.''
>
> > Creationism is not monolithic. But it is invariably unscientific and
> > pedagogically inadmissible.
>
> So quoting the above from _The Immense Journey_ is pedagogically
> inadmissible according to you?

Well, to be specific, it's pedagogically inadmissible as science. As
part of an arts or humanities course I would have no objection.

RLC

[pnyikos]

On Apr 23, 7:35 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 1:41 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

...and so on, back and forth, between Robert and myself.

> > Do you include deism, which says that God took no further interest in
> > the universe after creating it at the instant of the big bang?
>
> Not usually, but I can accept that a case could be made for doing so.
> Like many sociological labels, "creationist" seems to lend itself to
> broad interpretation, depending upon who's doing the interpreting.
> Part of that has to do with connotations one assigns to the label in
> question. For example, I don't think "creationist" need always carry
> negative implications, but I have to admit I almost always use it that
> way and am still trying to train myself to adopt different habits of
> usage.

This is a very laudable undertaking, and I hope you continue your
efforts in this direction.

> This is especially difficult because I have always seen
> "creationist" as more of a label for oppressive behavior (assault on
> science and education) than for an apolitical personal belief about
> origins.

I think your parenthetical comment is a little extreme. The assault
is on evolution and abiogenesis. And for the latter, there is zero
evidence that it took place on earth, in contrast to panspermia.

Of course, panspermia is not something the creationists have
embraced. But assaults on rote "arguments" of the "Exaptor of the
Gaps" variety for abiogenesis can hardly be classified as assaults on
either science or education. As I've told Harshman on this thread,
"Exaptor of the Gaps" generally serves as a science-stopper, and the
person who has gone most beyond it AFAIK is the believing Roman
Catholic, Kenneth Miller.

> > > Here in t.o people understand, for the most part, that ID is a part of
> > > that continuum, and is rightly termed creationism.
>
> > For what reason?
>
> Because the ID movement was born of conventional creationism,

AFAIK it was Behe who pointed the movement in a scientific direction
(although he hasn't gone far enough in that direction) and he is
hardly a conventional creationist. His Roman Catholicism functions a
little differently than that of Miller, but far differently from that
of fundies on the issue of what God did when.

> makes
> common cause with YE and OE creationists,

Anti-atheism does make strange bedfellows. But then, so do atheism
and pragmatism.

>employs common political tactics,

Behe and Minnich, the two people in the ID movement whom I take
seriously, aren't into political tactics. Both used Dover more as a
bully pulpit than as an effort to exonerate the Dover school board
from the serious charges which the Order of the Court actually
counteracted.

> and indulges in quite a few overlapping rhetorical
> strategies. And though I cannot offer numbers as evidence, I think
> it's probable that most ID proponents are actually YE or OE
> creationists.

This much could well be true. It does not, however, mean that they do
not follow the methodology of science in their papers and conference
addresses.

> > > By the same token
> > > we also understand that there is a broad spectrum of creationism
> > > represented just in the list of the DI's Center for Science and
> > > Culture fellows (a fair depiction of the state of ID) which runs from
> > > the young-earth perspective of Paul Nelson to the more inclusive-of-
> > > science but still creationist Behe.
>
> > I take it you assume Behe believes in common descent from prokaryotes,
> > with frequent divine tweaking of genomes to produce effects like what
> > Loren Eiseley mused about in _The Immense Journey_:
>
> I don't know the specifics of Behe's belief, except that he
> continually employs logical fallacies (argument from incredulity,

This is a formula that is often misapplied. I intend, by the way, to
return to Harshman's attempts to spin-doctor Minnich's assault on this
formula.


> flawed analogies, false dichotomies)

Would you mind giving me some examples of this in Behe's writing?

> in the service of "things-
> evolution-could-not-have-done"

...in the available time period, at least with better than .01%
probability. Here is one example I brought up on another thread, in
another debate with Harshman to which I will return.

If abiogenesis actually took place on earth, the protein takeover took
a scant half a billion years after earth became hospitable towards
life as we know it. And yet in none of the three domains has the
ribosome dispensed with any of the rRNA molecules that could easily
have been replaced in the remaining 3 billion years -- six times what
it took to replace practically all the ribozymes with protein enzymes!

To me, that is evidence for directed panspermia, specifically for what
I call "the Throomian sub-hypothesis" and maybe also "the Golian sub-
hypothesis."

> rhetoric. At one time he believed in
> and argued for front-loading, as far as I know he continues to argue
> for the need for transcendental intervention.

Excuse me, I can't remember what "front-loading" means in this
context. But his arguments do point strongly towards a belief in
supernatural intervention on his part.

Peter Nyikos

[Robert Camp]

On Apr 24, 2:30 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 7:35 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 23, 1:41 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> ...and so on, back and forth, between Robert and myself.
>
> > > Do you include deism, which says that God took no further interest in
> > > the universe after creating it at the instant of the big bang?
>
> > Not usually, but I can accept that a case could be made for doing so.
> > Like many sociological labels, "creationist" seems to lend itself to
> > broad interpretation, depending upon who's doing the interpreting.
> > Part of that has to do with connotations one assigns to the label in
> > question. For example, I don't think "creationist" need always carry
> > negative implications, but I have to admit I almost always use it that
> > way and am still trying to train myself to adopt different habits of
> > usage.
>
> This is a very laudable undertaking, and I hope you continue your
> efforts in this direction.
>
> > This is especially difficult because I have always seen
> > "creationist" as more of a label for oppressive behavior (assault on
> > science and education) than for an apolitical personal belief about
> > origins.
>
> I think your parenthetical comment is a little extreme.

You may be right, but I don't think so.

That the assault is very is upon science is inarguable. Regarding
education, if you wished to suggest that I specify "science"
education, I would say to you that efforts over the years regarding
sex education (the very silly "Just say no" campaign comes to mind)
and those in Texas and elsewhere to revise American history
(especially the religious perspective of the Founders) suggest that I
need not do so. There is a very real attempt by the extreme religious
right to introduce and teach their own sets of facts in various areas
of pubic and pedagogical discourse. It is only at first glance that
movements like Creationism seem to be limited in scope to things like
evolutionary biology.

> The assault
> is on evolution and abiogenesis.  And for the latter, there is zero
> evidence that it took place on earth, in contrast to panspermia.

Well, of course you've got that exactly backwards. But in a similar
vein, I'll just note that there is zero evidence that your conception
took place on earth, in contrast to the some-other-universe
hypothesis.

> Of course, panspermia is not something the creationists have
> embraced.  But assaults on rote "arguments"  of the  "Exaptor of the
> Gaps" variety for abiogenesis can hardly be classified as assaults on
> either science or education.

And that would have some relevance if anyone had suggested that
panspermia could be considered a variant of creationism.

> As I've told Harshman on this thread,
> "Exaptor of the Gaps" generally serves as a science-stopper, and the
> person who has gone most beyond it AFAIK is the believing Roman
> Catholic, Kenneth Miller.

Challenge what you consider to be bad arguments all you want. I've
seen enough of your argumentation not to take for granted that there's
any more to this "Exaptor of the Gaps" business than there was to your
previous "Atheist of the Gaps."

> > > > Here in t.o people understand, for the most part, that ID is a part of
> > > > that continuum, and is rightly termed creationism.
>
> > > For what reason?
>
> > Because the ID movement was born of conventional creationism,
>
> AFAIK it was Behe who pointed the movement in a scientific direction
> (although he hasn't gone far enough in that direction) and he is
> hardly a conventional creationist.  His Roman Catholicism functions a
> little differently than that of Miller, but far differently from that
> of fundies on the issue of what God did when.

No one disputes that.

> > makes
> > common cause with YE and OE creationists,
>
> Anti-atheism does make strange bedfellows.  But then, so do atheism
> and pragmatism.

I don't get the relevance. We're not talking about atheism and anti-
atheism, we're talking about creationism and science.

> >employs common political tactics,
>
> Behe and Minnich, the two people in the ID movement whom I take
> seriously, aren't into political tactics.

I assume this means you've never seen him talk. I have several times,
and although I'm willing to grant he's not as into the p.r. shtick as
guys like Meyer and Luskin, he's certainly no political shrinking
violet.

> Both used Dover more as a
> bully pulpit than as an effort to exonerate the Dover school board
> from the serious charges which the Order of the Court actually
> counteracted.

And both testified for which side, again?

> > and indulges in quite a few overlapping rhetorical
> > strategies. And though I cannot offer numbers as evidence, I think
> > it's probable that most ID proponents are actually YE or OE
> > creationists.
>
> This much could well be true.  It does not, however, mean that they do
> not follow the methodology of science in their papers and conference
> addresses.

No, it doesn't. However, those papers that ID guys have published that
are actually science have nothing to do with ID, and those papers that
actually are about ID (Meyer 2004, ?) are not scientific.

> > > > By the same token
> > > > we also understand that there is a broad spectrum of creationism
> > > > represented just in the list of the DI's Center for Science and
> > > > Culture fellows (a fair depiction of the state of ID) which runs from
> > > > the young-earth perspective of Paul Nelson to the more inclusive-of-
> > > > science but still creationist Behe.
>
> > > I take it you assume Behe believes in common descent from prokaryotes,
> > > with frequent divine tweaking of genomes to produce effects like what
> > > Loren Eiseley mused about in _The Immense Journey_:
>
> > I don't know the specifics of Behe's belief, except that he
> > continually employs logical fallacies (argument from incredulity,
>
> This is a formula that is often misapplied.  I intend, by the way, to
> return to Harshman's attempts to spin-doctor Minnich's assault on this
> formula.

> > flawed analogies, false dichotomies)
>
> Would you mind giving me some examples of this in Behe's writing?

I would not mind. But it will take more effort than I usually spend on
a t.o post. So it could be a while.

> > in the service of "things-
> > evolution-could-not-have-done"
>
> ...in the available time period, at least with better than .01%
> probability.  Here is one example I brought up on another thread, in
> another debate with Harshman to which I will return.
>
> If abiogenesis actually took place on earth, the protein takeover took
> a scant half a billion years after earth became hospitable towards
> life as we know it.  And yet in none of the three domains has the
> ribosome dispensed with any of the rRNA molecules that could easily
> have been replaced in the remaining 3 billion years -- six times what
> it took to replace practically all the ribozymes with protein enzymes!
>
> To me, that is evidence for directed panspermia, specifically for what
> I call "the Throomian sub-hypothesis" and maybe also "the Golian sub-
> hypothesis."

To me, it sounds like a wooly argument from ignorance. I don't know
the particulars of why you expect ribosomal rnas to have been
replaced, but I'm always willing to put my money on parsimony rather
than incredulity.

> > rhetoric. At one time he believed in
> > and argued for front-loading, as far as I know he continues to argue
> > for the need for transcendental intervention.
>
> Excuse me, I can't remember what "front-loading" means in this
> context.  But his arguments do point strongly towards a belief in
> supernatural intervention on his part.

"Front-loading" was perhaps more popular a few years ago than now. It
was a fancy shared by an ID sympathizer with the pseudonym of Mike
Gene. The point was that all the requisite genetic information for the
evolution and dispersion of life was somehow loaded into one or a few
original common ancestors. It never made much sense.

RLC

[Robert Camp]

Though one would hope not at the same time. (Of course that should
have been "public.")

[pnyikos]

On Apr 24, 7:19 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 24, 2:30 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > On Apr 23, 7:35 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 23, 1:41 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > ...and so on, back and forth, between Robert and myself.
>
> > > > Do you include deism, which says that God took no further interest in
> > > > the universe after creating it at the instant of the big bang?
>
> > > Not usually, but I can accept that a case could be made for doing so.
> > > Like many sociological labels, "creationist" seems to lend itself to
> > > broad interpretation, depending upon who's doing the interpreting.
> > > Part of that has to do with connotations one assigns to the label in
> > > question. For example, I don't think "creationist" need always carry
> > > negative implications, but I have to admit I almost always use it that
> > > way and am still trying to train myself to adopt different habits of
> > > usage.
>
> > This is a very laudable undertaking, and I hope you continue your
> > efforts in this direction.
>
> > > This is especially difficult because I have always seen
> > > "creationist" as more of a label for oppressive behavior (assault on
> > > science and education) than for an apolitical personal belief about
> > > origins.
>
> > I think your parenthetical comment is a little extreme.
>
> You may be right, but I don't think so.
>
> That the assault is very is upon science is inarguable.

Oh, really?

Have you seen any attempts by school boards to inject YEC
interpretations of astronomical phenomena, like the light from distant
galaxies not proving that the universe is billions of years old?

Have you seen any attempts by school boards to inject YEC
interpretations of geological phenomena, like the radioactive decay of
uranium, etc. indicating an earth billions of years old?

I haven't. In fact, I seriously doubt that YECs would want to rock
the YEC-OEC boat in such ways.

And so, we are talking only about certain aspects of biology,
specifically having to do with evolution and abiogenesis -- aspects
blithely ignored by people in recombinant DNA research and
development, since they even graft prokaryote genes into eukaryote
genomes.

Where's the outcry from what creationists call "evolutionists" against
this kind of R&D?

> education, if you wished to suggest that I specify "science"
> education, I would say to you that efforts over the years regarding
> sex education (the very silly "Just say no" campaign comes to mind)

That's got nothing to do with creationism, and it worked very well
with drugs, don't you think?

> and those in Texas and elsewhere to revise American history
> (especially the religious perspective of the Founders)

Just WHO is doing more revising here? What percentage of the signers
of the Declaration of Independence were deists or agnostics or
atheists, do you reckon?

> suggest that I
> need not do so. There is a very real attempt by the extreme religious
> right to introduce and teach their own sets of facts

...as there is by the extreme anti-religious left, including the
dishonest tactics of Sebelius wrt "contraception".

> in various areas
> of pubic and pedagogical discourse. It is only at first glance that
> movements like Creationism seem to be limited in scope to things like
> evolutionary biology.

How did the topic between us suddenly get broadened to "movements
like" creationism? Granted, I've been talking about "movements like"
naturalism -- including Lysenkoism and Stalinism -- to Harshman, but
you talked specifically about the alleged creationist attack on
science and education up there.

> > The assault
> > is on evolution and abiogenesis.  And for the latter, there is zero
> > evidence that it took place on earth, in contrast to panspermia.
>
> Well, of course you've got that exactly backwards.

Well, of course, I don't: there has never been any evidence that
abiogenesis took place ON EARTH; pointing to early earth organisms
simply begs the question.

Admittedly, my "evidence" for directed panspermia is very indirect,
mathematical/statistical primarily, plus some empirical data that
suggests that the spontaneous emergence of life as we know it
(complete with protein enzymes and a genetic code) is a great rarity.

> But in a similar
> vein, I'll just note that there is zero evidence that your conception
> took place on earth, in contrast to the some-other-universe
> hypothesis.

This "issue" is a farce, as opposed to the serious scientific issue of
directed panspermia. Don't you even know that it is the brainchild of
a Nobel Laureate in biochemistry and another distinguished biochemist?

Remainder deleted, to be dealt with later. Duty calls again.

Peter Nyikos

[Robert Camp]

Yes really. Your comments below interpret my parenthetical comment as
an attempt to tar creationists with the brush of sex education denial
and historical revisionism. Had you read to the end before responding
you would have noticed that I broadened the discussion to creationism
and movements like creationism. The point is really that there is
plenty of overlap in proponents and tactics because these things all
derive from the same source, hard-line religious belief.

> Have you seen any attempts by school boards to inject YEC
> interpretations of astronomical phenomena, like the light from distant
> galaxies not proving that the universe is billions of years old?
>
> Have you seen any attempts by school boards to inject YEC
> interpretations of geological phenomena, like the radioactive decay of
> uranium, etc. indicating an earth billions of years old?
>
> I haven't.  In fact, I seriously doubt that YECs would want to rock
> the YEC-OEC boat in such ways.
>
> And so, we are talking only about certain aspects of biology,
> specifically having to do with evolution and abiogenesis --  aspects
> blithely ignored by people in recombinant DNA research and
> development, since they even graft prokaryote genes into eukaryote
> genomes.
>
> Where's the outcry from what creationists call "evolutionists" against
> this kind of R&D?

Assuming this sentence is grammatically correct, I cannot figure out
what it is you're asking. Why should there be an outcry from
evolutionists about that kind of research?

> > education, if you wished to suggest that I specify "science"
> > education, I would say to you that efforts over the years regarding
> > sex education (the very silly "Just say no" campaign comes to mind)
>
> That's got nothing to do with creationism, and it worked very well
> with drugs, don't you think?

I can only hope you're joking.

> > and those in Texas and elsewhere to revise American history
> > (especially the religious perspective of the Founders)
>
> Just WHO is doing more revising here?  What percentage of the signers
> of the Declaration of Independence were deists or agnostics or
> atheists, do you reckon?

I think you should familiarize yourself with this issue before
commenting. As far as I can tell, your question is irrelevant to the
activities of the Texas State Board of Education, David Barton, and
the NCBC, among others.

> > suggest that I
> > need not do so. There is a very real attempt by the extreme religious
> > right to introduce and teach their own sets of facts
>
> ...as there is by the extreme anti-religious left, including the
> dishonest tactics of Sebelius wrt "contraception".

Really? What changes is Sebelius trying to make to public school
curricula? What books is she writing and publishing that distort and
revise historical fact? From which concepts that clash with her
beliefs is she trying to shield impressionable children.

> > in various areas
> > of pubic and pedagogical discourse. It is only at first glance that
> > movements like Creationism seem to be limited in scope to things like
> > evolutionary biology.
>
> How did the topic between us suddenly get broadened to "movements
> like" creationism?   Granted, I've been talking about "movements like"
> naturalism  -- including Lysenkoism and Stalinism -- to Harshman, but
> you talked specifically about the alleged creationist attack on
> science and education up there.

As I said, it helps to read through to the end of a paragraph. I was
obviously making a sociological connection based upon how I said I
interpreted the label "creationism" (assault on science and
education), suggesting that there was important and substantial
overlap with other religious campaigns.

> > > The assault
> > > is on evolution and abiogenesis.  And for the latter, there is zero
> > > evidence that it took place on earth, in contrast to panspermia.
>
> > Well, of course you've got that exactly backwards.
>
> Well, of course, I don't: there has never been any evidence that
> abiogenesis took place ON EARTH; pointing to early earth organisms
> simply begs the question.

Don't be silly. It doesn't beg the question any more than pointing to
your participation in this group begs the question of whether you were
born on this planet or not. There is simply no good reason to think
otherwise. Oh, I can come up with plenty of suggestions for why you
might have come from another universe, but none of them are worth
considering seriously. And to hang my hat on the argument that I am
aware of no available evidence that proves you *were* born on earth,
would be to foolishly lean on an argument from ignorance.

You may rejoin that you're not asking for "proof," to which I would
answer that while you may not be doing so directly, your disregard for
all of the circumstantial evidence available for earthly abiogenesis
(in favor of a flight of fancy) makes clear that this is functionally
what is happening.

> Admittedly, my "evidence" for directed panspermia is very indirect,
> mathematical/statistical primarily, plus some empirical data that
> suggests that the spontaneous emergence of life as we know it
> (complete with protein enzymes and a genetic code) is a great rarity.

Sounds pretty much like an exercise in confirmation bias to me.

What is your explanation for the observation that this idea has so
entirely underwhelmed those with as much or more relevant expertise
and education?

> > But in a similar
> > vein, I'll just note that there is zero evidence that your conception
> > took place on earth, in contrast to the some-other-universe
> > hypothesis.
>
> This "issue" is a farce,

Of course it is. It is an analogy that fulfills the dual purposes of
drawing attention to a rhetorical fallacy, and parody.

> as opposed to the serious scientific issue of
> directed panspermia.  Don't you even know that it is the brainchild of
> a Nobel Laureate in biochemistry and another distinguished biochemist?

Don't you even know about all of the Nobel Laureates and distinguished
biochemists who think panspermia is a waste of time? (I accept your
assertion that you're not a creationist, but you've got to know that
argument was straight out of a creationist handbook.)

I don't care if panspermia is the brainchild of Lex Luthor, an
argument from incredulity is still an argument from incredulity.

RLC

[pnyikos]

This is my second reply to this post by Camp.

On Apr 24, 7:19 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 24, 2:30 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > On Apr 23, 7:35 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 23, 1:41 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > Of course, panspermia is not something the creationists have
> > embraced.  But assaults on rote "arguments"  of the  "Exaptor of the
> > Gaps" variety for abiogenesis can hardly be classified as assaults on
> > either science or education.

> And that would have some relevance if anyone had suggested that
> panspermia could be considered a variant of creationism.

Abiogenesis is an issue which bears on directed panspermia, but
criticism of arguments for it is legitimate even if it comes from
creationists. To claims otherwise is to indulge in a pure *ad
hominem* fallacy.

> > As I've told Harshman on this thread,
> > "Exaptor of the Gaps" generally serves as a science-stopper, and the
> > person who has gone most beyond it AFAIK is the believing Roman
> > Catholic, Kenneth Miller.
>
> Challenge what you consider to be bad arguments all you want. I've
> seen enough of your argumentation not to take for granted that there's
> any more to this "Exaptor of the Gaps" business than there was to your
> previous "Atheist of the Gaps."

You show no sign of having read anything on the thread about the
protein takeover, where even Harshman had to concede that "exaptor of
the gaps" is almost the only argument for it having taken place in the
time frame (only half a billion years at most) in which it is supposed
to have taken place.

[Harshman might have another one of his senior moments over this last
statement of mine, but I can document what I am saying.]

Harshman: "When have I had a senior moment lately?" :-) :-)

> > > > > Here in t.o people understand, for the most part, that ID is a part of
> > > > > that continuum, and is rightly termed creationism.
>
> > > > For what reason?
>
> > > Because the ID movement was born of conventional creationism,
>
> > AFAIK it was Behe who pointed the movement in a scientific direction
> > (although he hasn't gone far enough in that direction) and he is
> > hardly a conventional creationist.  His Roman Catholicism functions a
> > little differently than that of Miller, but far differently from that
> > of fundies on the issue of what God did when.
>
> No one disputes that.
>
> > > makes
> > > common cause with YE and OE creationists,
>
> > Anti-atheism does make strange bedfellows.  But then, so do atheism
> > and pragmatism.
>
> I don't get the relevance. We're not talking about atheism and anti-
> atheism, we're talking about creationism and science.

You broadened the topic tremendously yourself in the first paragraph
of the post to which I am replying here. That, and the next two
paragraphs were what I addressed in my first reply, yesterday.

> > >employs common political tactics,
>
> > Behe and Minnich, the two people in the ID movement whom I take
> > seriously, aren't into political tactics.
>
> I assume this means you've never seen him talk. I have several times,
> and although I'm willing to grant he's not as into the p.r. shtick as
> guys like Meyer and Luskin, he's certainly no political shrinking
> violet.

What sort of political activism has he participated in? Note, I said
"political tactics," not "politically colored comments." This thread
is saturated with the latter sort of thing.

> > Both used Dover more as a
> > bully pulpit than as an effort to exonerate the Dover school board
> > from the serious charges which the Order of the Court actually
> > counteracted.
>
> And both testified for which side, again?

The defense, but for the most part that had nothing to do with the
actual charges against the Dover school board, the ones of which it
was found guilty and which were counteracted in the one-page Order of
the Court at the very end of the gargantuan Opinion of [the ACLU,
mostly, shared by] the Court.

> > > and indulges in quite a few overlapping rhetorical
> > > strategies. And though I cannot offer numbers as evidence, I think
> > > it's probable that most ID proponents are actually YE or OE
> > > creationists.
>
> > This much could well be true.  It does not, however, mean that they do
> > not follow the methodology of science in their papers and conference
> > addresses.
>
> No, it doesn't. However, those papers that ID guys have published that
> are actually science have nothing to do with ID, and those papers that
> actually are about ID (Meyer 2004, ?) are not scientific.

That's only if you work one side of the street assiduously by saying
that a host of experiments by Minnich that confirmed the Irreducible
Complexity (IC) of the bacterial flagellum had nothing to do with ID.

Meanwhile, a lot of anti-ID people in talk.origins and elsewhere are
working the other side of the street by conflating IC with ID.

> > > > > By the same token
> > > > > we also understand that there is a broad spectrum of creationism
> > > > > represented just in the list of the DI's Center for Science and
> > > > > Culture fellows (a fair depiction of the state of ID) which runs from
> > > > > the young-earth perspective of Paul Nelson to the more inclusive-of-
> > > > > science but still creationist Behe.
>
> > > > I take it you assume Behe believes in common descent from prokaryotes,
> > > > with frequent divine tweaking of genomes to produce effects like what
> > > > Loren Eiseley mused about in _The Immense Journey_:
>
> > > I don't know the specifics of Behe's belief, except that he
> > > continually employs logical fallacies (argument from incredulity,
>
> > This is a formula that is often misapplied.  I intend, by the way, to
> > return to Harshman's attempts to spin-doctor Minnich's assault on this
> > formula.
> > > flawed analogies, false dichotomies)
>
> > Would you mind giving me some examples of this in Behe's writing?
>
> I would not mind. But it will take more effort than I usually spend on
> a t.o post. So it could be a while.

That's perfectly OK.

> > > in the service of "things-
> > > evolution-could-not-have-done"
>
> > ...in the available time period, at least with better than .01%
> > probability.  Here is one example I brought up on another thread, in
> > another debate with Harshman to which I will return.
>
> > If abiogenesis actually took place on earth, the protein takeover took
> > a scant half a billion years after earth became hospitable towards
> > life as we know it.  And yet in none of the three domains has the
> > ribosome dispensed with any of the rRNA molecules that could easily
> > have been replaced in the remaining 3 billion years -- six times what
> > it took to replace practically all the ribozymes with protein enzymes!

Did you miss the words "practically all"?

> > To me, that is evidence for directed panspermia, specifically for what
> > I call "the Throomian sub-hypothesis" and maybe also "the Golian sub-
> > hypothesis."
>
> To me, it sounds like a wooly argument from ignorance.

Are you claiming there is something special about the ribosome that
was not shared by the hundreds of ribozymes that did get replaced
according to the prevailing theory?

"el cid" certainly didn't think so. He thought that he, unaided by
any Nobel Laureates, could cook up a protein replacement for the
ribosome if he just had five more years to spare.

Alas, he didn't even have five months to live at the time he wrote
that.

> I don't know
> the particulars of why you expect ribosomal rnas to have been
> replaced,

This all but confirms my suspicion that you never looked at the
"Exaptor of the Gaps" argument I had with Harshman on the protein
takeover thread.

> but I'm always willing to put my money on parsimony rather
> than incredulity.

Ah, parsimony. Are you claiming the following?

Mother Earth did it, this I know
For Ockham's Razor tells me so.

If so, let me remind you that Ockham's Razor has to take ALL available
evidence into account, and part of that evidence is the very
suggestive contrast I referred to above.

As for "incredulity", I submit that what we are really seeing here is
an argument from personal credulity by you. You've been conditioned
throughout through most of your life to think that the case for
homegrown abiogenesis is extremely strong. But you can't give a
coherent reason for why you think that, can you?

> > > rhetoric. At one time he believed in
> > > and argued for front-loading, as far as I know he continues to argue
> > > for the need for transcendental intervention.

Behe never believed in front-loading, and never tried to argue for
it. It was a *Gedankenexperiment* he did in DBB just to illustrate
how accepting the conclusion "design" does not NECESSARILY entail
accepting that the designer was supernatural.

> > Excuse me, I can't remember what "front-loading" means in this
> > context.  But his arguments do point strongly towards a belief in
> > supernatural intervention on his part.
>
> "Front-loading" was perhaps more popular a few years ago than now. It
> was a fancy shared by an ID sympathizer with the pseudonym of Mike
> Gene. The point was that all the requisite genetic information for the
> evolution and dispersion of life was somehow loaded into one or a few
> original common ancestors. It never made much sense.

Thanks for explaining.

Peter Nyikos

[Robert Camp]

On Apr 27, 2:41 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> This is my second reply to this post by Camp.
>
> On Apr 24, 7:19 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 24, 2:30 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Apr 23, 7:35 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 23, 1:41 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > Of course, panspermia is not something the creationists have
> > > embraced.  But assaults on rote "arguments"  of the  "Exaptor of the
> > > Gaps" variety for abiogenesis can hardly be classified as assaults on
> > > either science or education.
> > And that would have some relevance if anyone had suggested that
> > panspermia could be considered a variant of creationism.
>
> Abiogenesis is an issue which bears on directed panspermia, but
> criticism of arguments for it is legitimate even if it comes from
> creationists.  To claims otherwise is to indulge in a pure *ad
> hominem* fallacy.

Please try to remain connected to the discussion. Criticism of really
bad film-making is also relevant if it comes from creationists - *if*
we're discussing movies. But in those cases their creationism is
irrelevant, just as it is in the case they comment on panspermia.

You sure do drift far afield.

> > > As I've told Harshman on this thread,
> > > "Exaptor of the Gaps" generally serves as a science-stopper, and the
> > > person who has gone most beyond it AFAIK is the believing Roman
> > > Catholic, Kenneth Miller.
>
> > Challenge what you consider to be bad arguments all you want. I've
> > seen enough of your argumentation not to take for granted that there's
> > any more to this "Exaptor of the Gaps" business than there was to your
> > previous "Atheist of the Gaps."
>
> You show no sign of having read anything on the thread about the
> protein takeover, where even Harshman had to concede that "exaptor of
> the gaps" is almost the only argument for it having taken place in the
> time frame (only half a billion years at most) in which it is supposed
> to have taken place.

I've read very little of it, you're correct. Why is that? Because I
read a small percentage of posts in this group and I certainly don't
read all of yours. This means that when you and I are having a
discussion, it's best if you try to remember what that discussion is
about (I was asking how panspermia was inconvenient for atheism) and
try not to digress onto other pet subjects, reference different
threads, or mention past grievances.

<snip>

> > > >employs common political tactics,
>
> > > Behe and Minnich, the two people in the ID movement whom I take
> > > seriously, aren't into political tactics.
>
> > I assume this means you've never seen him talk. I have several times,
> > and although I'm willing to grant he's not as into the p.r. shtick as
> > guys like Meyer and Luskin, he's certainly no political shrinking
> > violet.
>
> What sort of political activism has he participated in?  Note, I said
> "political tactics," not "politically colored comments."  This thread
> is saturated with the latter sort of thing.

I'm not talking about political activism. And I was using "political"
to distinguish ID public relations rhetoric from discussion of actual
scientific and philosophical positions. It was for want of a better
word. Substitute propaganda, specious reasoning, sophistry, special
pleading, or some equivalent synonym if you like.

<snip>

> > > > and indulges in quite a few overlapping rhetorical
> > > > strategies. And though I cannot offer numbers as evidence, I think
> > > > it's probable that most ID proponents are actually YE or OE
> > > > creationists.
>
> > > This much could well be true.  It does not, however, mean that they do
> > > not follow the methodology of science in their papers and conference
> > > addresses.
>
> > No, it doesn't. However, those papers that ID guys have published that
> > are actually science have nothing to do with ID, and those papers that
> > actually are about ID (Meyer 2004, ?) are not scientific.
>
> That's only if you work one side of the street assiduously by saying
> that a host of experiments by Minnich that confirmed the Irreducible
> Complexity (IC) of the bacterial flagellum had nothing to do with ID.
>
> Meanwhile, a lot of anti-ID people in talk.origins and elsewhere are
> working the other side of the street by conflating IC with ID.

If you think those two things are not irrevocably entwined, I would
have to agree with you. But I would also have to note that this is
another place where you must part company with virtually all of ID-dom
(including Behe, before he had to revise his problematic definition).

<snip>

> > but I'm always willing to put my money on parsimony rather
> > than incredulity.
>
> Ah, parsimony.  Are you claiming the following?
>
>    Mother Earth did it, this I know
>    For Ockham's Razor tells me so.

I know you think this is clever, but please consider my humble
suggestion that you not repeat it so often. It's enough just to make
your point.

> If so, let me remind you that Ockham's Razor has to take ALL available
> evidence into account, and part of that evidence is the very
> suggestive contrast I referred to above.

No, that's not part of anything Ockham's Razor need consider. All this
kind of approach to parsimony requires is that you not posit
multiplicities unnecessarily. If in fact your "very suggestive
contrast" is something real, then all it means is that there are
things we do not yet know (for which there may be many different
possibilities of explanation, some of which, including the eventual
truth, may well be more complicated than others). But to leap from
such an observation and posit something so wildly unnecessary (and
that is the key word here) as intentional galaxy-spanning spreading of
nascent life by billions-year-removed-sentient-world-seeding-species
is a huge departure from equanimity.

As I said, to lean upon gaps in biological explanations for rhetorical
cover for this argument is classic logical fallacy.

> As for "incredulity", I submit that what we are really seeing here is
> an argument from personal credulity by you.  You've been conditioned
> throughout through most of your life  to think that the case for
> homegrown abiogenesis is extremely strong.  But you can't give a
> coherent reason for why you think that, can you?

Of course I can. Even leaving aside the interesting potential
explanations (RNA world, iron-sulfur world, chiral minerals,
proteinoid world, thioester world, PAH world, self-organization,
ancient lipids, sea-surface aerosols) and the research that's been
done so far (Gunter Wachtershauser, Jack Szostak, Robert Hazen,
Stanley Miller, Alexandre Oparin, Leslie Orgel, Stuart Kauffman,
Thomas Gold) I need only say this - There is *no* reason that I should
look beyond the natural processes that occur here on this planet and
in its solar environs for explanation of life on earth.

Now there is some small justification for believing that critical
components of life, perhaps even fully formed microbial analogues,
were rained onto the early earth out of loose materials in near
orbits. I could even entertain the notion that some stray asteroid or
comet, in transit over galactic distances for untold eons, might have
happened to accidentally seed life here (though we're clearly now in
the realm of undisciplined speculation). But an inference to an
ancient-alien world-seeding yarn is utterly extraneous, and a complete
disregard of parsimony.

RLC

<snip>

[John Harshman]

pnyikos wrote:

> You show no sign of having read anything on the thread about the
> protein takeover, where even Harshman had to concede that "exaptor of
> the gaps" is almost the only argument for it having taken place in the
> time frame (only half a billion years at most) in which it is supposed
> to have taken place.
>
> [Harshman might have another one of his senior moments over this last
> statement of mine, but I can document what I am saying.]

Please do, as I have indeed forgotten that concession.

> Harshman: "When have I had a senior moment lately?" :-) :-)

You may be right, but it would be nice for you to demonstrate that.

[Friar Broccoli]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:41:19 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

.

>You show no sign of having read anything on the thread about the
>protein takeover, where even Harshman had to concede that "exaptor of
>the gaps" is almost the only argument for it having taken place in the
>time frame (only half a billion years at most) in which it is supposed
>to have taken place.
>
>[Harshman might have another one of his senior moments over this last
>statement of mine, but I can document what I am saying.]

I assume you are referring to this and surrounding messages:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/50e6e33a42bda4c9

>
>Harshman: "When have I had a senior moment lately?" :-) :-)

I have no idea what this discussion is about. I'm just burning time.

--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views

[pnyikos]

On Apr 27, 7:20 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 27, 2:41 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Apr 24, 7:19 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 24, 2:30 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 23, 7:35 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 23, 1:41 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > Of course, panspermia is not something the creationists have
> > > > embraced.  But assaults on rote "arguments"  of the  "Exaptor of the
> > > > Gaps" variety for abiogenesis can hardly be classified as assaults on
> > > > either science or education.

Note that I am talking about assaults on the standard materialist
complacency about abiogenesis.

Your replies suggest that you do not know much about the Wedge
Doctrine. It's about undermining a materialist world-view, with
various forms of the Argument from Design being merely various means
to that end. They just unwisely decided to put more empasis on anti-
evolution than on anti-abiogenesis. But they do attack abiogenesis
too.

> > > And that would have some relevance if anyone had suggested that
> > > panspermia could be considered a variant of creationism.
>
> > Abiogenesis is an issue which bears on directed panspermia, but
> > criticism of arguments for it is legitimate even if it comes from
> > creationists.  To claims otherwise is to indulge in a pure *ad
> > hominem* fallacy.
>
> Please try to remain connected to the discussion.

I am. You seem not to realize that I was talking not of creationist
treatments of panspermia, but of abiogenesis.

>Criticism of really
> bad film-making is also relevant if it comes from creationists - *if*
> we're discussing movies.

False analogy, see above.

> But in those cases their creationism is
> irrelevant, just as it is in the case they comment on panspermia.

I haven't seen any creationist except Ray Martinez comment on
panspermia, and he is clueless about it. But that's not what I was
talking about.

> You sure do drift far afield.

...glass houses...stones.

> > > > As I've told Harshman on this thread,
> > > > "Exaptor of the Gaps" generally serves as a science-stopper, and the
> > > > person who has gone most beyond it AFAIK is the believing Roman
> > > > Catholic, Kenneth Miller.
>
> > > Challenge what you consider to be bad arguments all you want. I've
> > > seen enough of your argumentation not to take for granted that there's
> > > any more to this "Exaptor of the Gaps" business than there was to your
> > > previous "Atheist of the Gaps."
>
> > You show no sign of having read anything on the thread about the
> > protein takeover, where even Harshman had to concede that "exaptor of
> > the gaps" is almost the only argument for it having taken place in the
> > time frame (only half a billion years at most) in which it is supposed
> > to have taken place.
>
> I've read very little of it, you're correct. Why is that? Because I
> read a small percentage of posts in this group and I certainly don't
> read all of yours. This means that when you and I are having a
> discussion, it's best if you try to remember what that discussion is
> about (I was asking how panspermia was inconvenient for atheism)

This from someone who brought in sex education from out of nowhere.

Anyway, the simple answer to why it is inconvenient is that it makes
it harder to claim "Mother Earth did it easily" or even "could have
done it easily." And that, as I've told Harshman, is the first line
of defense of atheism, of which the most popular and "scientific" form
is materialism.


Continued in next reply.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Apr 27, 7:20 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 27, 2:41 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > This is my second reply to this post by Camp.
>
> > On Apr 24, 7:19 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 24, 2:30 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 23, 7:35 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Picking up where I left off in my first reply:

<snip>

> > > but I'm always willing to put my money on parsimony rather
> > > than incredulity.
>
> > Ah, parsimony. Are you claiming the following?
>
> > Mother Earth did it, this I know
> > For Ockham's Razor tells me so.
>
> I know you think this is clever, but please consider my humble
> suggestion that you not repeat it so often. It's enough just to make
> your point.

And yet, it looks as though I was right on target--or did my words set
you off on a tangent involving one popular formulation of Ockham's
Razor?

> > If so, let me remind you that Ockham's Razor has to take ALL available
> > evidence into account, and part of that evidence is the very
> > suggestive contrast I referred to above.
>
> No, that's not part of anything Ockham's Razor need consider. All this
> kind of approach to parsimony requires is that you not posit
> multiplicities unnecessarily.

"multiplicities" apparently refers to technological species, and I am
quite sympathetic to that idea. In fact, I believe there is a good
chance that we are the first such species in the whole universe, and
guess that the percentage is in double digits.

But I also think that there is an even better chance that the first
such species arose ca. 4 billion years ago, and that any other
(including ourselves) is derivative, the result of a massive directed
panspermia project such as we have the technology to start now-- not
that it would be advisable to do so at present.

The next bit refers to the contrast between an almost complete protein
takeover, seemingly in half a billion years, and the fact that the
ribosome is still largely made of RNA despite six times as much time
having elapsed:

> If in fact your "very suggestive
> contrast" is something real, then all it means is that there are
> things we do not yet know (for which there may be many different
> possibilities of explanation, some of which, including the eventual
> truth, may well be more complicated than others). But to leap from
> such an observation

That's not the main basis. The main basis was already outlined in
Crick and Orgel's paper in
Icarus 19 (1973) 341-346:
http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/SCBCCP.pdf

Keywords: "the theorem of detailed cosmic reversibility".

> and posit something so wildly unnecessary (and
> that is the key word here)

...but when you preface it with "wildly," you are begging the question
big-time.

> as intentional galaxy-spanning spreading of
> nascent life by billions-year-removed-sentient-world-seeding-species
> is a huge departure from equanimity.

Yet Crick and Orgel were quite equanimous about it. Have a look at
their paper, referenced above.

> As I said, to lean upon gaps in biological explanations for rhetorical
> cover for this argument is classic logical fallacy.

So you allege, yet you never really made a case for it, and I
responded to your *ipse dixit* as follows:

> > As for "incredulity", I submit that what we are really seeing here is
> > an argument from personal credulity by you. You've been conditioned
> > throughout through most of your life to think that the case for
> > homegrown abiogenesis is extremely strong. But you can't give a
> > coherent reason for why you think that, can you?
>
> Of course I can.

Then do so. You aren't doing it below, whether you realize it or not.

>Even leaving aside the interesting potential
> explanations (RNA world, iron-sulfur world, chiral minerals,
> proteinoid world, thioester world, PAH world, self-organization,
> ancient lipids, sea-surface aerosols)

Good of you to put the word "potential" in, because a plausible
scenario from Urey-Miller to the first prokaryote involving any of
these is still in the unforseeable future.

> and the research that's been
> done so far (Gunter Wachtershauser, Jack Szostak, Robert Hazen,
> Stanley Miller, Alexandre Oparin,

The best of these is like comparing a bow and arrow to a passenger
airplane. For that matter, did Oparin ever do any experiments in the
first place?

> Leslie Orgel,

Funny you should mention him, in the light of his co-authorship of
that Icarus article, but more especially because of this:

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

Almost two decades have passed, and there is still no experiment that
produces a single nucleotide under what is generally recognized as
"early earth" conditions.

> Stuart Kauffman,
> Thomas Gold) I need only say this - There is *no* reason that I should
> look beyond the natural processes that occur here on this planet and
> in its solar environs for explanation of life on earth.

How much do you know about biochemistry? I suspect the answer is
"very little," otherwise you wouldn't be so sure of this.

I've snipped some references to undirected panspermia a la Arrhenius-
Hoyle-Wickramasinghe. I haven't seen a convincing argument for it,
now that Hoyle's steady-state universe theory seems to have bit the
dust.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Apr 27, 7:27 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> pnyikos wrote:
> > You show no sign of having read anything on the thread about the
> > protein takeover, where even Harshman had to concede that "exaptor of
> > the gaps" is almost the only argument for it having taken place in the
> > time frame (only half a billion years at most) in which it is supposed
> > to have taken place.
>
> > [Harshman might have another one of his senior moments over this last
> > statement of mine, but I can document what I am saying.]
>
> Please do, as I have indeed forgotten that concession.

Friar Broccoli provided the link, less than an hour and a half after
you posted this request, in reply to the same post of mine to which
you are replying here. Click on it, lazybones.

> > Harshman: "When have I had a senior moment lately?"  :-)  :-)

Keywords: "purely hypothetical," with emphasis on "purely".

> You may be right, but it would be nice for you to demonstrate that.

Whatever "that" refers to, I've given you clues.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

And what does all this have to do with your claim that "the assault is
very on science"? THAT is what I addressed next:

> > Have you seen any attempts by school boards to inject YEC
> > interpretations of astronomical phenomena, like the light from distant
> > galaxies not proving that the universe is billions of years old?

<crickets chirping>

> > Have you seen any attempts by school boards to inject YEC
> > interpretations of geological phenomena, like the radioactive decay of
> > uranium, etc. indicating an earth billions of years old?

<crickets chirping>

> > I haven't.  In fact, I seriously doubt that YECs would want to rock
> > the YEC-OEC boat in such ways.
>
> > And so, we are talking only about certain aspects of biology,
> > specifically having to do with evolution and abiogenesis --  aspects
> > blithely ignored by people in recombinant DNA research and
> > development, since they even graft prokaryote genes into eukaryote
> > genomes.
>
> > Where's the outcry from what creationists call "evolutionists" against
> > this kind of R&D?
>
> Assuming this sentence is grammatically correct, I cannot figure out
> what it is you're asking. Why should there be an outcry from
> evolutionists about that kind of research?

For starters, each instance of that kind of R&D drives one more nail
into the coffin of Dobzhansky's slogan,
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

A lot of t.o. regulars were quite taken with that slogan in the
1990's. Have attitudes changed that much?

[Here I snipped a lot of talk having no apparent connection with "the
very assault on science." We can continue that line of talk another
time if you wish.]

> > > > The assault
> > > > is on evolution and abiogenesis.  And for the latter, there is zero
> > > > evidence that it took place on earth, in contrast to panspermia.
>
> > > Well, of course you've got that exactly backwards.
>
> > Well, of course, I don't: there has never been any evidence that
> > abiogenesis took place ON EARTH; pointing to early earth organisms
> > simply begs the question.
>
> Don't be silly. It doesn't beg the question any more than pointing to
> your participation in this group begs the question of whether you were
> born on this planet or not.

False analogy, made even more ridiculous below.

>There is simply no good reason to think
> otherwise. Oh, I can come up with plenty of suggestions for why you
> might have come from another universe,

I doubt that you are so kooky as to think that the transfer of
intelligent creatures from one universe to another is a recognized
part of contemporary physics.

On the other hand, directed panspermia is something that we already
have the technology to undertake. I've talked a good bit about it on
other threads. Keywords: Project Orion, Project Daedalus. [The
latter is a bit beyond what we are capable of, but I expect the
technological problems to be overcome well before it becomes of
interest to undertake a panspermy project.]

> You may rejoin that you're not asking for "proof," to which I would
> answer that while you may not be doing so directly, your disregard for
> all of the circumstantial evidence available for earthly abiogenesis

I have regarded it for years now, and nobody in talk.origins has been
able to make a case for that "circumstantial evidence" being the least
bit strong, despite numerous challenges by me.

> (in favor of a flight of fancy) makes clear that this is functionally
> what is happening.

as clear as mud.

> > Admittedly, my "evidence" for directed panspermia is very indirect,
> > mathematical/statistical primarily, plus some empirical data that
> > suggests that the spontaneous emergence of life as we know it
> > (complete with protein enzymes and a genetic code) is a great rarity.
>
> Sounds pretty much like an exercise in confirmation bias to me.

Your two cents' worth, give or take a couple of cents, is duly noted.

> What is your explanation for the observation that this idea has so
> entirely underwhelmed those with as much or more relevant expertise
> and education?
>

The explanation is that this observation is faulty AFAIK. If you
disagree, please cite a published argument against directed
panspermia, by a Nobel Laureate biochemist. [See below for why the
challenge is worded this way.]

> > > But in a similar
> > > vein, I'll just note that there is zero evidence that your conception
> > > took place on earth, in contrast to the some-other-universe
> > > hypothesis.
>
> > This "issue" is a farce,
>
> Of course it is. It is an analogy that fulfills the dual purposes of
> drawing attention to a rhetorical fallacy, and parody.

The fallacy is yours, and goes by the label "False analogy". See
above.

> > as opposed to the serious scientific issue of
> > directed panspermia.  Don't you even know that it is the brainchild of
> > a Nobel Laureate in biochemistry and another distinguished biochemist?

The one was Francis Crick, the other Leslie Orgel, whom you "cited" in
arguing for "Mother Earth Did it Easily" and I set you straight on.

> Don't you even know about all of the Nobel Laureates and distinguished
> biochemists who think panspermia is a waste of time?

No, and I doubt that you do either.

> (I accept your
> assertion that you're not a creationist, but you've got to know that
> argument was straight out of a creationist handbook.)

Maybe. Can you make me know it?

> I don't care if panspermia is the brainchild of Lex Luthor, an
> argument from incredulity is still an argument from incredulity.

And that's exactly what your argument against directed panspermy is,
except for it being also a fallacy of Appeal to Unidentified
Authority.

Can you remove the "Unidentified," at least?

Peter Nyikos

[Robert Camp]

On May 1, 1:21 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Apr 27, 7:20 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 27, 2:41 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Apr 24, 7:19 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 24, 2:30 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Apr 23, 7:35 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Apr 23, 1:41 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > Of course, panspermia is not something the creationists have
> > > > > embraced.  But assaults on rote "arguments"  of the  "Exaptor of the
> > > > > Gaps" variety for abiogenesis can hardly be classified as assaults on
> > > > > either science or education.
>
> Note that I am talking about assaults on the standard materialist
> complacency about abiogenesis.

That's pretty much a meaningless statement. It presumes, by way of
silly disparagement ("standard materialist complacency") that there is
some reasonable alternative position available. There is not.

Do you also bother to comment on the "standard materialist
complacency" about gravity, or the nature of dark matter, or the
geology of the earth's core, or why we sleep? Perhaps we should look
to the influence of aliens to illuminate these questions as well?

> Your replies suggest that you do not know much about the Wedge
> Doctrine.  It's about undermining a materialist world-view, with
> various forms of the Argument from Design being merely various means
> to that end.  They just unwisely decided to put more empasis on anti-
> evolution than on anti-abiogenesis.  But they do attack abiogenesis
> too.

Thanks for the lesson. Coming from someone who seems to know so little
of CSC ID, and has claimed that the Wedge has nothing to do with ID,
let's just say the source is well considered.

And would it be too much to ask that your comments be in reply to
something I said? Assuming, of course, you're expecting a response.

<snip>

> > > > > As I've told Harshman on this thread,
> > > > > "Exaptor of the Gaps" generally serves as a science-stopper, and the
> > > > > person who has gone most beyond it AFAIK is the believing Roman
> > > > > Catholic, Kenneth Miller.
>
> > > > Challenge what you consider to be bad arguments all you want. I've
> > > > seen enough of your argumentation not to take for granted that there's
> > > > any more to this "Exaptor of the Gaps" business than there was to your
> > > > previous "Atheist of the Gaps."
>
> > > You show no sign of having read anything on the thread about the
> > > protein takeover, where even Harshman had to concede that "exaptor of
> > > the gaps" is almost the only argument for it having taken place in the
> > > time frame (only half a billion years at most) in which it is supposed
> > > to have taken place.
>
> > I've read very little of it, you're correct. Why is that? Because I
> > read a small percentage of posts in this group and I certainly don't
> > read all of yours. This means that when you and I are having a
> > discussion, it's best if you try to remember what that discussion is
> > about (I was asking how panspermia was inconvenient for atheism)
>
> This from someone who brought in sex education from out of nowhere.
>
> Anyway, the simple answer to why it is inconvenient is that it makes
> it harder to claim "Mother Earth did it easily" or even  "could have
> done it easily."

You take great pains to disassociate yourself from creationists. I
would urge that you attempt the same with your rhetoric. "Mother Earth
did it easily" is a senseless and unworthy straw man along the lines
of your "standard materialist complacency." Try to recognize it for
what it is, a deprecation of the position you wish your opponents held
that makes you feel better about your own.

No one says "did it easily," nor does that qualification even matter.
It happened. We may not know how, or whether it was a fluke or near
certainty, but we don't need to in order to weigh your proposed set of
explanatory models. There is minuscule reason to believe it happened
anywhere but on the earth, and no reason whatsoever to believe it was
the result of a scheme generated beyond the Oort cloud by lonely,
aged, promiscuous aliens.

> And that, as I've told Harshman, is the first line
> of defense of atheism, of which the most popular and "scientific" form
> is materialism.

Yeah, well you go ahead and press your attack on that imaginary "line
of defense." Speaking as an atheist and a materialist, I don't expect
we'll be calling for reinforcements any time soon.

RLC

[John Harshman]

pnyikos wrote:
> On Apr 27, 7:27 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> pnyikos wrote:
>>> You show no sign of having read anything on the thread about the
>>> protein takeover, where even Harshman had to concede that "exaptor of
>>> the gaps" is almost the only argument for it having taken place in the
>>> time frame (only half a billion years at most) in which it is supposed
>>> to have taken place.
>>> [Harshman might have another one of his senior moments over this last
>>> statement of mine, but I can document what I am saying.]
>> Please do, as I have indeed forgotten that concession.
>
> Friar Broccoli provided the link, less than an hour and a half after
> you posted this request, in reply to the same post of mine to which
> you are replying here. Click on it, lazybones.

I did, but I don't see anything that's conceding what you say.

>>> Harshman: "When have I had a senior moment lately?" :-) :-)
>
> Keywords: "purely hypothetical," with emphasis on "purely".

You're responding to yourself; a senior moment in itself.

>> You may be right, but it would be nice for you to demonstrate that.
>
> Whatever "that" refers to, I've given you clues.

As usual, only helpless hints. "That" was the claim that I had to
concede blah blah blah. Which, it appears, is untrue. Your
documentation, which you couldn't be bothered to provide yourself, shows
nothing of the sort.

[Robert Camp]

On May 1, 1:47 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Apr 27, 7:20 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 27, 2:41 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > This is my second reply to this post by Camp.
>
> > > On Apr 24, 7:19 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 24, 2:30 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Apr 23, 7:35 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > but I'm always willing to put my money on parsimony rather
> > > > than incredulity.
>
> > > Ah, parsimony.  Are you claiming the following?
>
> > >    Mother Earth did it, this I know
> > >    For Ockham's Razor tells me so.
>
> > I know you think this is clever, but please consider my humble
> > suggestion that you not repeat it so often. It's enough just to make
> > your point.
>
> And yet, it looks as though I was right on target--or did my words set
> you off on a tangent involving one popular formulation of Ockham's
> Razor?

My point wasn't about whether you had a reasonable argument (you
don't, by the way), it was about self-editing.

> > > If so, let me remind you that Ockham's Razor has to take ALL available
> > > evidence into account, and part of that evidence is the very
> > > suggestive contrast I referred to above.
>
> > No, that's not part of anything Ockham's Razor need consider. All this
> > kind of approach to parsimony requires is that you not posit
> > multiplicities unnecessarily.
>
> "multiplicities" apparently refers to technological species,

That's one, others of which you go on to unnecessarily posit below.

I think "wildly," is, if anything, being generous.

> > as intentional galaxy-spanning spreading of
> > nascent life by billions-year-removed-sentient-world-seeding-species
> > is a huge departure from equanimity.
>
> Yet Crick and Orgel were quite equanimous about it.  Have a look at
> their paper, referenced above.
>
> > As I said, to lean upon gaps in biological explanations for rhetorical
> > cover for this argument is classic logical fallacy.
>
> So you allege, yet you never really made a case for it, and I
> responded to your *ipse dixit* as follows:
>
> > > As for "incredulity", I submit that what we are really seeing here is
> > > an argument from personal credulity by you.  You've been conditioned
> > > throughout through most of your life  to think that the case for
> > > homegrown abiogenesis is extremely strong.  But you can't give a
> > > coherent reason for why you think that, can you?
>
> > Of course I can.
>
> Then do so.  You aren't doing it below, whether you realize it or not.

Of course I am. You just have to look farther below.

> >Even leaving aside the interesting potential
> > explanations (RNA world, iron-sulfur world, chiral minerals,
> > proteinoid world, thioester world, PAH world, self-organization,
> > ancient lipids, sea-surface aerosols)
>
> Good of you to put the word "potential" in, because a plausible
> scenario from Urey-Miller to the first prokaryote involving any of
> these is still in the unforseeable future.

You seem to think this is a powerful observation. There is plenty of
scientific knowledge that is still in the future. Jumping from there
to seed-spreading aliens is a non-sequitur.

> > and the research that's been
> > done so far (Gunter Wachtershauser, Jack Szostak, Robert Hazen,
> > Stanley Miller, Alexandre Oparin,
>
> The best of these is like comparing a bow and arrow to a passenger
> airplane.

Really? What would be the "passenger airplane" in your analogy?

I know what I learned in BioChem and subsequent reading (none of which
I wasted on arguments for panspermia). So what? I need to know very
little physics to recognize that Gene Ray ("Time Cube") is making a
nutty argument. And it doesn't take a degree in medicine to understand
that homeopathy is balderdash.

The reasons your pet inference is wrong don't lie in the details of
biochemistry, they lie in lapses of reason.

RLC

[Robert Camp]

I was responding to your point about my parenthetical, which was
"assault on science and education."

> > > Have you seen any attempts by school boards to inject YEC
> > > interpretations of astronomical phenomena, like the light from distant
> > > galaxies not proving that the universe is billions of years old?
>
> <crickets chirping>
>
> > > Have you seen any attempts by school boards to inject YEC
> > > interpretations of geological phenomena, like the radioactive decay of
> > > uranium, etc. indicating an earth billions of years old?
>
> <crickets chirping>
>
> > > I haven't.  In fact, I seriously doubt that YECs would want to rock
> > > the YEC-OEC boat in such ways.
>
> > > And so, we are talking only about certain aspects of biology,
> > > specifically having to do with evolution and abiogenesis --  aspects
> > > blithely ignored by people in recombinant DNA research and
> > > development, since they even graft prokaryote genes into eukaryote
> > > genomes.
>
> > > Where's the outcry from what creationists call "evolutionists" against
> > > this kind of R&D?
>
> > Assuming this sentence is grammatically correct, I cannot figure out
> > what it is you're asking. Why should there be an outcry from
> > evolutionists about that kind of research?
>
> For starters, each instance of that kind of R&D drives one more nail
> into the coffin of Dobzhansky's slogan,
> "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

Why would you think that? Do you also think the existence of dogs and
bananas and in vitro fertilization drive similar nails?

> A lot of t.o. regulars were quite taken with that slogan in the
> 1990's.  Have attitudes changed that much?

You seem to be as bad at understanding evolutionist attitudes as you
are at summarizing atheist beliefs.

> [Here I snipped a lot of talk having no apparent connection with "the
> very assault on science."  We can continue that line of talk another
> time if you wish.]

No need. It's a silly meta-discussion that is irrelevant. But please
go on regurgitating my typo.

<huge snip>

> > I don't care if panspermia is the brainchild of Lex Luthor, an
> > argument from incredulity is still an argument from incredulity.
>
> And that's exactly what your argument against directed panspermy is,
> except for it being also a fallacy of Appeal to Unidentified
> Authority.

You don't seem to recognize the difference between an appeal to
authority (Crick) and a reliance upon consensus (a consensus of lack
of interest in this case).

No, I'm not going to go look for Nobel Laureates who've bothered to
think about panspermia. It's a fools errand and it's irrelevant. I
know you want to discuss this business seriously, but I simply can't
take it seriously, nor is it why I posted in this thread in the first
place. And come to think of it, after all these posts I still don't
know why you think panspermia is inconvenient for atheists.

You think you have a theory, I think you have a fantasy. I'm not
saying it's unscientific, just that it's uninteresting.

RLC

[Harry K]

On May 1, 1:47 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Apr 27, 7:20 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 27, 2:41 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > This is my second reply to this post by Camp.
>

Still at it I see.

"Abiogenesis happened. It just can't have happened on earth".

Weird.

Harry K

[pnyikos]

That's a weird strawman you put up there, all right.

The following words of mine seem to have gone over your head:

" In fact, I believe there is a good
chance that we are the first such species in the whole universe, and
guess that the percentage is in double digits.

"But I also think that there is an even better chance that the first
such species arose ca. 4 billion years ago, and that any other
(including ourselves) is derivative, the result of a massive directed
panspermia project such as we have the technology to start now-- not
that it would be advisable to do so at present."

Note that I am guessing that the probability that abiogenesis took
place here on earth is in double digits.

You may have been fooled by a lot of false claims that I am a
creationist, and therefore not have realized that I put the
probability of there being a supernatural creator at < 1%. That is
not enough to affect my "double digits" guess as far as purely
natural abiogenesis goes.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On May 1, 6:56 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 1, 1:21 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > On Apr 27, 7:20 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 27, 2:41 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 24, 7:19 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 24, 2:30 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > > On Apr 23, 7:35 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Apr 23, 1:41 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > > Of course, panspermia is not something the creationists have
> > > > > > embraced.  But assaults on rote "arguments"  of the  "Exaptor of the
> > > > > > Gaps" variety for abiogenesis can hardly be classified as assaults on
> > > > > > either science or education.
>
> > Note that I am talking about assaults on the standard materialist
> > complacency about abiogenesis.
>
> That's pretty much a meaningless statement.

False. I didn't say "position", I said "complacency".

> It presumes, by way of
> silly disparagement ("standard materialist complacency") that there is
> some reasonable alternative position available. There is not.

Materialists, of which are obviously one, typically share your
complacency about there being no reasonable alternative available.

Agnostics know better. And so it was wise of me to add
alt.agnosticism to the newsgroups.

> Do you also bother to comment on the "standard materialist
> complacency" about gravity, or the nature of dark matter, or the
> geology of the earth's core, or why we sleep?

No, but those things belong to the domain of science by almost
anyone's standards.

Are you under the delusion that materialism is something other than a
philosophy?

> Perhaps we should look
> to the influence of aliens to illuminate these questions as well?

Perhaps you should do something about that knee-jerk atheism of
yours. You would be able to converse with Christians, Jews, and
Muslims more easily.

> > Your replies suggest that you do not know much about the Wedge
> > Doctrine.  It's about undermining a materialist world-view, with
> > various forms of the Argument from Design being merely various means
> > to that end.  They just unwisely decided to put more empasis on anti-
> > evolution than on anti-abiogenesis.  But they do attack abiogenesis
> > too.
>
> Thanks for the lesson.

Your idiotic ideas about it having to do with an attack on science
shows that it was necessary. Perhaps almost as necessary as reminding
you that materialism is a philosophy.

> Coming from someone who seems to know so little
> of CSC ID, and has claimed that the Wedge has nothing to do with ID,

I haven't the foggiest idea what statements of mine this is supposed
to refer to.

Do you?

> let's just say the source is well considered.
>
> And would it be too much to ask that your comments be in reply to
> something I said? Assuming, of course, you're expecting a response.

When speaking of the Wedge, I was alluding to some things you said in
other posts. Are you usually this afflicted with tunnel vision?

>
>
> > > > > > As I've told Harshman on this thread,
> > > > > > "Exaptor of the Gaps" generally serves as a science-stopper, and the
> > > > > > person who has gone most beyond it AFAIK is the believing Roman
> > > > > > Catholic, Kenneth Miller.
>
> > > > > Challenge what you consider to be bad arguments all you want. I've
> > > > > seen enough of your argumentation not to take for granted that there's
> > > > > any more to this "Exaptor of the Gaps" business than there was to your
> > > > > previous "Atheist of the Gaps."
>
> > > > You show no sign of having read anything on the thread about the
> > > > protein takeover, where even Harshman had to concede that "exaptor of
> > > > the gaps" is almost the only argument for it having taken place in the
> > > > time frame (only half a billion years at most) in which it is supposed
> > > > to have taken place.
>
> > > I've read very little of it, you're correct. Why is that? Because I
> > > read a small percentage of posts in this group and I certainly don't
> > > read all of yours. This means that when you and I are having a
> > > discussion, it's best if you try to remember what that discussion is
> > > about (I was asking how panspermia was inconvenient for atheism)
>
> > This from someone who brought in sex education from out of nowhere.

By the way, yesterday I revisited some newsgroups that I hadn't
visited in over two months, including "the Usenet newsgroup from
hell." There I alluded to you without mentioning you by name:

________begin excerpt__________________

> I think Planned Parenthood addresses many such issues.

Your two cents' worth, give or take a couple of cents, is duly noted.

> Most of their
> work is prevention and health issues.

But a hefty fraction (lately, a majority) of its total clinic income
is due to abortion. See:

http://www.stopp.org/pdfs/Analysis_of_PPFA_2010_Annual_Report.pdf

> Empowering girls to just say know,

Was "know" a typo, or intentional?

Funny coincidence: in talk.origins, one anti-ID zealot tried to tar
creationists with "the very silly `Just say no' campaign."

Would you be willing to set him straight on just how important it is
to empower women to "just say no"?
============ end of excerpt

[pnyikos]

On May 1, 6:56 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 1, 1:21 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > On Apr 27, 7:20 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[as to why directed panspermia is inconvenient to atheists:]

> > Anyway, the simple answer to why it is inconvenient is that it makes
> > it harder to claim "Mother Earth did it easily" or even "could have
> > done it easily."
>
> You take great pains to disassociate yourself from creationists.

I'm opposed to them, but there are a number of people here who are
convinced that they know that I am a creationist.

> I would urge that you attempt the same with your rhetoric. "Mother Earth
> did it easily" is a senseless and unworthy straw man

Not a strewman at all: it's a reminder that materialists are just as
prone to unreflecting beliefs as theists are.

As for "senseless and unworthy": some atheists infesting religious
newsgroups love to post comments like "the baby Jesus is crying
because you lied" in arguments with fundies.

Turnabout is fair play.

> along the lines
> of your "standard materialist complacency." Try to recognize it for
> what it is, a deprecation of the position you wish your opponents held
> that makes you feel better about your own.

You proved above that you hold it.

You can dish it out, but can't take it where lampoons are concerned.
And these are quite mild compared to the false analogy that I labeled
a "farce".

> No one says "did it easily,"

But the message comes through loud and clear just the same.

> nor does that qualification even matter.

If you had bothered to think through Crick and Orgel's "theorem of
complete cosmic reversibility" you would know that it matters a great
deal, even to you.

Did you even click on the link to the scanned copy of their _Icarus_
article?

Anyway, I connect one pair of dots for you below.

> It happened. We may not know how, or whether it was a fluke or near
> certainty,

If it was a once in a universe fluke, then what is more likely for the
average intelligent species:

(1) that it is on the very planet where their universe's fluke
occurred, or that

(2) it is on one of the planets to which panspermists, who resulted
from that fluke, sent probes carrying organisms

?

> but we don't need to in order to weigh your proposed set of
> explanatory models. There is minuscule reason to believe it happened
> anywhere but on the earth,

I've talked about the relative probabilities of alternatives (1) and
(2) at considerable length in the past.

If I tell you about them, will you sarcastically say, "Thanks for the
lesson, but..."

> and no reason whatsoever to believe it was
> the result of a scheme generated beyond the Oort cloud by lonely,
> aged, promiscuous aliens.

Like I said, you can dish it out , but you can't take it.

> > And that, as I've told Harshman, is the first line
> > of defense of atheism, of which the most popular and "scientific" form
> > is materialism.
>
> Yeah, well you go ahead and press your attack on that imaginary "line
> of defense." Speaking as an atheist and a materialist, I don't expect
> we'll be calling for reinforcements any time soon.

Keep dishing it out, Camp, but remember: the bigger they are, the
harder they fall.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

pnyikos wrote:

> If it was a once in a universe fluke, then what is more likely for the
> average intelligent species:
>
> (1) that it is on the very planet where their universe's fluke
> occurred, or that
>
> (2) it is on one of the planets to which panspermists, who resulted
> from that fluke, sent probes carrying organisms
>
> ?

I believe that the last time we tried this by plugging numbers into your
modified Drake equation, it came out that #1 was more likely. Remember that?

[pnyikos]

Dream on, Camp.

> > > as intentional galaxy-spanning

By the way, this was an exaggeration. I think the panspermists would
not go much farther than the thickness of the galaxy in any direction,
due to the law of diminishing returns.

> > >spreading of
> > > nascent life by billions-year-removed-sentient-world-seeding-species
> > > is a huge departure from equanimity.
>
> > Yet Crick and Orgel were quite equanimous about it.  Have a look at
> > their paper, referenced above.
>
> > > As I said, to lean upon gaps in biological explanations for rhetorical
> > > cover for this argument is classic logical fallacy.
>
> > So you allege, yet you never really made a case for it, and I
> > responded to your *ipse dixit* as follows:
>
> > > > As for "incredulity", I submit that what we are really seeing here is
> > > > an argument from personal credulity by you.  You've been conditioned
> > > > throughout through most of your life  to think that the case for
> > > > homegrown abiogenesis is extremely strong.  But you can't give a
> > > > coherent reason for why you think that, can you?
>
> > > Of course I can.
>
> > Then do so.  You aren't doing it below, whether you realize it or not.
>
> Of course I am. You just have to look farther below.

You left the crickets chirping for quite a while up there, so no one
should take this "farther below" seriously.

Below, I point out the chirping.

> > >Even leaving aside the interesting potential
> > > explanations (RNA world, iron-sulfur world, chiral minerals,
> > > proteinoid world, thioester world, PAH world, self-organization,
> > > ancient lipids, sea-surface aerosols)
>
> > Good of you to put the word "potential" in, because a plausible
> > scenario from Urey-Miller to the first prokaryote involving any of
> > these is still in the unforseeable future.
>
> You seem to think this is a powerful observation. There is plenty of
> scientific knowledge that is still in the future.

I'm not talking about knowledge, I'm talking about hypotheses. There
are at least two alternative scenarios for the evolution of birds from
flighless dinosaurs, for instance.

And there are plenty of hypotheses for bits and pieces of the immense
journey from Urey-Miller to the first prokaryote, but there are huge
gaps between those bits and pieces.

> Jumping from there
> to seed-spreading aliens is a non-sequitur.

A few more such cocksure comments from you, and I'll treat you with a
raft of urls of previous posts by myself expounding on my panspermia
hypotheses, and leave it as a homework assignment for you to read
them.

> > > and the research that's been
> > > done so far (Gunter Wachtershauser, Jack Szostak, Robert Hazen,
> > > Stanley Miller, Alexandre Oparin,
>
> > The best of these is like comparing a bow and arrow to a passenger
> > airplane.
>
> Really? What would be the "passenger airplane" in your analogy?

The first prokaryote.

> > For that matter, did Oparin ever do any experiments in the
> > first place?

<crickets chirping>

> > > Leslie Orgel,
>
> > Funny you should mention him, in the light of his co-authorship of
> > that Icarus article, but more especially because of this:
>
> >         Scientists interested in the origins of life seem to
> >         divide neatly into two classes.  The first, usually
> >         but not always molecular biologists, believe that
> >         RNA must have been the first replicating molecule
> >         and that chemists are exaggerating the difficulty
> >         of nucleotide synthesis.  ... The second group
> >         of scientists is much more pessimistic.  They believe
> >         that the de novo appearance of oligonucleotides on
> >         the primitive earth would have been a near miracle.
> >         (The authors subscribe to this latter view).  Time
> >         will tell which is correct.
> >                 --G. F. Joyce and Leslie E. Orgel, "Prospects
> >                   for understanding the origin of the RNA
> >                   world," in: _The RNA World_, ed. R. F.
> >                   Gesteland and J. F. Atkins, Cold Spring
> >                   Harbor Press, 1993, p. 19.
>
> > Almost two decades have passed, and there is still no experiment that
> > produces a single nucleotide under what is generally recognized as
> > "early earth" conditions.

<crickets chirping>

> > > Stuart Kauffman,
> > > Thomas Gold) I need only say this - There is *no* reason that I should
> > > look beyond the natural processes that occur here on this planet and
> > > in its solar environs for explanation of life on earth.
>
> > How much do you know about biochemistry?  I suspect the answer is
> > "very little," otherwise you wouldn't be so sure of this.
>
> I know what I learned in BioChem and subsequent reading (none of which
> I wasted on arguments for panspermia).

It's relevant to the probability of abiogenesis. See (1) and (2) in
my previous reply to you.

> So what? I need to know very
> little physics to recognize that Gene Ray ("Time Cube") is making a
> nutty argument. And it doesn't take a degree in medicine to understand
> that homeopathy is balderdash.

Keep dishing out the lampoons, and keep whining about how you can't
take it. You wouldn't want to disappoint your fans.

> The reasons your pet inference is wrong don't lie in the details of
> biochemistry, they lie in lapses of reason.

Well, I'm done looking below, and I see that my earlier assessments
about how you aren't making a case for it continue to be valid.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On May 1, 7:44 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> pnyikos wrote:
> > On Apr 27, 7:27 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> pnyikos wrote:
> >>> You show no sign of having read anything on the thread about the
> >>> protein takeover, where even Harshman had to concede that "exaptor of
> >>> the gaps" is almost the only argument for it having taken place in the
> >>> time frame (only half a billion years at most) in which it is supposed
> >>> to have taken place.
> >>> [Harshman might have another one of his senior moments over this last
> >>> statement of mine, but I can document what I am saying.]
> >> Please do, as I have indeed forgotten that concession.
>
> > Friar Broccoli provided the link, less than an hour and a half after
> > you posted this request, in reply to the same post of mine to which
> > you are replying here.  Click on it, lazybones.
>
> I did, but I don't see anything that's conceding what you say.

Look again, focusing on your closing responses to my last use of the
term "Exaptor of the Gaps."

> >>> Harshman: "When have I had a senior moment lately?"  :-)  :-)
>
> > Keywords: "purely hypothetical," with emphasis on "purely".
>
> You're responding to yourself; a senior moment in itself.

You may not know it, but you are using one of the favorite lines [with
insignificant variations in the wording] of the Svengali of "the
Usenet newsgroup from hell," where I've spent about as much time as
I've spent in talk.origins.

He's used it many times to refer to preambles to things that people
said in response to me, because I had something else to say
afterwards, and didn't want to post two seemingly unconnected
paragraphs in succession.

And that is exactly what happened here.

> >> You may be right, but it would be nice for you to demonstrate that.
>
> > Whatever "that" refers to, I've given you clues.
>
> As usual, only helpless hints. "That" was the claim that I had to
> concede blah blah blah. Which, it appears, is untrue. Your
> documentation, which you couldn't be bothered to provide yourself, shows
> nothing of the sort.

So you allege. But if you take a close look at your closing
paragraphs, you may be able to figure out why I said what I did.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

You're really on the ball this time, John, in focusing on the heart of
the matter.

You may have plugged your numbers in and come out that way, but IIRC I
put it at either 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 odds in favor of (2).

Since the numbers were pure guesswork, we can agree to disagree on the
odds.

Note to others: the guesses had to do with the probability of various
steps from the level of the first prokaryote to the level of a
technological civilization. Both Crick and I posit that the vast
majority of the panspermists' efforts were spent on sending
prokaryotes because "prokaryotes travel farther."

And our earth certainly does NOT seem to be one that is the result of
sending higher organisms, except for eukaryotes so primitive, their
like has vanished long ago.

Peter Nyikos

[Robert Camp]

On May 3, 2:22 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On May 1, 6:56 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 1, 1:21 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Apr 27, 7:20 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 27, 2:41 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Apr 24, 7:19 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Apr 24, 2:30 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Apr 23, 7:35 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Apr 23, 1:41 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > Of course, panspermia is not something the creationists have
> > > > > > > embraced.  But assaults on rote "arguments"  of the  "Exaptor of the
> > > > > > > Gaps" variety for abiogenesis can hardly be classified as assaults on
> > > > > > > either science or education.
>
> > > Note that I am talking about assaults on the standard materialist
> > > complacency about abiogenesis.
>
> > That's pretty much a meaningless statement.
>
> False.  I didn't say "position", I said "complacency".
>
> > It presumes, by way of
> > silly disparagement ("standard materialist complacency") that there is
> > some reasonable alternative position available. There is not.
>
> Materialists, of which are obviously one, typically share your
> complacency about there being no reasonable alternative available.

I am a methodological materialist. I am agnostic regarding
philosophical materialism. But no matter, your comment speaks only to
a continuing straw man of the opposing position.

You can show me how I'm wrong by explaining what the reasonable
alternative to materialism would be when it comes to abiogenesis.

> Agnostics know better.  And so it was wise of me to add
> alt.agnosticism to the newsgroups.

Of course your sagacity shines brightly, we all know this, but how is
it you manage to be so wise while misjudging my perspective?

> > Do you also bother to comment on the "standard materialist
> > complacency" about gravity, or the nature of dark matter, or the
> > geology of the earth's core, or why we sleep?
>
> No, but those things belong to the domain of science by almost
> anyone's standards.

And those standards change when the domain is the origin of biological
science? Why should that be?

> Are you under the delusion that materialism is something other than a
> philosophy?

Well, no, but apparently I've been under the delusion that you have
enough self-discipline not to make unwarranted assumptions.

> > Perhaps we should look
> > to the influence of aliens to illuminate these questions as well?
>
> Perhaps you should do something about that knee-jerk atheism of
> yours.  You would be able to converse with Christians, Jews, and
> Muslims more easily.

You remain incapable of dealing with these issues separately. What
does my atheism (or someone's philosophical materialism for that
matter) have to do with whether an inference to profligate aliens is a
reasonable argument when discussing origins of life?

<snip>

> > > > > > > As I've told Harshman on this thread,
> > > > > > > "Exaptor of the Gaps" generally serves as a science-stopper, and the
> > > > > > > person who has gone most beyond it AFAIK is the believing Roman
> > > > > > > Catholic, Kenneth Miller.
>
> > > > > > Challenge what you consider to be bad arguments all you want. I've
> > > > > > seen enough of your argumentation not to take for granted that there's
> > > > > > any more to this "Exaptor of the Gaps" business than there was to your
> > > > > > previous "Atheist of the Gaps."
>
> > > > > You show no sign of having read anything on the thread about the
> > > > > protein takeover, where even Harshman had to concede that "exaptor of
> > > > > the gaps" is almost the only argument for it having taken place in the
> > > > > time frame (only half a billion years at most) in which it is supposed
> > > > > to have taken place.
>
> > > > I've read very little of it, you're correct. Why is that? Because I
> > > > read a small percentage of posts in this group and I certainly don't
> > > > read all of yours. This means that when you and I are having a
> > > > discussion, it's best if you try to remember what that discussion is
> > > > about (I was asking how panspermia was inconvenient for atheism)
>
> > > This from someone who brought in sex education from out of nowhere.

<snipped without reading>

What could possibly possess me to be interested in what you have to
say about me or anyone else in another newsgroup? I spend half my time
snipping your irrelevant personal asides here in this one.

Again, I'd ask that you try to keep the plot of discussion somewhere
in your very learned head when responding to me. I know there's loads
of wisdom off on those tangents of yours, but I just don't have the
time for it all.

RLC

[Robert Camp]

On May 3, 2:35 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On May 1, 6:56 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 1, 1:21 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Apr 27, 7:20 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I would urge that you attempt the same with your rhetoric. "Mother Earth
> > did it easily" is a senseless and unworthy straw man
>
> Not a strewman at all: it's a reminder that materialists are just as
> prone to unreflecting beliefs as  theists are.
>
> As for "senseless and unworthy": some atheists infesting religious
> newsgroups love to post comments like "the baby Jesus is crying
> because you lied" in arguments with fundies.
>
> Turnabout is fair play.

Just looks like immaturity to me. Oh well, you say potato, I say...

<snip>

> > It happened. We may not know how, or whether it was a fluke or near
> > certainty,
>
> If it was a once in a universe fluke, then what is more likely for the
> average intelligent species:
>
> (1) that it is on the very planet where their universe's fluke
> occurred, or that
>
> (2) it is on one of the planets to which panspermists, who resulted
> from that fluke, sent probes carrying organisms
>
> ?

Considering the obvious multiplication of assumptions inherent in (2),
I'd have to say (1).

<snip>

RLC

[Robert Camp]

On May 3, 2:57 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On May 2, 12:01 am, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 1, 1:47 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 27, 7:20 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 27, 2:41 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > This is my second reply to this post by Camp.
>
> > > > > On Apr 24, 7:19 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Apr 24, 2:30 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Apr 23, 7:35 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> > > >Even leaving aside the interesting potential
> > > > explanations (RNA world, iron-sulfur world, chiral minerals,
> > > > proteinoid world, thioester world, PAH world, self-organization,
> > > > ancient lipids, sea-surface aerosols)
>
> > > Good of you to put the word "potential" in, because a plausible
> > > scenario from Urey-Miller to the first prokaryote involving any of
> > > these is still in the unforseeable future.
>
> > You seem to think this is a powerful observation. There is plenty of
> > scientific knowledge that is still in the future.
>
> I'm not talking about knowledge, I'm talking about hypotheses.  There
> are at least two alternative scenarios for the evolution of birds from
> flighless dinosaurs, for instance.
>
> And there are plenty of hypotheses for bits and pieces of the immense
> journey from Urey-Miller to the first prokaryote, but there are huge
> gaps between those bits and pieces.

"Gaps" being another way of saying "scientific knowledge that is still
in the future" (a particularly clumsy way of expressing that thought,
if I can critique myself).

> > Jumping from there
> > to seed-spreading aliens is a non-sequitur.
>
> A few more such cocksure comments from you, and I'll treat you with a
> raft of urls of previous posts by myself expounding on my panspermia
> hypotheses, and leave it as a homework assignment for you to read
> them.

Are you going to grade on a curve?

> > > > and the research that's been
> > > > done so far (Gunter Wachtershauser, Jack Szostak, Robert Hazen,
> > > > Stanley Miller, Alexandre Oparin,
>
> > > The best of these is like comparing a bow and arrow to a passenger
> > > airplane.
>
> > Really? What would be the "passenger airplane" in your analogy?
>
> The first prokaryote.

<snip>

Look, I can see from what I snipped that you're getting your panties
all in a bunch. There are plenty of people on this group for whom I've
got no respect. You're not one of them. You've got an intellect and
are reasonably coherent (having spent time in these environs you will
understand that that's no small compliment). You've got stylistic
quirks that are pretty annoying (fortunately this post is free from
the normal raft of personal intrigues) but I figure I must have those
as well.

This is all by way of saying I'm not trying to jerk your chain on the
whole panspermia thing. I do think it's nutty and I'm not going to
water down that opinion for the purposes of anyone's feelings. I
haven't looked into it nearly as much as you have, and don't intend to
because, as I said before, I find it uninteresting.

But I will say that I don't think you've gotten past the most
important point here - parsimony. That there are gaps in our knowledge
may be true, but an inference to alien seeding requires direct,
positive evidence, not dubious probability calculations, and not
references to gaps. It requires concrete observations that suggest we
*must* (not can, not want to) look beyond the natural environment and
physical processes with which we are familiar for causal explanation.
Without such clear and compelling evidence the only logical
perspective is to assume that the physics, chemistry and biochemistry
with which we are familiar is explanation enough, if incomplete at
this time.

If you have some observations, papers or logic that fulfill that
*must* I'll be happy to listen to or read them. Otherwise, I cannot
see how gap-based navel-gazing should concern me (and of course I
speak only for myself).

RLC

[John Harshman]

pnyikos wrote:
> You're really on the ball this time, John, in focusing on the heart of
> the matter.
>
> On May 3, 5:48 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> pnyikos wrote:
>>> If it was a once in a universe fluke, then what is more likely for the
>>> average intelligent species:
>>> (1) that it is on the very planet where their universe's fluke
>>> occurred, or that
>>> (2) it is on one of the planets to which panspermists, who resulted
>>> from that fluke, sent probes carrying organisms
>>> ?
>> I believe that the last time we tried this by plugging numbers into your
>> modified Drake equation, it came out that #1 was more likely. Remember that?
>
> You may have plugged your numbers in and come out that way, but IIRC I
> put it at either 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 odds in favor of (2).

I don't recall you actually producing any numbers. Doubtless another
senior moment on my part. But remind me what numbers you plugged in.

> Since the numbers were pure guesswork, we can agree to disagree on the
> odds.

So what we can agree on, given that the numbers are pure gueswork, is
that it's not possible to say that 2 is more likely than 1. Right?

> Note to others: the guesses had to do with the probability of various
> steps from the level of the first prokaryote to the level of a
> technological civilization. Both Crick and I posit that the vast
> majority of the panspermists' efforts were spent on sending
> prokaryotes because "prokaryotes travel farther."
>
> And our earth certainly does NOT seem to be one that is the result of
> sending higher organisms, except for eukaryotes so primitive, their
> like has vanished long ago.

Why do you say that? How would you tell?

[John Harshman]

pnyikos wrote:
> On May 1, 7:44 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> pnyikos wrote:
>>> On Apr 27, 7:27 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> pnyikos wrote:
>>>>> You show no sign of having read anything on the thread about the
>>>>> protein takeover, where even Harshman had to concede that "exaptor of
>>>>> the gaps" is almost the only argument for it having taken place in the
>>>>> time frame (only half a billion years at most) in which it is supposed
>>>>> to have taken place.
>>>>> [Harshman might have another one of his senior moments over this last
>>>>> statement of mine, but I can document what I am saying.]
>>>> Please do, as I have indeed forgotten that concession.
>>> Friar Broccoli provided the link, less than an hour and a half after
>>> you posted this request, in reply to the same post of mine to which
>>> you are replying here. Click on it, lazybones.
>> I did, but I don't see anything that's conceding what you say.
>
> Look again, focusing on your closing responses to my last use of the
> term "Exaptor of the Gaps."

I have looked again. You apparently misunderstood me, since I said
nothing like what you infer.

>>>>> Harshman: "When have I had a senior moment lately?" :-) :-)
>>> Keywords: "purely hypothetical," with emphasis on "purely".
>> You're responding to yourself; a senior moment in itself.
>
> You may not know it, but you are using one of the favorite lines [with
> insignificant variations in the wording] of the Svengali of "the
> Usenet newsgroup from hell," where I've spent about as much time as
> I've spent in talk.origins.
>
> He's used it many times to refer to preambles to things that people
> said in response to me, because I had something else to say
> afterwards, and didn't want to post two seemingly unconnected
> paragraphs in succession.
>
> And that is exactly what happened here.

I don't care about a couple of things here:

1. Whether I'm doing anything similar to some unnamed person.
2. Who that unnamed person might be, or anything about him.

At any rate, you were responding to a question you asked yourself in
anticipation of what you imagined I might say. You weren't just
responding to yourself. You were carrying on a whole conversation with
yourself.

>>>> You may be right, but it would be nice for you to demonstrate that.
>>> Whatever "that" refers to, I've given you clues.
>> As usual, only helpless hints. "That" was the claim that I had to
>> concede blah blah blah. Which, it appears, is untrue. Your
>> documentation, which you couldn't be bothered to provide yourself, shows
>> nothing of the sort.
>
> So you allege. But if you take a close look at your closing
> paragraphs, you may be able to figure out why I said what I did.

In fact I can't. You appear to have grossly misunderstood what I said.

[John Harshman]

It actually does depend on a number of probabilities. If the origin of
life is very, very unlikely but life, once it arises, is very, very
likely to become intelligent and then seed other life throughout a large
fraction of the universe, panspermia becomes a more likely explanation
than abiogenesis. You may be supposing in addition that the probability
of a scenario with the proper numbers is very low. And I think you may
be right. But if you use Peter's numbers, that is if he's allowed to set
the underlying probabilities, it's possible that he's right too. As far
as I can remember he has never actually done so, though.

[Harry K]

No, I never considered you a creationist. I just find your insistance
on panspermia sodd, to put it mildly. It still looks like I put it.
"happened but not on earth". Parsimony shoud be at the base of
speculation.

Harry K

[Robert Camp]

I was responding only to "If it was a once in a universe fluke,
then..." and trying to overlook the somewhat contradictory "average
intelligent species" (implicit in which is the assumption that a
multitude of species will result from a once in a universe fluke).

But I can accept that your expanded list of qualifications (or what
you presume to be Peter's qualifications) changes the calculus. Sure,
if Peter is allowed to set the parameters then it's entirely possible
that his conclusion of panspermia will be consistent. However, my
objection had to do with whether some of those parameters (life-
seeding aliens) are reasonably posited in the first place.

RLC

[John Harshman]

Perfectly reasonable if you accept his assumptions.

> But I can accept that your expanded list of qualifications (or what
> you presume to be Peter's qualifications) changes the calculus. Sure,
> if Peter is allowed to set the parameters then it's entirely possible
> that his conclusion of panspermia will be consistent. However, my
> objection had to do with whether some of those parameters (life-
> seeding aliens) are reasonably posited in the first place.

Go to it, then.

[pnyikos]

On May 3, 6:15 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 3, 2:35 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > On May 1, 6:56 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[about abiogenesis:]

> > > It happened. We may not know how, or whether it was a fluke or near
> > > certainty,
>
> > If it was a once in a universe fluke, then what is more likely for the
> > average intelligent species:
>
> > (1) that it is on the very planet where their universe's fluke
> > occurred, or that
>
> > (2) it is on one of the planets to which panspermists, who resulted
> > from that fluke, sent probes carrying organisms
>
> > ?
>
> Considering the obvious multiplication of assumptions inherent in (2),
> I'd have to say (1).

That depends on the factors. What is your assessment of the
probability of each of the following steps, in a planet that enjoys
the kind of relationship with its primary as ours does? [Including an
orbit reasonably close to circular, and a sun not given to high
variability in its output, and having a useful life of over 5 billion
years.]

1. prokaryote to unicellular eukaryote

2. unicellular eukaryote to true metazoan

3. primitive metazoan to the level of the lancelet (Branchiostoma,
a.k.a. amphioxus)

4. lancelet level to tetrapod level

5. tetrapod level to prosimian level

6. prosimian level to human level

I envision a panspermia effort spanning a million years or more,
averaging about one a year, with 10 of those efforts involving
organisms about stage 4 or higher, 1000 involving organisms about
stage 2 or higher, and all the rest sending prokaryotes ("prokaryotes
travel farther," in the oft-repeated words of Crick in this context).

If the human race progresses the way I hope it does, and my hunch
about the extreme difficulty of abiogenesis is correct, then I believe
that the realization will come some time in the next 10,000 years, and
then a project like that is very likely; and I am applying the Crick
and Orgel "theorem of complete cosmic reversibility."

I am using earth years here, but if the panspermists had a very
different sense of time than we do, then a correspondingly modified
time interval applies.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On May 3, 6:41 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 3, 2:57 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On May 2, 12:01 am, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 1, 1:47 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 27, 7:20 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 27, 2:41 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > > > >Even leaving aside the interesting potential
> > > > > explanations (RNA world, iron-sulfur world, chiral minerals,
> > > > > proteinoid world, thioester world, PAH world, self-organization,
> > > > > ancient lipids, sea-surface aerosols)
>
> > > > Good of you to put the word "potential" in, because a plausible
> > > > scenario from Urey-Miller to the first prokaryote involving any of
> > > > these is still in the unforseeable future.
>
> > > You seem to think this is a powerful observation. There is plenty of
> > > scientific knowledge that is still in the future.
>
> > I'm not talking about knowledge, I'm talking about hypotheses.  There
> > are at least two alternative scenarios for the evolution of birds from
> > flighless dinosaurs, for instance.
>
> > And there are plenty of hypotheses for bits and pieces of the immense
> > journey from Urey-Miller to the first prokaryote, but there are huge
> > gaps between those bits and pieces.
>
> "Gaps" being another way of saying "scientific knowledge that is still
> in the future"

Not in the case of "Exaptor of the Gaps" the way I keep applying it.
So far, I've applied it exclusively to pre-prokaryote organisms in the
midst of a protein takeover. Here is one illustration of how it
works:

"A random protein A, catalyzing reactions z1, ...zn [don't ask me
what n is] whose nature I cannot begin to guess, was exapted via a
string of mutations, while still serving some of these functions
[don't ask me which ones it was still serving at the end of the
string],

"exapted, I say, to give us a protein B, catalyzing reactions y1, ...
y_m [don't ask me what m is] whose nature I cannot begin to guess,
which in turn was exapted, via a string of mutations...

"...which in turn was exapted to give us a protein Z, catalyzing the
replacement of U with C that corrects any ribozyme transcribing DNA
into mRNA but erroneously putting a U where C belongs."

This is not a case of science rediscovering these long-lost
hypothetical exaptations; these presumably vanished forever billions
of years ago -- the same time span which causes you to scoff at
panspermists.

It is, rather, a case of scientists working out plausible scenarios
that would fill in all the unknowns in the above "scenario" with
actual names of actual molecules that could at least reasonably be
inferred to fill the bill.

Even that would not be "scientific knowledge", but it would satisfy me
if it were done.

But I doubt that anyone has tried, because atheists like you and
Harshman are too complacent in their belief that "Exaptor of the Gaps"
is all that is needed to silence critics of "Mother Earth did it."

> (a particularly clumsy way of expressing that thought,
> if I can critique myself).

Yes, "knowledge" was a very clumsy word to use in this context.

> > > Jumping from there
> > > to seed-spreading aliens is a non-sequitur.
>
> > A few more such cocksure comments from you, and I'll treat you with a
> > raft of urls of previous posts by myself expounding on my panspermia
> > hypotheses, and leave it as a homework assignment for you to read
> > them.
>
> Are you going to grade on a curve?

I always do.

> > > > > and the research that's been
> > > > > done so far (Gunter Wachtershauser, Jack Szostak, Robert Hazen,
> > > > > Stanley Miller, Alexandre Oparin,
>
> > > > The best of these is like comparing a bow and arrow to a passenger
> > > > airplane.
>
> > > Really? What would be the "passenger airplane" in your analogy?
>
> > The first prokaryote.
>
> <snip>
>
> Look, I can see from what I snipped that you're getting your panties
> all in a bunch.

You are your own most incompetent critic, the way you use such
expressions while alleging that "Turnabout is fair play" is an
immature attitude.

To do you credit, though, you settle down now:

> There are plenty of people on this group for whom I've
> got no respect. You're not one of them. You've got an intellect and
> are reasonably coherent (having spent time in these environs you will
> understand that that's no small compliment). You've got stylistic
> quirks that are pretty annoying (fortunately this post is free from
> the normal raft of personal intrigues) but I figure I must have those
> as well.
>
> This is all by way of saying I'm not trying to jerk your chain on the
> whole panspermia thing. I do think it's nutty and I'm not going to
> water down that opinion for the purposes of anyone's feelings. I
> haven't looked into it nearly as much as you have, and don't intend to
> because, as I said before, I find it uninteresting.
>
> But I will say that I don't think you've gotten past the most
> important point here - parsimony.

You put way too much stock into your own personal take on what
"parsimony" is all about.

> That there are gaps in our knowledge
> may be true, but an inference to alien seeding requires direct,
> positive evidence,

As opposed to mere guesses as to what MIGHT have been the long road to
the first prokaryote? That's all your side of the argument has going
for it, so the playing field is level--almost.

The panspermia I hypothesiza happened so long ago that there is no
place in the universe where direct evidence about it could be
preserved in all that time. One would have to hypothesize that the
panspermists stayed in existence for not merely millions, but billions
of years, and that they kept records of their activities of ca. 4
billlion years ago all this time. That is the only way we could have
direct evidence.

And then there are little bits and pieces of indirect evidence, like
the persistence of the ribozome in all three domains of living things,
and the bacterial flagellum. But I wouldn't hang a hypothesis of
directed panspermia on such little tidbits.

It is the protein takeover that represents the Achilles' heel of
homegrown abiogenesis, and that is what I put my main emphasis on,
while not altogether neglecting all the amazing things that had to
happen prior to it.

> not dubious probability calculations, and not
> references to gaps. It requires concrete observations that suggest we
> *must* (not can, not want to) look beyond the natural environment

Sorry, "must" is way too strong a word--a very unscientific word in
this context, I may add. All we need or can realistically expect to
have are relative probability assessments.

That is, which is MORE likely, homegrown abiogenesis or directed
panspermia? And since I have never seen any reason to think of
abiogenesis as being better that a once-in-a-universe fluke, and I
have the expanded Drake equation to guide me in the way I think it
applies, I'm still putting my money on the latter.

[snip to get to a partial reversion to "panties in a knot" style
talk]

> If you have some observations, papers or logic that fulfill that
> *must* I'll be happy to listen to or read them. Otherwise, I cannot
> see how gap-based navel-gazing should concern me (and of course I
> speak only for myself).

...and for a use of the word "must" that belongs to a disreputable
branch of the philosophy of science.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

But you, like Camp, are very selective in your application of
parsimony. You are obviously reluctant to agree that abiogenesis is a
once-in-a-universe fluke, but that hypothesis is also a form of
parsimony.

And not just in a crude way: "Exaptor of the Gaps" posits all kinds of
things about the protein takeover, and these innumerable positings
would be superfluous in a scenario which has an intelligent species
with its enzymes made of RNA instead of polypeptides, seeding planets
with protein-based life that is the spinoff of nanotechnology.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On May 3, 7:15 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> pnyikos wrote:
> > On May 1, 7:44 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> pnyikos wrote:
> >>> On Apr 27, 7:27 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>> pnyikos wrote:
> >>>>> You show no sign of having read anything on the thread about the
> >>>>> protein takeover, where even Harshman had to concede that "exaptor of
> >>>>> the gaps" is almost the only argument for it having taken place in the
> >>>>> time frame (only half a billion years at most) in which it is supposed
> >>>>> to have taken place.
> >>>>> [Harshman might have another one of his senior moments over this last
> >>>>> statement of mine, but I can document what I am saying.]
> >>>> Please do, as I have indeed forgotten that concession.
> >>> Friar Broccoli provided the link, less than an hour and a half after
> >>> you posted this request, in reply to the same post of mine to which
> >>> you are replying here.  Click on it, lazybones.
> >> I did, but I don't see anything that's conceding what you say.
>
> > Look again, focusing on your closing responses to my last use of the
> > term "Exaptor of the Gaps."
>
> I have looked again. You apparently misunderstood me, since I said
> nothing like what you infer.

I'll address this at the end of this post.

> >>>>> Harshman: "When have I had a senior moment lately?"  :-)  :-)
> >>> Keywords: "purely hypothetical," with emphasis on "purely".
> >> You're responding to yourself; a senior moment in itself.
>
> > You may not know it, but you are using one of the favorite lines [with
> > insignificant variations in the wording] of the Svengali of "the
> > Usenet newsgroup from hell," where I've spent about as much time as
> > I've spent in talk.origins.
>
> > He's used it many times to refer to preambles to things that people
> > said in response to me, because I had something else to say
> > afterwards, and didn't want to post two seemingly unconnected
> > paragraphs in succession.
>
> > And that is exactly what happened here.
>
> I don't care about a couple of things here:
>
> 1. Whether I'm doing anything similar to some unnamed person.
> 2. Who that unnamed person might be, or anything about him.

Good. I told him late last night that I did not identify him nor the
newsgroup here, and now I won't need to amend that.

> At any rate, you were responding to a question you asked yourself

No, I was giving hints to the answer to question that I half-jokingly
thought you might ask.

> in anticipation of what you imagined I might say.

Wrong. I was trying to cover all bases as to what your "that" may
have referred:

[GIGO deleted here, to get to your use of the word "that":

> >>>> You may be right, but it would be nice for you to demonstrate that.

And here was my response:

> >>> Whatever "that" refers to, I've given you clues.

A clue if you meant that you did indeed have a senior moment and were
referring to the question I imagined you might ask, and what turned
out to be the actual referent:

> >> As usual, only helpless hints. "That" was the claim that I had to
> >> concede blah blah blah. Which, it appears, is untrue. Your
> >> documentation, which you couldn't be bothered to provide yourself, shows
> >> nothing of the sort.
>
> > So you allege.  But if you take a close look at your closing
> > paragraphs, you may be able to figure out why I said what I did.
>
> In fact I can't. You appear to have grossly misunderstood what I said.

Well, let's take a close look at it, and my words to which they refer:

_______________ begin excerpt________________

> We seem to be nowhere near the argument that Behe was confronted with
> at Dover, namely that the bacterial flagellum was the result of an
> exapted pump being married to an exapted strand of filament. Behe
> rather weakly countered that there is no evidence that it wasn't the
> other way around, the pump being exapted from the bacterial flagellum
> thru loss of the filament and some other molecules that went with it.

> I'm not that picky, I'm just seeing whether we can even get to an
> analogous stage here. You haven't advanced one iota beyond the
> Exaptor of the Gaps here.

No, we can't very easily get to that stage, since we have no samples
of
any prior condition. By the time of the last common ancestor of life,
the whole protein translation system was already in place. Anything
before the UCA is hard to study, and is impossible to study
comparatively. The only possible clues are in paralogs, which some of
the synthetases probably are.
=============== end of excerpt
from http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/50e6e33a42bda4c9?dmode=source

You agreed that you hadn't advanced, here in talk.origins, beyond the
Exaptor of the Gaps stage, and you didn't seem at all optimistic that
you, at least, could get past that stage. You think "some of the
synthetases probably are" paralogs, but they are only a small fraction
of all the protein enzymes.

You seemed reluctant to tackle the whole grand mess, including even
modest "helpers" of DNA-transcribing ribozymes that I had talked about
[see my "Exaptor of the Gaps" quote from the previous post, now quoted
in response to Robert.] to make concrete some vague general talk by
you about how the protein takeover might have occurred.

As for the synthetases: you need to give a good reason for that
"probably" besides some cladograms that could be no more relevant to
actual relationship as my oft-mentioned analogy of a "cladogram" of
mountains that makes the Matterhorn the sister group of some mountain
in the Himalayas.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

Yes, because I believe that a near-infinity if not actual infinity of
universes is the only hypothesis that renders the existence of a
supernatural creator unlikely, let alone "not rational" -- which you
keep assuming despite the claim that you are an agnostic (as opposed
to an atheist) in your personal beliefs.

Can you see why I don't take this last claim seriously?

But you see, once we really do have the number of universes that
atheism requires, one can expect intelligent life to occur in many of
them -- perhaps infinitely many, if there is an actual infinity of
universes.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On May 4, 9:53 am, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, May 3, 2012 1:07:10 PM UTC-6, pnyikos wrote:
> > On May 2, 9:43 am, Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 1, 1:47 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 27, 7:20 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 27, 2:41 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > This is my second reply to this post by Camp.
>
> > > Still at it I see.
>
> > > "Abiogenesis happened.  It just can't have happened on earth".
>
> > > Weird.
>
> > > Harry K
>
> > That's a weird strawman you put up there, all right.
>
> > The following words of mine seem to have gone over your head:
>
> > " In fact, I believe there is a good
> > chance that we are the first such species in the whole universe, and
> > guess that the percentage is in double digits.
>

> Based on what calculation?

On what calculation do you base your belief that "Mother Earth did
it."?

> > "But I also think that there is an even better chance that the first
> > such species arose ca. 4 billion years ago, and that any other
> > (including ourselves) is derivative, the result of a massive directed
> > panspermia project such as we have the technology to start now-- not
> > that it would be advisable to do so at present."
>

> The big problem is that not only can't anyone calculate these probabilities,
> we have only one example of technological civilization---ours, and we
> are not capable sending even one "directed panspermy" spacecraft, ourselves
> yet.

If we had a crash program, it would be only a few decades before we
had one that could send an unmanned probe to nearby stars like Tau
Ceti, to get there in a century or so.

Of course, we wouldn't want to actually seed candidate planets for at
least a thousand years, because we would have to first be convinced
that life, even on planets that are suitable for it, is a great
rarity. Otherwise we would be tampering with nature in ways that
would have environmentalists concerned about species diversity up in
arms.

> A bigger problem is that if you turn back the origin of an earlier technological civilization further in the past, then you don't give the novae and supernovae time to generate all of the heavier elements that
> we see today.
>
> Figure that it takes 4-5 billion years to
> evolve organisms capable of creating a technological civilization, then
> you are turning the clock back on the formation of their stellar system
> to 9 or 10 billion years before the present, giving only 3 or 4 billion
> years for the formation of the necessary heavy elements for producing
> planets like ours.

I've been through this many times. The 4-5 billion could be as little
as 2-3, if the primeval ocean was much shallower than ours.

Also, the proportion of supergiants in the early universe was probably
many times what it is now.

> This was Fred Hoyle's last-ditch Hail Mary pass to try to save Steady State.

Reference? Do you think he had an argument that my two objections are
invalid?

> > Note that I am guessing that the probability that abiogenesis took
> > place here on earth is in double digits.
>
> > You may have been fooled by a lot of false claims that I am a
> > creationist, and therefore not have realized that I put the
> > probability of there being a supernatural creator at < 1%.  That is
> > not enough to affect my "double digits" guess as far as purely
> > natural abiogenesis goes.
>

> So, then why do you continue to intelligent design "theorists" who are
> plainly and obviously creationists?

Behe and Minnich are the only two ID theorists for whom I have respect
at the present time, and Behe's "creationism" [which only a minority
of knowledgeable anti-ID people here would label as such] is
intellectually very reasonable if you actually think there are NOT an
enormous number of universes. See my replies to Camp today.

I still don't know where Minnich stands, but he obviously does good
research.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

That's where you're wrong. I didn't say anything about "exaptor of the
gaps". I was responding to your idea of being able to get information by
looking at intermediate stages we see today. That doesn't mean we have
to just have faith, which you seem to imagine. It just means that
comparative biology won't help us.

> You think "some of the
> synthetases probably are" paralogs, but they are only a small fraction
> of all the protein enzymes.

Still, some help, eh? A little bit of comparative biology, at least.

> You seemed reluctant to tackle the whole grand mess, including even
> modest "helpers" of DNA-transcribing ribozymes that I had talked about
> [see my "Exaptor of the Gaps" quote from the previous post, now quoted
> in response to Robert.] to make concrete some vague general talk by
> you about how the protein takeover might have occurred.
>
> As for the synthetases: you need to give a good reason for that
> "probably" besides some cladograms that could be no more relevant to
> actual relationship as my oft-mentioned analogy of a "cladogram" of
> mountains that makes the Matterhorn the sister group of some mountain
> in the Himalayas.

I don't have the knowledge to go much further on that. Sorry.

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/3/12 3:09 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> You're really on the ball this time, John, in focusing on the heart of
> the matter.
>
> On May 3, 5:48 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> pnyikos wrote:
>>> If it was a once in a universe fluke, then what is more likely for the
>>> average intelligent species:
>>
>>> (1) that it is on the very planet where their universe's fluke
>>> occurred, or that
>>
>>> (2) it is on one of the planets to which panspermists, who resulted
>>> from that fluke, sent probes carrying organisms
>>
>>> ?
>>
>> I believe that the last time we tried this by plugging numbers into your
>> modified Drake equation, it came out that #1 was more likely. Remember that?
>
> You may have plugged your numbers in and come out that way, but IIRC I
> put it at either 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 odds in favor of (2).
>
> Since the numbers were pure guesswork, we can agree to disagree on the
> odds.

Regardless, I see nothing there relevant to your claim that panspermia
is inconvenient to atheists. I often (~99% of the time in this thread)
get the impression that you have no argument to make on that thesis.

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

[Robert Camp]

You misunderstand the nature of parsimony. It's not the time span that
causes me to scoff, we accept the inevitable loss of data to
geological time spans for all sorts of processes. What we do not do is
use that condition as an excuse to posit unnecessary variables.

> It is, rather, a case of scientists working out plausible scenarios
> that would fill in all the unknowns in the above "scenario" with
> actual names of actual molecules that could at least reasonably be
> inferred to fill the bill.
>
> Even that would not be "scientific knowledge", but it would satisfy me
> if it were done.
>
> But I doubt that anyone has tried, because atheists like you and
> Harshman are too complacent in their belief that "Exaptor of the Gaps"
> is all that is needed to silence critics of "Mother Earth did it."

You are far too comfortable imputing motives and perspectives to
others.

<snip>

> > There are plenty of people on this group for whom I've
> > got no respect. You're not one of them. You've got an intellect and
> > are reasonably coherent (having spent time in these environs you will
> > understand that that's no small compliment). You've got stylistic
> > quirks that are pretty annoying (fortunately this post is free from
> > the normal raft of personal intrigues) but I figure I must have those
> > as well.
>
> > This is all by way of saying I'm not trying to jerk your chain on the
> > whole panspermia thing. I do think it's nutty and I'm not going to
> > water down that opinion for the purposes of anyone's feelings. I
> > haven't looked into it nearly as much as you have, and don't intend to
> > because, as I said before, I find it uninteresting.
>
> > But I will say that I don't think you've gotten past the most
> > important point here - parsimony.
>
> You put way too much stock into your own personal take on what
> "parsimony" is all about.

And you put far too little effort into evaluating what amounts to a
huge, unwarranted assumption.

> > That there are gaps in our knowledge
> > may be true, but an inference to alien seeding requires direct,
> > positive evidence,
>
> As opposed to mere guesses as to what MIGHT have been the long road to
> the first prokaryote?  That's all your side of the argument has going
> for it, so the playing field is level--almost.

We've got plenty of evidence for various earthly chemical and
biochemical processes. If we are missing evidence for some or a few
particular processes, especially the kind of evidence that could
easily be lost to geological time, then for us to leap from "We don't,
and may never, know" to "Well, I guess it's down to aliens" is just a
little too facile for me.

> The panspermia I hypothesiza happened so long ago that there is no
> place in the universe where direct evidence  about it could be
> preserved in all that time.

Yet you seem uncomfortable with the lack of direct evidence for
abiogenesis.

> One would have to hypothesize that the
> panspermists stayed in existence for not merely millions, but billions
> of years, and that they kept records of their activities of ca. 4
> billlion years ago all this time.  That is the only way we could have
> direct evidence.
>
> And then there are little bits and pieces of indirect evidence, like
> the persistence of the ribozome in all three domains of living things,
> and the bacterial flagellum.  But I wouldn't hang a hypothesis of
> directed panspermia on such little tidbits.
>
> It is the protein takeover that represents the Achilles' heel of
> homegrown abiogenesis, and that is what I put my main emphasis on,
> while not altogether neglecting all the amazing things that had to
> happen prior to it.
>
> > not dubious probability calculations, and not
> > references to gaps. It requires concrete observations that suggest we
> > *must* (not can, not want to) look beyond the natural environment
>
> Sorry, "must" is way too strong a word--a very unscientific word in
> this context, I may add.  All we need or can realistically expect to
> have are relative probability assessments.

Actually, I regretted the *must* right after I hit send. Science is,
after all, about inference to the best explanation. But the sentiment
I was trying to express remains apposite. If panspermia better
explains the data, by which I mean it evidentially connects cause with
effect in the case of abiogenesis, then it wins. But the problem lies
right there in the "evidentially connects" (just as it does with ID by
the way). A bit of positive evidence (beyond "here's something we
can't explain") suggestive of the need for an inference to aliens
might begin to remedy the difficulty. Otherwise, it's an extraneous
conjecture. We have no need of that hypothesis.

> That is, which is MORE likely, homegrown abiogenesis or directed
> panspermia?  And since I have never  seen any reason to think of
> abiogenesis as being better that a once-in-a-universe fluke, and I
> have the expanded Drake equation to guide me in the way I think it
> applies,  I'm still putting my money on the latter.

Your money's only well wagered if you make the kind of assumptions
John laid out elsewhere in this thread. But if world-seeding aliens
are included in your starting premises then there's no need to put
your money on anything, you've already assumed your conclusion. At
that point it's simply a question of whether we are the original
seeders or the seeded, and that's just an unilluminating exercise in
probability.

> > If you have some observations, papers or logic that fulfill that
> > *must* I'll be happy to listen to or read them. Otherwise, I cannot
> > see how gap-based navel-gazing should concern me (and of course I
> > speak only for myself).
>
> ...and for a use of the word "must" that belongs to a disreputable
> branch of the philosophy of science.

Way to miss, or dodge, the point.

RLC

[Robert Camp]

I am willing to grant, for the purposes of discussion, all of your
variables.

My comment about the multiplication of assumptions was aimed at the

"panspermists, who resulted from that fluke, sent probes carrying

organisms."

If it's reasonable (and I think it is) to rephrase your question as,

If it was a once in a universe fluke, then what is a more likely
inference regarding origins for an intelligent species (a sample of
one):

(1) that the once in a universe fluke occurred, and they're it, or

(2) that the once in a universe fluke occurred, it resulted in
panspermists who sent probes carrying organisms to various worlds, and
they're one of those its

...it seems obvious to me that there is a violation of parsimony here,
and all of the assumptions you make about the development of life on
earth are immaterial.

> I envision a panspermia effort spanning a million years or more,
> averaging about one a year, with 10 of those efforts involving
> organisms about stage 4 or higher, 1000 involving organisms about
> stage 2 or higher, and all  the rest sending prokaryotes ("prokaryotes
> travel farther," in the oft-repeated words of Crick in this context).

I'll also grant that many of your assumptions about the panspermists
are unobjectionable. It's entirely possible to create an internally
consistent theory without there being any reason to connect that
theory with real world observations.

I understand that you've put a lot of time and thought into this. That
doesn't make it parsimonious.

RLC

[Robert Camp]

That doesn't seem to follow.

> let alone "not rational" -- which you
> keep assuming despite the claim that you are an agnostic (as opposed
> to an atheist) in your personal beliefs.

That doesn't seem to follow either. Nor does it make much sense as far
as I can tell (and as far as I am willing to accept your continued
assumptions about and extrapolations of what I believe).

>  Can you see why I don't take this last claim seriously?

Not in the least.

> But you see, once we really do have the number of universes that
> atheism requires, one can expect intelligent life to occur in many of
> them -- perhaps infinitely many, if there is an actual infinity of
> universes.

Sure. Why not? But I don't see the relevance to my comments about the
assumptions you made above.

RLC

(Seeing as I'm not really interested in carrying on three separate
conversations with the same person I'm going to end my participation
in this subthread. These ideas can be pursued elsewhere if it's
important to you.)

[walksalone]

Robert Camp <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:6561fa81-944c-4ed0...@m13g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:

One small snip for bandwidth.

OK, you folks have got me. I've looked on line, but failed. failed I
say, to find a definition I need if I am to make sense out of this
fiasco.
Exaptor of the Gaps

In my own words during my first mortar attack
WTFO

All help obliviating my ignorance on this phrase will be of relief, if
not help.

walksalone who may well not be that astute or articulate, but recognises
when he just does not know. & when it is something I should be able to
learn, pisses me off when I can't find the information that is so redily
to hand to others.


A preayer that for its time & location, actually made sense. Today, not
so much.

"Give wisdom and understanding to my leaders. Protect my warriors and
bring them back safe. Give to the young, love and contentment. Give
health and long life to my old people so that they may remain with us
for a long time. Make my enemy brave and strong, so that if defeated, I
will not be ashamed. And give me wisdom so that I may have kindness for
all. And let me live each day, so when day is done, my prayer will not
have been in vain."

Big Lodge Pole, Blackfeet

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/5/12 12:25 AM, walksalone wrote:
> Robert Camp<rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:6561fa81-944c-4ed0...@m13g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
>
> One small snip for bandwidth.
>
> OK, you folks have got me. I've looked on line, but failed. failed I
> say, to find a definition I need if I am to make sense out of this
> fiasco.
> Exaptor of the Gaps

I share your frustration. As near as I can tell, it means, "and nuts to
you, too."

[walksalone]

Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote in news:jo4kf7$g9f$2
@speranza.aioe.org:

> On 5/5/12 12:25 AM, walksalone wrote:
>> Robert Camp<rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:6561fa81-944c-4ed0...@m13g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> One small snip for bandwidth.
>>
>> OK, you folks have got me. I've looked on line, but failed. failed I
>> say, to find a definition I need if I am to make sense out of this
>> fiasco.
>> Exaptor of the Gaps
>
> I share your frustration. As near as I can tell, it means, "and nuts to
> you, too."
>

With the spelling, it seems it should have a definition. That's for
helping abate my laka, in this case, vocabulary.

walksalone who has an advantage in cases like this. He is not ashamed to
ask others, that the hell is that.

ABSURDITY, n. A statement or belief contrary with one's own
opinion.
Devils dictionary

[James Beck]

On Sun, 6 May 2012 09:35:05 +0000 (UTC), walksalone
<spams...@nerdshack.com> wrote:

>Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote in news:jo4kf7$g9f$2
>@speranza.aioe.org:
>
>> On 5/5/12 12:25 AM, walksalone wrote:
>>> Robert Camp<rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:6561fa81-944c-4ed0...@m13g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>> One small snip for bandwidth.
>>>
>>> OK, you folks have got me. I've looked on line, but failed. failed I
>>> say, to find a definition I need if I am to make sense out of this
>>> fiasco.
>>> Exaptor of the Gaps
>>
>> I share your frustration. As near as I can tell, it means, "and nuts to
>> you, too."
>>
>
>With the spelling, it seems it should have a definition. That's for
>helping abate my laka, in this case, vocabulary.

Consider this exchange between Professors Nyikos and Harshman on the
'protein takeover' thread:

Nyikos: You want to START your pathway with one that already can????

Harshman: Sure. Why not?

Evolution is a chain of events. The chain always starts (and
continues) with something that "already can." Otherwise, the chain
ends. As a biologist, Professor Harshman accepts the point where
chemistry became biology as the beginning of the chain.

For Professor Nyikos, everything leading up to that point is a "gap"
The trouble with that thinking is that it creates gaps where there are
none. Closing those gaps seemingly requires extraordinary
intervention, something for which we have no evidence. By contrast,
for simplicity, you might frame it as a chain of hazards. For example,
at extreme values of 'universe' you get stars. At extreme values of a
universe with stars you find planets, and at extreme values of
'planet' you find some with water, and carbon, and so forth. At
extreme values of those planets, you find some with conditions
suitable for life as we know it. Conveniently, extreme value
distributions are self-locking, so we observe that things are
correlated; each thing we observe depends on the prior hazard. At the
same time, we avoid dealing with an unrestricted random universe that
would require infinite time for anything interesting to happen.

In this hypothetical universe, evolution is just a chain of hazards.
Looking back in time, everything becomes increasingly unlikely,
bordering on impossible, even though, given enough time, something,
perhaps many things, from the opportunity set inevitably occurs. That
is, the prior regime 'fails' when the something that can continue the
chain occurs.

Since we exist, it is possible that something like us existed earlier
and seeded Earth, but to the extent that everything that exists today
subsumes the chain preceding it, even if true, it tells us nothing
about terrestrial biology. 'Exapter of the gaps' while an interesting
word coinage, is a malapropism. There are no gaps to 'exapt,' just a
chain moving forward (or not).

Likewise, in the absence of contact from the panspermists themselves,
whether it might tell us anything useful about pre-terrestrial biology
is undecideable. If you were flipping a fair coin, the next toss might
be heads, but you might also wait a thousand tosses. If you can't tell
how likely one event is, or how long you might have to wait for it to
occur, you can't tell how likely two such events are, either.

[walksalone]

James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:if4dq7hbasqpmorjt...@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 6 May 2012 09:35:05 +0000 (UTC), walksalone
> <spams...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
>
>>Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote in
>>news:jo4kf7$g9f$2 @speranza.aioe.org:
>>
>>> On 5/5/12 12:25 AM, walksalone wrote:
>>>> Robert Camp<rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:6561fa81-944c-4ed0...@m13g2000yqi.googlegroups.c
>>>> om:
>>>>
>>>> One small snip for bandwidth.
>>>>
>>>> OK, you folks have got me. I've looked on line, but failed. failed
>>>> I say, to find a definition I need if I am to make sense out of
>>>> this fiasco.
>>>> Exaptor of the Gaps
>>>
>>> I share your frustration. As near as I can tell, it means, "and
>>> nuts to you, too."
>>>
>>
>>With the spelling, it seems it should have a definition. That's for
>>helping abate my laka, in this case, vocabulary.
>
> Consider this exchange between Professors Nyikos and Harshman on the
> 'protein takeover' thread:
>
> Nyikos: You want to START your pathway with one that already can????
>
> Harshman: Sure. Why not?

snip, not because it isn't useful. Bandwidth.

> In this hypothetical universe, evolution is just a chain of hazards.
> Looking back in time, everything becomes increasingly unlikely,
> bordering on impossible, even though, given enough time, something,
> perhaps many things, from the opportunity set inevitably occurs. That
> is, the prior regime 'fails' when the something that can continue the
> chain occurs.
>
> Since we exist, it is possible that something like us existed earlier
> and seeded Earth, but to the extent that everything that exists today
> subsumes the chain preceding it, even if true, it tells us nothing
> about terrestrial biology. 'Exapter of the gaps' while an interesting
> word coinage, is a malapropism. There are no gaps to 'exapt,' just a
> chain moving forward (or not).

Ya know, that almost makes sense. After I'm awake, it may well make
sense.

> Likewise, in the absence of contact from the panspermists themselves,
> whether it might tell us anything useful about pre-terrestrial biology
> is undecideable. If you were flipping a fair coin, the next toss might
> be heads, but you might also wait a thousand tosses. If you can't tell
> how likely one event is, or how long you might have to wait for it to
> occur, you can't tell how likely two such events are, either.

I thank you for your time & answer. Sigh, expator is just one of those
shit happens events. & it sounded so good.

walkslaone who has learned something new, & the day has not even begun.
Again, many thanks for your assistance in helping remove my iognorance.
On a subject I am never likely to use at that.

A drink a day keeps the shrink away. --Edward Abbey.

[pnyikos]

> > fromhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/50e6e33a42bda4c9?dmod...

>
> > You agreed that you hadn't advanced, here in talk.origins, beyond the
> > Exaptor of the Gaps stage, and you didn't seem at all optimistic that
> > you, at least,  could get past that stage.
>
> That's where you're wrong. I didn't say anything about "exaptor of the
> gaps".

I thought "that stage" had to do with some hypothetical molecules,
like the hypothetical pump and hypothetical filament being exapted. I
should have made the "hypothetical" aspect clear, and now I see the
source of our communication problem.

> I was responding to your idea of being able to get information by
> looking at intermediate stages we see today.

We do have hypothesized counterparts for at least one of the
hypothesized exapted parts for the flagellum, but AFAIK there is no
molecular evidence that the existing candidate[s] could be utilized in
similar fashion. In fact Minnich testified that he did some
experiments which suggest that they cannot be exapted to that purpose
in their present form.

IIRC Julie Thomas had a critique of her own about this. I miss both
her and el cid more than any other two people I've encountered on this
ng. [Joe Potter comes close, though.]

> That doesn't mean we have
> to just have faith, which you seem to imagine.

I didn't claim y'all have to have it, it's just that this is all
you've got AFAIK.

> It just means that
> comparative biology won't help us.
>
> > You think "some of the
> > synthetases probably are" paralogs, but they are only a small fraction
> > of all the protein enzymes.
>
> Still, some help, eh? A little bit of comparative biology, at least.

Maybe. See what I wrote next, though:

> >  You seemed reluctant to tackle the whole grand mess, including even
> > modest "helpers" of DNA-transcribing ribozymes that I had talked about
> > [see my "Exaptor of the Gaps" quote from the previous post, now quoted
> > in response to Robert.] to make concrete some vague general talk by
> > you about how the protein takeover might have occurred.
>
> > As for the synthetases: you need to give a good reason for that
> > "probably" besides some cladograms that could be no more relevant to
> > actual relationship as my oft-mentioned analogy of a "cladogram" of
> > mountains that makes the Matterhorn the sister group of some mountain
> > in the Himalayas.
>
> I don't have the knowledge to go much further on that. Sorry.

More and more, I miss "el cid."

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On May 4, 6:48 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
wrote:

> On 5/3/12 3:09 PM, pnyikos wrote:

> > You're really on the ball this time, John, in focusing on the heart of
> > the matter.
>
> > On May 3, 5:48 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net>  wrote:
> >> pnyikos wrote:
> >>> If it was a once in a universe fluke, then what is more likely for the
> >>> average intelligent species:
>
> >>> (1) that it is on the very planet where their universe's fluke
> >>> occurred, or that
>
> >>> (2) it is on one of the planets to which panspermists, who resulted
> >>> from that fluke, sent probes carrying organisms
>
> >>> ?
>
> >> I believe that the last time we tried this by plugging numbers into your
> >> modified Drake equation, it came out that #1 was more likely. Remember that?
>
> > You may have plugged your numbers in and come out that way, but IIRC I
> > put it at either 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 odds in favor of (2).
>
> > Since the numbers were pure guesswork, we can agree to disagree on the
> > odds.
>
> Regardless, I see nothing there relevant to your claim that panspermia
> is inconvenient to atheists.  I often (~99% of the time in this thread)
> get the impression that you have no argument to make on that thesis.

I have argued for it, but since you aren't willing to give what I
wrote the exalted status of "an argument" so far, all I can say is
that the same standards show that all the people who are sure where ID
theorists like Behe, Minnich, and Julie Thomas are/were coming from
are in the same "no argument" boat.

You ran away from a similar statement by me earlier, and I expect you
to run away from this one as well.

And I also expect you to pronounce the following excerpt from from
"Fang Lizhi's Expanding Universe,"
by James H. Williams, as "no argument" that the big bang theory is
inconvenient for atheists:

Fang *et al* had broken a long-standing
taboo by introducing the Big Bang theory
to the Chinese physics world. Insofar as
the Big Bang contradicted Engels's declaration
that the universe must be infinite in space
and time, Fang's paper was tantamount to
heresy. From 1973 until Mao's death, the
Shanghai Cultural Revolution Group under
Yao Wenyuan pilloried Fang and his colleagues
for promoting capitalist metaphyscis
and violating basic tenets of dialectical
materialism.
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/654152?uid=3739896&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=47698976563267

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

This may be my last Usenet post for today. Duty calls.

One species that, in the few decades expended on the effort so far,
has thus far seen no direct evidence of an intelligent species other
than itself.

And so, this one species has only itself for a sample for the time
being.

For whatever that is worth.

> (1) that the once in a universe fluke occurred, and they're it, or
>
> (2) that the once in a universe fluke occurred, it resulted in
> panspermists who sent probes carrying organisms to various worlds, and
> they're one of those its

...in the universe in which they are situated. In other universes, it
might have resulted in an intelligent species that never reached for
the stars to the extent where they might have found out how rare or
how common life in their universe is.

And, if (1) happens to be our situation, then I do hope we aren't like
this species, but will send probes to enough planetary systems to try
and find out how rare or how common life is within, say, 30 parsecs of
earth.

> ...it seems obvious to me that there is a violation of parsimony here,

And it seems obvious to me that parsimony is totally irrelevant to
this issue. Where are the entities that are being multiplied
unnecessarily?

> and all of the assumptions you make about the development of life on
> earth are immaterial.

They are crucial to the "once in a universe fluke" issue. But it
won't be until that 30 parsec search that we can be sure of how that
issue plays out.

> > I envision a panspermia effort spanning a million years or more,
> > averaging about one a year, with 10 of those efforts involving
> > organisms about stage 4 or higher, 1000 involving organisms about
> > stage 2 or higher, and all  the rest sending prokaryotes ("prokaryotes
> > travel farther," in the oft-repeated words of Crick in this context).
>
> I'll also grant that many of your assumptions about the panspermists
> are unobjectionable. It's entirely possible to create an internally
> consistent theory without there being any reason to connect that
> theory with real world observations.
>
> I understand that you've put a lot of time and thought into this. That
> doesn't make it parsimonious.

Nor do any of your arguments so far make any of the alternatives
parsimonious.

Peter Nyikos

[Robert Camp]

Which only strengthens my point.

> For whatever that is worth.
>
> > (1) that the once in a universe fluke occurred, and they're it, or
>
> > (2) that the once in a universe fluke occurred, it resulted in
> > panspermists who sent probes carrying organisms to various worlds, and
> > they're one of those its
>
> ...in the universe in which they are situated.  In other universes, it
> might have resulted in an intelligent species that never reached for
> the stars to the extent where they might have found out how rare or
> how common life in their universe is.
>
> And, if (1) happens to be our situation, then I do hope we aren't like
> this species, but will send probes to enough planetary systems to try
> and find out how rare or how common life is within, say, 30 parsecs of
> earth.

Okay, that's fine with me, but not relevant to the question at hand.

> > ...it seems obvious to me that there is a violation of parsimony here,
>
> And it seems obvious to me that parsimony is totally irrelevant to
> this issue.  Where are the entities that are being multiplied
> unnecessarily?

In the context of the origins of life on this planet,

1) that there is life on another planet
2) that there is intelligent, technologically advanced life on another
planet
3) that extraterrestrial, intelligent, technologically advanced life
desires to spread its seed
4) that extraterrestrial, intelligent, technologically advanced life
desires to spread its seed and has the mean to do so across
interstellar distances
5) that extraterrestrial, intelligent, technologically advanced life
desires to spread its seed, has the mean to do so across interstellar
distances, does so, and we're the result

By themselves these are all interesting ideas to consider, and frankly
I hope the first two are true. But when hypothesizing the processes
that lead to biological life on earth they are all extraneous.

Think about it, even if we uncovered direct, dispositive evidence
obligating an inference to intentional extraterrestrial seeding of
this planet, we would still be unjustified in assuming 4) and 5) when
we've got candidate seeders here in our own solar system (Barsoomians
anyone?).

> > and all of the assumptions you make about the development of life on
> > earth are immaterial.
>
> They are crucial to the "once in a universe fluke" issue.  But it
> won't be until that 30 parsec search that we can be sure of how that
> issue plays out.
>
> > > I envision a panspermia effort spanning a million years or more,
> > > averaging about one a year, with 10 of those efforts involving
> > > organisms about stage 4 or higher, 1000 involving organisms about
> > > stage 2 or higher, and all  the rest sending prokaryotes ("prokaryotes
> > > travel farther," in the oft-repeated words of Crick in this context).
>
> > I'll also grant that many of your assumptions about the panspermists
> > are unobjectionable. It's entirely possible to create an internally
> > consistent theory without there being any reason to connect that
> > theory with real world observations.
>
> > I understand that you've put a lot of time and thought into this. That
> > doesn't make it parsimonious.
>
> Nor do any of your arguments so far make any of the alternatives
> parsimonious.

Of course they do. I don't posit unnecessary conditions. QED.

"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate."

RLC

[John Harshman]

It's possible that you do, but I have no confidence.

[John Harshman]

That isn't an argument either, just as "Bobby hit me first" isn't an
argument. I agree with Mark: so far you have presented no argument for
your claim.

> You ran away from a similar statement by me earlier, and I expect you
> to run away from this one as well.

There seems no reason to run away, as it doesn't respond to the point.

> And I also expect you to pronounce the following excerpt from from
> "Fang Lizhi's Expanding Universe,"
> by James H. Williams, as "no argument" that the big bang theory is
> inconvenient for atheists:
>
> Fang *et al* had broken a long-standing
> taboo by introducing the Big Bang theory
> to the Chinese physics world. Insofar as
> the Big Bang contradicted Engels's declaration
> that the universe must be infinite in space
> and time, Fang's paper was tantamount to
> heresy. From 1973 until Mao's death, the
> Shanghai Cultural Revolution Group under
> Yao Wenyuan pilloried Fang and his colleagues
> for promoting capitalist metaphyscis
> and violating basic tenets of dialectical
> materialism.
>
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/654152?uid=3739896&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=47698976563267

I agree. It's no argument. You are for some reason equating "atheist"
with "communist" and "communist" with "person whose religion requires
Engels to be infallible". Absent those equations, you have nothing.

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/7/12 10:42 AM, pnyikos wrote:
> On May 4, 6:48 pm, Mark Isaak<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
> wrote:

>> [...]

>> Regardless, I see nothing there relevant to your claim that panspermia
>> is inconvenient to atheists. I often (~99% of the time in this thread)
>> get the impression that you have no argument to make on that thesis.
>
> I have argued for it, but since you aren't willing to give what I
> wrote the exalted status of "an argument" so far, all I can say is
> that the same standards show that all the people who are sure where ID
> theorists like Behe, Minnich, and Julie Thomas are/were coming from
> are in the same "no argument" boat.

That may explain it. I ignore your arguments that are purely about
personalities.

> And I also expect you to pronounce the following excerpt from from
> "Fang Lizhi's Expanding Universe,"
> by James H. Williams, as "no argument" that the big bang theory is
> inconvenient for atheists:
>
> Fang *et al* had broken a long-standing
> taboo by introducing the Big Bang theory
> to the Chinese physics world. Insofar as
> the Big Bang contradicted Engels's declaration
> that the universe must be infinite in space
> and time, Fang's paper was tantamount to
> heresy. From 1973 until Mao's death, the
> Shanghai Cultural Revolution Group under
> Yao Wenyuan pilloried Fang and his colleagues
> for promoting capitalist metaphyscis
> and violating basic tenets of dialectical
> materialism.
> http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/654152?uid=3739896&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=47698976563267

Apparently it was inconvenient to some atheists, but certainly not to
atheists in general. Did you bring that up because your panspermia vs.
atheism claim does not generalize either?

[pnyikos]

On May 5, 3:25 am, walksalone <spamstop...@nerdshack.com> wrote:

> Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:6561fa81-944c-4ed0...@m13g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
>
> One small snip for bandwidth.
>
> OK, you folks have got me.  I've looked on line, but failed. failed I
> say, to find a definition I need if I am to make sense out of this
> fiasco.
> Exaptor of the Gaps

I haven't given a formal definition [Does "God of the Gaps" have a
formal definition?] but the following excerpt from a reply to Harshman
should give you the general idea:

"A random protein A, catalyzing reactions z1, ...zn [don't ask me
what n is] whose nature I cannot begin to guess, was exapted via a
string of mutations, while still serving some of these functions
[don't ask me which ones it was still serving at the end of the
string],

"exapted, I say, to give us a protein B, catalyzing reactions y1, ...
y_m [don't ask me what m is] whose nature I cannot begin to guess,
which in turn was exapted, via a string of mutations...

"...which in turn was exapted to give us a protein Z, catalyzing the
replacement of U with C that corrects any ribozyme transcribing DNA
into mRNA but erroneously putting a U where C belongs."

> In my own words during my first mortar attack
> WTFO
>
> All help obliviating my ignorance on this phrase will be of relief, if
> not help.

I hope this at least gives relief. If not, I'll try to move towards a
formal definition.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On May 5, 9:34 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
wrote:

> On 5/5/12 12:25 AM, walksalone wrote:
>

> > Robert Camp<robertlc...@hotmail.com>  wrote in

> >news:6561fa81-944c-4ed0...@m13g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
>
> > One small snip for bandwidth.
>
> > OK, you folks have got me.  I've looked on line, but failed. failed I
> > say, to find a definition I need if I am to make sense out of this
> > fiasco.
> > Exaptor of the Gaps
>
> I share your frustration.

I tried to clarify the matter in my post of a few minutes ago. My
closing offer to him extends to everyone, even to you.

> As near as I can tell, it means, "and nuts to
> you, too."

If the shoe fits, wear it. I've been accused of using a "God of the
Gaps" argument and "an argument from personal incredulity" often
enough.

Turnabout is fair play.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On May 6, 5:35 am, walksalone <spamstop...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
> Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote in news:jo4kf7$g9f$2
> @speranza.aioe.org:
>
> > On 5/5/12 12:25 AM, walksalone wrote:

> >> Robert Camp<robertlc...@hotmail.com>  wrote in

> >>news:6561fa81-944c-4ed0...@m13g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> One small snip for bandwidth.
>
> >> OK, you folks have got me.  I've looked on line, but failed. failed I
> >> say, to find a definition I need if I am to make sense out of this
> >> fiasco.
> >> Exaptor of the Gaps
>
> > I share your frustration.  As near as I can tell, it means, "and nuts to
> > you, too."
>
> With the spelling, it seems it should have a definition.  That's for
> helping abate my laka, in this case, vocabulary.
>
> walksalone who has an advantage in cases like this.  He is not ashamed to
> ask others, that the hell is that.

A man after my own heart, it would seem.

> ABSURDITY, n.  A statement or belief contrary with one's own
> opinion.
> Devils dictionary

If you liked that one, you may like this one too:

WHINE: an inchoate concept as used on Usenet;
were it made logically consistent and defined
broadly enough to encompass the most influential
uses in talk.abortion, talk.origins and alt.abortion,
it would mean "anything that can be construed,
in however strained a way, as a complaint,"
and hence would encompass much or all
of each of the following:
the Declaration of Independence, the Communist
Manifesto, Martin Luther King's "I have a
dream" speech, Mark Antony's funeral oration
in Shakespeare's _Julius Caesar_,
John the Baptist's denunciation of
Herod Antipas, and Jesus's "woe to you, scribes
and Pharisees, hypocrites" rant [more at RANT].

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On May 7, 12:05 am, James Beck <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 6 May 2012 09:35:05 +0000 (UTC), walksalone

> <spamstop...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
> >Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote in news:jo4kf7$g9f$2
> >@speranza.aioe.org:
>
> >> On 5/5/12 12:25 AM, walksalone wrote:

> >>> Robert Camp<robertlc...@hotmail.com>  wrote in

> >>>news:6561fa81-944c-4ed0...@m13g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
>
> >>> One small snip for bandwidth.
>
> >>> OK, you folks have got me.  I've looked on line, but failed. failed I
> >>> say, to find a definition I need if I am to make sense out of this
> >>> fiasco.
> >>> Exaptor of the Gaps
>
> >> I share your frustration.  As near as I can tell, it means, "and nuts to
> >> you, too."
>
> >With the spelling, it seems it should have a definition.  That's for
> >helping abate my laka, in this case, vocabulary.

See my first direct reply to "walksalone".

> Consider this exchange between Professors Nyikos and Harshman on the
> 'protein takeover' thread:
>
> Nyikos: You want to START your pathway with one that already can????
>
> Harshman: Sure. Why not?
>
> Evolution is a chain of events. The chain always starts (and
> continues) with something that "already can." Otherwise, the chain
> ends. As a biologist, Professor Harshman accepts the point where
> chemistry became biology as the beginning of the chain.

Not in the context of the above exchange. He is putting it
arbitrarily at one stage of the protein takeover.

So, if you take a present-day, anthropocentric definition of "biology"
as "the stuff taught as biology in university biology courses," then
it could be classed as biochemistry, but certainly not the biology of
actual organisms.

These organisms are purely hypothetical, living in the "dreamtime"
before the first prokaryote.

> For Professor Nyikos, everything leading up to that point is a "gap"

Not really. Everything that anti-ID folks think of as "must have
happened, even though we haven't even shown a path whereby it could
have happened, because otherwise your argument logically leads to the
impossibility of evolution" is a gap as I use the word. Not much else
is.

The part in quotes is a direct reference to something Harshman wrote
(though not an exact quote) in the exchange from which you quoted
above. Take the matter up with him if you don't like it.

> The trouble with that thinking is that it creates gaps where there are
> none.

Really? Perhaps you would like to join a resumption of that thread,
and succeed where Harshman has failed.

> Closing those gaps seemingly requires extraordinary
> intervention, something for which we have no evidence. By contrast,
> for simplicity, you might frame it as a chain of hazards. For example,
> at extreme values of 'universe' you get stars. At extreme values of a
> universe with stars you find planets, and at extreme values of
> 'planet' you find some with water, and carbon, and so forth. At
> extreme values of those planets, you find some with conditions
> suitable for life as we know it. Conveniently, extreme value
> distributions are self-locking, so we observe that things are
> correlated; each thing we observe depends on the prior hazard. At the
> same time, we avoid dealing with an unrestricted random universe that
> would require infinite time for anything interesting to happen.

Speak for yourself. I've grappled with these issues at great length,
and have some well-formed ideas about them.

> In this hypothetical universe, evolution is just a chain of hazards.

Why are you speaking in the singular? Our universe comes under the
general heading, but is not one of the hypothetical ones.

> Looking back in time, everything becomes increasingly unlikely,
> bordering on impossible, even though, given enough time, something,
> perhaps many things, from the opportunity set inevitably occurs. That
> is, the prior regime 'fails' when the something that can continue the
> chain occurs.

"walksalone" may require this lecture; I don't.

> Since we exist, it is possible that something like us existed earlier
> and seeded Earth, but to the extent that everything that exists today
> subsumes the chain preceding it, even if true, it tells us nothing
> about terrestrial biology.

It could tell us where it came from, and we could even hazard a guess
as to the biochemical makeup of the panspermists, as I have many
times. That in turn could give us inspiration as to how to create
"life as we do not know it."

> 'Exapter of the gaps' while an interesting
> word coinage, is a malapropism. There are no gaps to 'exapt,'

By that standard, there are also no gaps for a hypothetical god to
"overcome", yet people here love to speak of "a god of the gaps".

> just a
> chain moving forward (or not).

Harshman is convinced the chain DID move without intelligent
intervention nor intelligent initiation. That's what you should be
addressing, rather than this "my two cents' worth" wool-gathering of
yours.

Peter Nyikos

[Karel]

On 7 mei, 12:16, walksalone <spamstop...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
> James Beck <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:if4dq7hbasqpmorjt...@4ax.com:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 6 May 2012 09:35:05 +0000 (UTC), walksalone
> > <spamstop...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
>
> >>Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote in
> >>news:jo4kf7$g9f$2 @speranza.aioe.org:
>
> >>> On 5/5/12 12:25 AM, walksalone wrote:

> >>>> Robert Camp<robertlc...@hotmail.com>  wrote in

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

Or, in short easy words: to use something in a way
it wasn't supposed to be used; here referring to
(molecular) functions.

Cheers,

Karel

[James Beck]

Yes. If the generality of evolution is correct, it doesn't matter
where he puts it.

> So, if you take a present-day, anthropocentric definition of "biology"
> as "the stuff taught as biology in university biology courses," then
> it could be classed as biochemistry, but certainly not the biology of
> actual organisms.
>
> These organisms are purely hypothetical, living in the "dreamtime"
> before the first prokaryote.

I'm fine with beginning the study of the origins of human biology at a
suitable prokaryote. At the moment, the evidence supports the notion
that it doesn't matter where we instantiate our study of the chain
between that prokaryote and the divergence of H. sapiens.

> > For Professor Nyikos, everything leading up to that point is a "gap"
>
> Not really.  Everything that anti-ID folks think of as "must have
> happened, even though we haven't even shown a path whereby it could
> have happened, because otherwise your argument logically leads to the
> impossibility of evolution" is a gap as I use the word.  Not much else
> is.

If reality is a reasonable construct, everything that did happen must
also have happened. As for the path, my daily oats come from the farm
to my table at the end of a complex chain of events, none of which,
whether I know or understand them *at all*, are particularly relevant
to the subsequent process of digestion.

> The part in quotes is a direct reference to something Harshman wrote
> (though not an exact quote) in the exchange from which you quoted
> above.  Take the matter up with him if you don't like it.
>
> > The trouble with that thinking is that it creates gaps where there are
> > none.
>
> Really?  Perhaps you would like to join a resumption of that thread,
> and succeed where Harshman has failed.

No thank you. Consider the possibility that your judgment about who
failed in that thread is in error.

> > Closing those gaps seemingly requires extraordinary
> > intervention, something for which we have no evidence. By contrast,
> > for simplicity, you might frame it as a chain of hazards. For example,
> > at extreme values of 'universe' you get stars. At extreme values of a
> > universe with stars you find planets, and at extreme values of
> > 'planet' you find some with water, and carbon, and so forth. At
> > extreme values of those planets, you find some with conditions
> > suitable for life as we know it. Conveniently, extreme value
> > distributions are self-locking, so we observe that things are
> > correlated; each thing we observe depends on the prior hazard. At the
> > same time, we avoid dealing with an unrestricted random universe that
> > would require infinite time for anything interesting to happen.
>
> Speak for yourself.  I've grappled with these issues at great length,
> and have some well-formed ideas about them.

As you wish.

> > In this hypothetical universe, evolution is just a chain of hazards.

> Why are you speaking in the singular?  Our universe comes under the
> general heading, but is not one of the hypothetical ones.

The inclusion of the possibility of many universes is implicit in the
phrase 'for extreme values of 'universe.''

> > Looking back in time, everything becomes increasingly unlikely,
> > bordering on impossible, even though, given enough time, something,
> > perhaps many things, from the opportunity set inevitably occurs. That
> > is, the prior regime 'fails' when the something that can continue the
> > chain occurs.
>
> "walksalone" may require this lecture; I don't.

It doesn't appear to be addressed to you, but I'm happy to agree that
you should know better.

> > Since we exist, it is possible that something like us existed earlier
> > and seeded Earth, but to the extent that everything that exists today
> > subsumes the chain preceding it, even if true, it tells us nothing
> > about terrestrial biology.
>
> It could tell us where it came from, and we could even hazard a guess
> as to the biochemical makeup of the panspermists, as I have many
> times.  That in turn could give us inspiration as to how to create
> "life as we do not know it."

Why would that be useful? Are they coming to visit or invade us?
Should I expect to be kidnapped, rectally probed, harvested, or
mutilated? How specifically does induction based on evidence from
accessible biochemistry inspire (even) speculation on the possible
biochemistry of an alleged, alien, designer-species?

> > 'Exapter of the gaps' while an interesting
> > word coinage, is a malapropism. There are no gaps to 'exapt,'
>
> By that standard, there are also no gaps for a hypothetical god to
> "overcome",

Nonsense. The only hypothetical designer god that doesn't have to
overcome the gaps uses a process indistinguishable from evolution.

>yet people here love to speak of "a god of the gaps

Of course they do. Every observation inside a current 'gap' creates a
new 'gap' for which someone or other will demand an explanation.
Evolution contains no such gaps.

> > just a
> > chain moving forward (or not).
>
> Harshman is convinced the chain DID move without intelligent
> intervention nor intelligent initiation.  That's what you should be
> addressing,

No, thank you, but since we have reached the stage of offering each
other helpful advice in record time, I have observed that you use
rhetoric cleverly. In this particular case, you have selected a
'hypothesis' that doesn't just allow you to shift the goalposts, but
to plant them anywhere you like to create a 'gap,' and an argument
with anyone willing to engage on your terms. That includes everything
from the pre-biotic soup to claiming that the panspermists' care
package caused Homo sapiens to diverge from a common ancestor. Very
clever, indeed.

On the other hand, perhaps you were a bit myopic too, since someone of
modest ability like me can compliantly accept the goalposts wherever
you set them and wait patiently for you to meet your burden of
evidence. Graft your panspermia idea into the chain whenever you want,
up to and including your own conception. Bring your evidence. Anything
else is baseless speculation. I'd say 'gap-less,' too but that is
false, isn't it? The real gap is that biology is based on evidence and
your speculation (apparently) isn't.

>rather than this "my two cents' worth" wool-gathering of
> yours.

Now, now. Is that nice? I might pluck a little from your beard, but
it's not exactly the Golden Fleece, now is it?

[pnyikos]

Something Harshman said in response to me yesterday reminded me that I
only have replied to a little part of this post of his so far.

On Apr 8, 9:32 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> pnyikos wrote:

> > On Apr 4, 6:41 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> pnyikos wrote:

> >>> On Apr 3, 11:00 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>> pnyikos wrote:
>

> >>>>> And here's some testimony by Minnich in the Dover trial about how an
> >>>>> unquestioning commitment to natural causes affects  discourse on
> >>>>> abiogenesis, reminiscent of our little debate on the thread on the
> >>>>> protein takeover:
> >>>>> __________________
> >>>>> 10 Q. Dr. Minnich, why isn't this just the
> >>>>> 11 argument from incredulity?
> >>>>> 12 A. I mean, that's -- Dawkins makes that
> >>>>> 13 argument that because I can't imagine a
> >>>>> 14 mechanism that would produce this that I
> >>>>> 15 suffer from incredulity, and I'm, darn it,
> >>>>> 16 you know, we are trained to be skeptics. We
> >>>>> 17 are trained to look at things through, you know,
> >>>>> 18 a very narrow lens. We're to be our own worst
> >>>>> 19 critics, and it seems like in any other practice
> >>>>> 20 of science that's how we operate, except when it
> >>>>> 21 comes to an explanation of the origin of these
> >>>>> 22 systems, and then we're accused of being, you
> >>>>> 23 know, suffering from incredulity because we
> >>>>> 24 can't imagine how these came about.
> >>>>> 25 We don't have the intermediates. Again
> >>>>>        84
> >>>>> 1 for any biochemical pathway we don't have the
> >>>>> 2 phylogenetic history for any biochemical pathway
> >>>>> 3 or subcellular organelle. Yet as a scientist I
> >>>>> 4 am supposed to accept this without blinking that
> >>>>> 5 this is a product of a Darwinian mechanism,
> >>>>> pp83-84 in
> >>>>>http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/day20pm.pdf
> >>>> I see nothing in that testimony that resembles what I see in science.

It seems to me that you were reading a tremendous amount into what
I've quoted that isn't there.

> >>> The last sentence could easily be about lots of things you've written,
> >>> including on the protein takeover thread and  on Panda's Thumb.
> >> We disagree.
>
> > Yes, we disagree on whether I am supposed to accept that exaptation,
> > which no one so far can even imagine the intermediates for (despite
> > the tentative identification of paralogs), really is a better
> > explanation for the protein takeover than design.
>
> Design is problematic, as it can explain anything at all,

Exaptation is problematic in the same way as far as any features of
organisms are concerned.

But I'm not trying to explain anything at all by design; I merely
introduce the strong probability of some degree of design if [I hope
you don't have trouble with conditional "if" clauses like so many
others here do] my hypothesis of directed panspermia is correct.

As for Minnich: you seem to read all kinds of conclusions into his
words up there as far as design is concerned. Conclusions that are
far from being adequately supported by the actual things he says.

> We have no particular evidence for design; your only "evidence" is that
> we have no clear and detailed natural explanation.

We have no particular evidence for exaptation during the (purely
hypothetical at this point) protein takeover; your only "evidence" is
an unwillingness to take directed panspermia seriously.

> > I may be the only ID promoter in the world who thinks the design, if
> > it happened, was due to a species of ca. human level intelligence
> > whose bodies are made of cells with only simple proteins, and
> > ribozymes as the enzymes.

I should qualify that: this is the one of my three main alternative
sub-hypotheses that I lean towards right now, but the other two also
seem more likely than homegrown abiogenesis.

> I would bet on that. Nor do we so far have any argument for why you or
> we should believe that.

I see you give the word "argument" the same exalted status that Mark
Isaak gives it. Something like "an argument that I can't think of a
good comeback to," eh?


Here I snipped some things I argued against -- by my standards -- in
a post of April 9.

I see there that I was intending to get back to this post "next
week". Well, better late than never.

> > What's more (irony of ironies!) the one person who has done most in
> > the opposite direction, and in the direction of showing that the
> > clotting and immune cascades are not nearly as hard to evolve as Behe
> > originally thought they were....
>
> > ...is Kenneth Miller, a believing Roman Catholic, whom atheist Coyne
> > has attacked dishonestly as part of a general campaign whose slogan
> > is:
>
> > "when one makes pronouncements about faith that involve assertions
> > about science, the science always suffers."
> > -- quoted inhttp://www.millerandlevine.com/evolution/Coyne-Accommodation.htm
>
> I fail to see why that's ironic. You seem to believe in the law of
> contagion. Apparently, Jerry must think that if Ken Miller has ever made
> a pronouncement about faith, all his science must be suspect.

The following actually applies to your "Apparently...":

> Not at all the point.

My main point was that it is ironic that the only person who tries to
refute Behe on Behe's own terms is someone who doesn't have the same
vested interest in refuting Behe that you and your fellow atheists
have.

Continued in next reply.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Apr 8, 9:32 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> pnyikos wrote:
> > On Apr 4, 6:41 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> pnyikos wrote:
> >>> On Apr 3, 11:00 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>> pnyikos wrote:

Repeating a little from my first reply today, for continuity:

> > What's more (irony of ironies!) the one person who has done most in
> > the opposite direction, and in the direction of showing that the
> > clotting and immune cascades are not nearly as hard to evolve as Behe
> > originally thought they were....
>
> > ...is Kenneth Miller, a believing Roman Catholic, whom atheist Coyne
> > has attacked dishonestly as part of a general campaign whose slogan
> > is:
>
> > "when one makes pronouncements about faith that involve assertions
> > about science, the science always suffers."
> > -- quoted inhttp://www.millerandlevine.com/evolution/Coyne-Accommodation.htm
>

Now, on to the part I snipped in my first reply.

> > And to what pronouncement does this *especially* refer? Why, the
> > pronouncement that religious faith and science are compatible!
>
> > Why, if it weren't for Kenneth Miller (and maybe Keith Robison -- I
> > aim to find out whether he actually got his idea for the argument by
> > autocatalycity for the clotting system from Miller) the "Exaptor of
> > the Gaps" argument would still be functioning as a science
> > stopper....
>
> > ...on the level of the "molecular machines" of which Behe and Minnich
> > speak. Keep reading.
>
> I will, but it's painful to do.

It must be even more painful to acknowledge that you keep reading
things into things I write, and others like Minnich say, that aren't
there. See my riposte to "Not at all the point" in my previous reply
for one clear example.

[snip of another tidbit dealt with on April 9]

> >> I used the word
> >> "credulity" because you just seem to accept whatever Minnich says.
>
> > And I use the words "outrageous fallacy" for you jumping to this
> > conclusion on the basis of me quoting just a few things from Minnich
> > to illustrate a few points.
>
> And yet when I look closely at what Minnich said in the quoted bits, you
> deny he really meant what he said.

I can't make any sense out of this, unless you are implicitly claiming
to read either my mind or Minnich's mind here. I haven't denied
anything that is explicitly there in what I quoted from him.

> > I also use the words "double standard" for the behavior of someone who
> > relentlessly attacks ID and its proponents (except me: you are much
> > more careful with me, because I can and will fight back) on the one
> > hand...
>
> Try not to inflate your self-importance too much here. It's already
> about to burst.

Your own self-importance seems to make you impervious to the charge of
a double standard. I saw more of it this morning and will comment on
it before long.

> > ... and on the other hand, expects me to balance my corrections of
> > false and distorted claims about ID with criticism of ID proponents
> > that amounts to adding a little bit to y'all's massive overkill.
>
> I have no idea where you got that from.

I got it from the way you sarcastically claimed, more than once, that
I always seem to be ignorant of things that put ID proponents in a bad
light.

> I'm merely asking you to take an
> unbiased look at the DI and at prominent IDers.

I take it you aren't satisfied with concessions like "Game, set, and
match to you. Congratulations." where Dembski is concerned. So I
don't think you'd recognize an unbiased look if you saw it.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On May 8, 4:17 pm, James Beck <jdbeck11...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 8, 9:07 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On May 7, 12:05 am, James Beck <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > Consider this exchange between Professors Nyikos and Harshman on the
> > > 'protein takeover' thread:

Harshman, a Professor? I wouldn't have guessed it.

> > > Nyikos: You want to START your pathway with one that already can????
>
> > > Harshman: Sure. Why not?
>
> > > Evolution is a chain of events. The chain always starts (and
> > > continues) with something that "already can." Otherwise, the chain
> > > ends. As a biologist, Professor Harshman accepts the point where
> > > chemistry became biology as the beginning of the chain.
>
> > Not in the context of the above exchange.  He is putting it
> > arbitrarily at one stage of the protein takeover.
>
> Yes. If the generality of evolution is correct, it doesn't matter
> where he puts it.

It does if he wants to ever come to grips with the mystery of the
protein takeover, as opposed to jumping in at a place where it is
already well advanced.

Above, he was trying to explain the evolution of protein sythetases
from something that already had the specificity of a protein
synthetase.

> > So, if you take a present-day, anthropocentric definition of "biology"
> > as "the stuff taught as biology in university biology courses," then
> > it could be classed as biochemistry, but certainly not the biology of
> > actual organisms.
>
> > These organisms are purely hypothetical, living in the "dreamtime"
> > before the first prokaryote.
>
> I'm fine with beginning the study of the origins of human biology at a
> suitable prokaryote.

Me too, but what Harshman was trying to do with what preceded them is
like trying to study the origins of human biology by starting with
monkeys, and claiming that anyone who thinks earlier stages pose any
problems doesn't realize that the logical outcome of that attitude is
a complete denial that evolution can take place at all.

> At the moment, the evidence supports the notion
> that it doesn't matter where we instantiate our study of the chain
> between that prokaryote and the divergence of H. sapiens.

Sure, unless we really want to avoid ascribing events further back in
the chain to a creator.

> > > For Professor Nyikos, everything leading up to that point is a "gap"
>
> > Not really.  Everything that anti-ID folks think of as "must have
> > happened, even though we haven't even shown a path whereby it could
> > have happened, because otherwise your argument logically leads to the
> > impossibility of evolution" is a gap as I use the word.  Not much else
> > is.
>
> If reality is a reasonable construct, everything that did happen must
> also have happened. As for the path, my daily oats come from the farm
> to my table at the end of a complex chain of events, none of which,
> whether I know or understand them *at all*, are particularly relevant
> to the subsequent process of digestion.

Maybe some day you will explain the relevance of this last paragraph
of yours to what went before.

> > The part in quotes is a direct reference to something Harshman wrote
> > (though not an exact quote) in the exchange from which you quoted
> > above.  Take the matter up with him if you don't like it.
>
> > > The trouble with that thinking is that it creates gaps where there are
> > > none.
>
> > Really?  Perhaps you would like to join a resumption of that thread,
> > and succeed where Harshman has failed.
>
> No thank you. Consider the possibility that your judgment about who
> failed in that thread is in error.

It wasn't an across-the-board use of the word "failed." He failed to
argue convincingly for there being no problem posed by the gigantic
gap from an organism whose enzymes were RNA instead of protein, and
which had only simple structural proteins, to the first prokaryote.

Do you think I am creating a gap here where there is none? If so, you
are implicitly claiming to be able to succeed in filling this gap.

[snip]

> > > Since we exist, it is possible that something like us existed earlier
> > > and seeded Earth, but to the extent that everything that exists today
> > > subsumes the chain preceding it, even if true, it tells us nothing
> > > about terrestrial biology.
>
> > It could tell us where it came from, and we could even hazard a guess
> > as to the biochemical makeup of the panspermists, as I have many
> > times.  That in turn could give us inspiration as to how to create
> > "life as we do not know it."
>
> Why would that be useful? Are they coming to visit or invade us?
> Should I expect to be kidnapped, rectally probed, harvested, or
> mutilated?

If you knew the first thing about where I am coming from, these cracks
of your would seem out of place.

> How specifically does induction based on evidence from
> accessible biochemistry inspire (even) speculation on the possible
> biochemistry of an alleged, alien, designer-species?

See above about "RNA based". If such pre-prokaryotes could evolve
into intelligent species without their ancestors ever having to go
through a protein takeover, and this species in turn created the first
prokaryotes and sent some of them to earth, that would obviate the
need to hypothesize there ever having been a protein takeover--
anywhere.

> > > 'Exapter of the gaps' while an interesting
> > > word coinage, is a malapropism. There are no gaps to 'exapt,'
>
> > By that standard, there are also no gaps for a hypothetical god to
> > "overcome",
>
> Nonsense. The only hypothetical designer god that doesn't have to
> overcome the gaps uses a process indistinguishable from evolution.

What gaps? You claimed there are no gaps to "exapt." What other gaps
did you have in mind?

> >yet people here love to speak of "a god of the gaps
>
> Of course they do. Every observation inside a current 'gap' creates a
> new 'gap' for which someone or other will demand an explanation.
> Evolution contains no such gaps.

If you know what you are talking about, then perhaps you can explain
how the intermediates between primitive insectivores and bats, none of
which have been found yet, looked; also, how these intermediates had
survival advantages over their immediate ancestors.

This is a theme which I've discussed at considerable length elsewhere,
and so far no one has been able to adequately meet that challenge.

References on request.

> > > just a
> > > chain moving forward (or not).
>
> > Harshman is convinced the chain DID move without intelligent
> > intervention nor intelligent initiation.  That's what you should be
> > addressing,
>
> No, thank you, but since we have reached the stage of offering each
> other helpful advice in record time, I have observed that you use
> rhetoric cleverly. In this particular case, you have selected a
> 'hypothesis' that doesn't just allow you to shift the goalposts, but
> to plant them anywhere you like to create a 'gap,' and an argument
> with anyone willing to engage on your terms.

I see you haven't a clue as to where I am coming from. See above
about me having no problem with believing in evolution from the first
prokaryote on.

My comments about bats? I'm merely pointing out that there are gaps
in our knowledge of the details of how that evolution proceeded. I
myself came up with one possible "Darwinian" scenario. But it went
over like a lead balloon, probably because the movers and shakers of
the time didn't want to acknowledge that one didn't already exist.

> That includes everything
> from the pre-biotic soup to claiming that the panspermists' care
> package caused Homo sapiens to diverge from a common ancestor. Very
> clever, indeed.

It is NOT clever of you to ramble on like this without any clue as to
where I am coming from.


Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

It seems odd that the person who sees nothing is the one reading into
the testimony.

>>>>> The last sentence could easily be about lots of things you've written,
>>>>> including on the protein takeover thread and on Panda's Thumb.
>>>> We disagree.
>>> Yes, we disagree on whether I am supposed to accept that exaptation,
>>> which no one so far can even imagine the intermediates for (despite
>>> the tentative identification of paralogs), really is a better
>>> explanation for the protein takeover than design.
>> Design is problematic, as it can explain anything at all,
>
> Exaptation is problematic in the same way as far as any features of
> organisms are concerned.
>
> But I'm not trying to explain anything at all by design; I merely
> introduce the strong probability of some degree of design if [I hope
> you don't have trouble with conditional "if" clauses like so many
> others here do] my hypothesis of directed panspermia is correct.

I don't see it, exactly. One could do directed panspermy with natural
organisms, choosing the best from what's available. It's conceivable
that one could engineer the organisms to some extent, packing one's
favorite characteristics into a common package. That's design of a sort.
I don't see any sense to your hypothesis of intelligent beings designing
a sort of life completely unlike their own in order to colonize the
galaxy. So it's not clear that evidence of panspermy is also evidence
for design. It might work better the other way, that evidence for design
would be evidence for panspermy. But there are other possibilities there
too.

> As for Minnich: you seem to read all kinds of conclusions into his
> words up there as far as design is concerned. Conclusions that are
> far from being adequately supported by the actual things he says.

Hard to tell, since the only thing you appear to have included is the
statement that I don't recognize the science that Minnich describes.
What are my conclusions?

>> We have no particular evidence for design; your only "evidence" is that
>> we have no clear and detailed natural explanation.
>
> We have no particular evidence for exaptation during the (purely
> hypothetical at this point) protein takeover; your only "evidence" is
> an unwillingness to take directed panspermia seriously.

That isn't evidence, I agree. But I've never claimed it's evidence. What
we have are hypotheses of evolution prior to the LUCA. It's always
conceivable that the evolution in question happened in a laboratory in a
faraway planet. But that seems to require more entities than natural
evolution here on earth, and so the latter is to be preferred so far. If
you have evidence supporting your side, that might change.

>>> I may be the only ID promoter in the world who thinks the design, if
>>> it happened, was due to a species of ca. human level intelligence
>>> whose bodies are made of cells with only simple proteins, and
>>> ribozymes as the enzymes.
>
> I should qualify that: this is the one of my three main alternative
> sub-hypotheses that I lean towards right now, but the other two also
> seem more likely than homegrown abiogenesis.

On what basis do you decide among hypotheses? So far I've seen nothing.
And the idea of aliens designing life from scratch that's totally unlike
their own sort of life seems so needlessly complex as to be the least
likely of all the possibilities. Come on: the only natural pathway they
knew to be capable of producing intelligent life, and they ditch it in
favor of an unknown? What was their goal again?

>> I would bet on that. Nor do we so far have any argument for why you or
>> we should believe that.
>
> I see you give the word "argument" the same exalted status that Mark
> Isaak gives it. Something like "an argument that I can't think of a
> good comeback to," eh?

I have no idea what you were trying to accomplish with that other than
to score a cheap point. No, by "argument" I meant a reasoned series of
propositions to advance a point of view. I have seen nothing like a
reasoned argument in favor of panspermia.

> Here I snipped some things I argued against -- by my standards -- in
> a post of April 9.

Perhaps your standard need work. Consider the possibility, at least.

> I see there that I was intending to get back to this post "next
> week". Well, better late than never.
>
>>> What's more (irony of ironies!) the one person who has done most in
>>> the opposite direction, and in the direction of showing that the
>>> clotting and immune cascades are not nearly as hard to evolve as Behe
>>> originally thought they were....
>>> ...is Kenneth Miller, a believing Roman Catholic, whom atheist Coyne
>>> has attacked dishonestly as part of a general campaign whose slogan
>>> is:
>>> "when one makes pronouncements about faith that involve assertions
>>> about science, the science always suffers."
>>> -- quoted inhttp://www.millerandlevine.com/evolution/Coyne-Accommodation.htm
>> I fail to see why that's ironic. You seem to believe in the law of
>> contagion. Apparently, Jerry must think that if Ken Miller has ever made
>> a pronouncement about faith, all his science must be suspect.
>
> The following actually applies to your "Apparently...":
>
>> Not at all the point.
>
> My main point was that it is ironic that the only person who tries to
> refute Behe on Behe's own terms is someone who doesn't have the same
> vested interest in refuting Behe that you and your fellow atheists
> have.

I think Ken Miller has exactly the same "vested interest" that the rest
of us have. Aren't you the person who claims that ID isn't a religious idea?

[John Harshman]

It isn't a clear example if you merely make a claim and fail to
demonstrate your point.

> [snip of another tidbit dealt with on April 9]
>
>>>> I used the word
>>>> "credulity" because you just seem to accept whatever Minnich says.
>>> And I use the words "outrageous fallacy" for you jumping to this
>>> conclusion on the basis of me quoting just a few things from Minnich
>>> to illustrate a few points.
>> And yet when I look closely at what Minnich said in the quoted bits, you
>> deny he really meant what he said.
>
> I can't make any sense out of this, unless you are implicitly claiming
> to read either my mind or Minnich's mind here. I haven't denied
> anything that is explicitly there in what I quoted from him.

I don't remember what I meant there. Did you snip out an explanation, by
any chance?

>>> I also use the words "double standard" for the behavior of someone who
>>> relentlessly attacks ID and its proponents (except me: you are much
>>> more careful with me, because I can and will fight back) on the one
>>> hand...
>> Try not to inflate your self-importance too much here. It's already
>> about to burst.
>
> Your own self-importance seems to make you impervious to the charge of
> a double standard. I saw more of it this morning and will comment on
> it before long.

I have no doubt you will. Try not to accuse me of cowardice next time,
though, will you?

>>> ... and on the other hand, expects me to balance my corrections of
>>> false and distorted claims about ID with criticism of ID proponents
>>> that amounts to adding a little bit to y'all's massive overkill.
>> I have no idea where you got that from.
>
> I got it from the way you sarcastically claimed, more than once, that
> I always seem to be ignorant of things that put ID proponents in a bad
> light.

I don't see the similarity. You do profess considerable ignorance of the
actions of IDers. How is that a demand for you to criticize them?

>> I'm merely asking you to take an
>> unbiased look at the DI and at prominent IDers.
>
> I take it you aren't satisfied with concessions like "Game, set, and
> match to you. Congratulations." where Dembski is concerned. So I
> don't think you'd recognize an unbiased look if you saw it.

Do you know how long it took to get that admission, when a simple google
should have told you everything? First, recognize your bias.

[pnyikos]

On May 7, 2:45 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 7, 10:57 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > This may be mylastUsenet post for today.  Duty calls.

> > > inference regarding origins for anintelligentspecies (a sample of

> > > one):
>
> > One species that, in the few decades expended on the effort so far,

> > has thus far seen no direct evidence of anintelligentspecies other

> > than itself.
>
> > And so, this one species has only itself for a sample for the time
> > being.
>
> Which only strengthens my point.
>
>
>
>
>
> > For whatever that is worth.
>
> > > (1) that the once in a universe fluke occurred, and they're it, or
>
> > > (2) that the once in a universe fluke occurred, it resulted in
> > > panspermists who sent probes carrying organisms to various worlds, and
> > > they're one of those its
>
> > ...in the universe in which they are situated.  In other universes, it

> > might have resulted in anintelligentspecies that never reached for

> > the stars to the extent where they might have found out how rare or
> > how common life in their universe is.
>
> > And, if (1) happens to be our situation, then I do hope we aren't like
> > this species, but will send probes to enough planetary systems to try
> > and find out how rare or how common life is within, say, 30 parsecs of
> > earth.
>
> Okay, that's fine with me, but not relevant to the question at hand.
>
> > > ...it seems obvious to me that there is a violation of parsimony here,
>
> > And it seems obvious to me that parsimony is totally irrelevant to
> > this issue.  Where are the entities that are being multiplied
> > unnecessarily?
>
> In the context of the origins of life on this planet,
>
> 1) that there is life on another planet

So you think that earth is the only planet in the universe with life
on it?

> 2) that there isintelligent, technologically advanced life on another
> planet

Was. Not is. And do you really believe we are the only intelligent,
technologically advanced life in our universe?

> 3) that extraterrestrial,intelligent, technologically advanced life

> desires to spread its seed

...if it becomes convinced that if life is to exist anywhere else, it
is up to it to spread it.

Crick and Orgel make a similar point. Have you read their article
yet?

> 4) that extraterrestrial,intelligent, technologically advanced life

> desires to spread its seed and has the mean to do so across
> interstellar distances

And you think we will never be able to do that?

You don't seem to realize that by making a sacred cow of parsimony,
you are making all kinds of implicit assumptions yourself.


> 5) that extraterrestrial,intelligent, technologically advanced life

> desires to spread its seed, has the mean to do so across interstellar
> distances, does so, and we're the result
>
> By themselves these are all interesting ideas to consider, and frankly
> I hope the first two are true. But when hypothesizing the processes
> that lead to biological life on earth they are all extraneous.

> Think about it, even if we uncovered direct, dispositive evidence
> obligating an inference to intentional extraterrestrial seeding of
> this planet, we would still be unjustified in assuming 4) and 5) when
> we've got candidate seeders here in our own solar system (Barsoomians
> anyone?).

Think about it, you are continuing to lampoon a serious scientific
hypothesis. Unless you are a kook, you know how unrealistic it is to
think that, a mere half a billion years after the formation of the
solar system, intelligent life evolved on Mars from the barest
beginnings.

> > > and all of the assumptions you make about the development of life on
> > > earth are immaterial.
>
> > They are crucial to the "once in a universe fluke" issue.  But it
> > won't be until that 30 parsec search that we can be sure of how that
> > issue plays out.
>
> > > > I envision a panspermia effort spanning a million years or more,
> > > > averaging about one a year, with 10 of those efforts involving
> > > > organisms about stage 4 or higher, 1000 involving organisms about
> > > > stage 2 or higher, and all  the rest sending prokaryotes ("prokaryotes
> > > > travel farther," in the oft-repeated words of Crick in this context).
>
> > > I'll also grant that many of your assumptions about the panspermists
> > > are unobjectionable. It's entirely possible to create an internally
> > > consistent theory without there being any reason to connect that
> > > theory with real world observations.
>
> > > I understand that you've put a lot of time and thought into this. That
> > > doesn't make it parsimonious.
>
> > Nor do any of your arguments so far make any of the alternatives
> > parsimonious.
>
> Of course they do. I don't posit unnecessary conditions.

You posit that a protein takeover took place, without the tiniest
shred of evidence for it. Three hundred or so genes for beautifully
useful proteins, arising nobody knows how, supplanting ribozymes which
vanished without a trace except for ribosomes which hung on for six
times as long in three totally divided domains (prokaryotes, archae,
eukarotes) are your idea of "necessitated pluralitas".

> "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate."

Peter Nyikos

[Robert Camp]

On May 8, 8:17 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On May 7, 2:45 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 7, 10:57 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > This may be mylastUsenet post for today.  Duty calls.
>
> > > On May 4, 7:08 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 4, 10:28 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > On May 3, 6:15 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On May 3, 2:35 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > On May 1, 6:56 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> > > > ...it seems obvious to me that there is a violation of parsimony here,
>
> > > And it seems obvious to me that parsimony is totally irrelevant to
> > > this issue.  Where are the entities that are being multiplied
> > > unnecessarily?
>
> > In the context of the origins of life on this planet,
>
> > 1) that there is life on another planet
>
> So you think that earth is the only planet in the universe with life
> on it?
>
> > 2) that there isintelligent, technologically advanced life on another
> > planet
>
> Was.  Not is.  And do you really believe we are the only intelligent,
> technologically advanced life in our universe?
>
> > 3) that extraterrestrial,intelligent, technologically advanced life
> > desires to spread its seed
>
> ...if it becomes convinced that if life is to exist anywhere else, it
> is up to it to spread it.
>
> Crick and Orgel make a similar point.  Have you read their article
> yet?
>
> > 4) that extraterrestrial,intelligent, technologically advanced life
> > desires to spread its seed and has the mean to do so across
> > interstellar distances
>
> And you think we will never be able to do that?
>
> You don't seem to realize that by making a sacred cow of parsimony,
> you are making all kinds of implicit assumptions yourself.

First, wouldn't it make sense to read through something first before
cutting it up and responding to pieces of it as if there's no broader
context? I'd like to think you don't do this intentionally, though
it's happened often enough that I'm starting to wonder.

Second, you've separated and treated each of these examples (examples
for which you asked by the way) as if they were not a cohesive list
presented as a response to a specific question.

Third, you are becoming evasive and irrational. I am not making a
sacred cow of anything, I'm trying to demonstrate how you're bypassing
a useful guide to coherent reasoning. I'm quite obviously not making
assumptions, I'm pointing out yours. Are you sure you're paying
attention?

> > 5) that extraterrestrial,intelligent, technologically advanced life
> > desires to spread its seed, has the mean to do so across interstellar
> > distances, does so, and we're the result
>
> > By themselves these are all interesting ideas to consider, and frankly
> > I hope the first two are true. But when hypothesizing the processes
> > that lead to biological life on earth they are all extraneous.
> > Think about it, even if we uncovered direct, dispositive evidence
> > obligating an inference to intentional extraterrestrial seeding of
> > this planet, we would still be unjustified in assuming 4) and 5) when
> > we've got candidate seeders here in our own solar system (Barsoomians
> > anyone?).
>
> Think about it, you are continuing to lampoon a serious scientific
> hypothesis.  Unless you are a kook, you know how unrealistic it is to
> think that, a mere half a billion years after the formation of the
> solar system, intelligent life evolved on Mars from the barest
> beginnings.

Stop burrowing into minutiae in order to ignore the larger point.
You've hemmed and hawed, but presented no pertinent response to my
points about your unnecessary assumptions.

> > > > > I envision a panspermia effort spanning a million years or more,
> > > > > averaging about one a year, with 10 of those efforts involving
> > > > > organisms about stage 4 or higher, 1000 involving organisms about
> > > > > stage 2 or higher, and all  the rest sending prokaryotes ("prokaryotes
> > > > > travel farther," in the oft-repeated words of Crick in this context).
>
> > > > I'll also grant that many of your assumptions about the panspermists
> > > > are unobjectionable. It's entirely possible to create an internally
> > > > consistent theory without there being any reason to connect that
> > > > theory with real world observations.
>
> > > > I understand that you've put a lot of time and thought into this. That
> > > > doesn't make it parsimonious.
>
> > > Nor do any of your arguments so far make any of the alternatives
> > > parsimonious.
>
> > Of course they do. I don't posit unnecessary conditions.
>
> You posit that a protein takeover took place, without the tiniest
> shred of evidence for it.

I don't posit anything of the kind, and you know it. I simply refuse
to indulge in fallacious reasoning.

> Three hundred or so genes for beautifully
> useful proteins, arising nobody knows how, supplanting ribozymes which
> vanished without a trace except for ribosomes which hung on for six
> times as long in three totally divided domains (prokaryotes, archae,
> eukarotes) are your idea of "necessitated pluralitas".

You obviously are not thinking clearly. In fact considering the trend
of your answers I'm beginning to wonder if you are capable of
objectively evaluating your own argument. There are no unnecessary
variables posited in the above description of the "problem." There is
only an accounting of unanswered questions. You're simply not clear on
this distinction.

And the most amazing thing to me is that you actually think panspermia
solves this "problem." All it does is transplant the issue to an older
time and another planet. If in fact there is a ribozyme puzzle that
cannot be explained by earthly biochemical processes, your solution
is, "Well, it just happened somewhere else." That doesn't explain
anything. All it does is defer explanation.

In this context, that's no better than Goddidit.

RLC

[James Beck]

On May 8, 6:14 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On May 8, 4:17 pm, James Beck <jdbeck11...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 8, 9:07 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On May 7, 12:05 am, James Beck <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Consider this exchange between Professors Nyikos and Harshman on the
> > > > 'protein takeover' thread:
>
> Harshman, a Professor?  I wouldn't have guessed it.

Oh yes. Quite a good one, too. Solid. Credible. Likable. Calm.
Generous with his time and talent. Gives clear, accessible answers to
poorly framed questions. Sturdy research orientation. An ideal co-
author. He'll be a credit to a faculty and popular with his colleagues
and students.

[snip]

[pnyikos]

On May 9, 12:43 am, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 8, 8:17 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On May 7, 2:45 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 7, 10:57 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

Pressed for time, I only respond now to what I think is the heart of
the matter.

> > > > > I understand that you've put a lot of time and thought into this. That
> > > > > doesn't make it parsimonious.
>
> > > > Nor do any of your arguments so far make any of the alternatives
> > > > parsimonious.
>
> > > Of course they do. I don't posit unnecessary conditions.
>
> > You posit that a protein takeover took place, without the tiniest
> > shred of evidence for it.
>
> I don't posit anything of the kind, and you know it.

On the contrary, your championing of homegrown abiogenesis necessarily
entails it, whether you realize it or not.

> I simply refuse
> to indulge in fallacious reasoning.

It's debatable whether you actually haven't indulged in it already.
Be that as it may, what you are doing is refusing to indulge in
reasoning out the consequences of your premises.

> > Three hundred or so genes for beautifully
> > useful proteins, arising nobody knows how, supplanting ribozymes which
> > vanished without a trace except for ribosomes which hung on for six
> > times as long in three totally divided domains (prokaryotes, archae,
> > eukarotes) are your idea of "necessitated pluralitas".
>
> You obviously are not thinking clearly.

You are obviously mistaken about this.

> In fact considering the trend
> of your answers I'm beginning to wonder if you are capable of
> objectively evaluating your own argument. There are no unnecessary
> variables posited in the above description of the "problem." There is
> only an accounting of unanswered questions. You're simply not clear on
> this distinction.

I know the distinction, and you have no grounds for thinking
otherwise.

> And the most amazing thing to me is that you actually think panspermia
> solves this "problem."

One form of it does, the form which says that we are the result of
ribozyme-based life where no protein takeover ever took place. If you
haven't figured this out, you are paying very little attention to
what I am saying on this thread.

You may retort that you aren't interested in what I say to others, but
don't pretend you know where I am coming from if you ignore it all.

>All it does is transplant the issue to an older
> time and another planet. If in fact there is a ribozyme puzzle that
> cannot be explained by earthly biochemical processes, your solution
> is, "Well, it just happened somewhere else."

And it might have been the result of advanced nanotechnology instead
of natural, undirected processes.

Capice?

>That doesn't explain
> anything. All it does is defer explanation.
>
> In this context, that's no better than Goddidit.
>
> RLC

You sure have a knack for counting your chickens before they are
hatched.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

Got any more irrelevant generalities for the peanut gallery out there?

> > [snip of another tidbit dealt with on April 9]
>
> >>>>  I used the word
> >>>> "credulity" because you just seem to accept whatever Minnich says.
> >>> And I use the words "outrageous fallacy" for you jumping to this
> >>> conclusion on the basis of me quoting just a few things from Minnich
> >>> to illustrate a few points.
> >> And yet when I look closely at what Minnich said in the quoted bits, you
> >> deny he really meant what he said.
>
> > I can't make any sense out of this, unless you are implicitly claiming
> > to read either my mind or Minnich's mind here.  I haven't denied
> > anything that is explicitly there in what I quoted from him.
>
> I don't remember what I meant there. Did you snip out an explanation, by
> any chance?

There was none.

> >>> I also use the words "double standard" for the behavior of someone who
> >>> relentlessly attacks ID and its proponents (except me: you are much
> >>> more careful with me, because I can and will fight back) on the one
> >>> hand...
> >> Try not to inflate your self-importance too much here. It's already
> >> about to burst.
>
> > Your own self-importance seems to make you impervious to the charge of
> > a double standard.

That continues to hold true. Or did I tweak your conscience just
enough to cause you to lash back with a standard Internet Vandal
"bloated ego" comeback?

> >  I saw more of it this morning and will comment on
> > it before long.
>
> I have no doubt you will. Try not to accuse me of cowardice next time,
> though, will you?

Try not to spin-doctor so much ["accuse me of cowardice"] next time.
You are prudent where I am concerned. And you would be even more
prudent if you were face to face with me, as I would with you.

> >>> ... and on the other hand, expects me to balance my corrections of
> >>> false and distorted claims about ID with criticism of ID proponents
> >>> that amounts to adding a little bit to y'all's massive overkill.
> >> I have no idea where you got that from.
>
> > I got it from the way you sarcastically claimed, more than once, that
> > I always seem to be ignorant of things that put ID proponents in a bad
> > light.
>
> I don't see the similarity. You do profess considerable ignorance of the
> actions of IDers. How is that a demand for you to criticize them?

The sarcasm, which is totally absent this time around, is what did
it. You used words like "conveniently", which poisoned the wells as
far as giving me the benefit of the doubt as to lack of bias.

> >> I'm merely asking you to take an
> >> unbiased look at the DI and at prominent IDers.
>
> > I take it you aren't satisfied with concessions like "Game, set, and
> > match to you.  Congratulations." where Dembski is concerned.  So I
> > don't think you'd recognize an unbiased look if you saw it.
>
> Do you know how long it took to get that admission, when a simple google
> should have told you everything?

You continue to indulge in blatant double standards. You are too lazy
to even look at links that I give you, a lot of the time.

That reminds me: another time, you ragged on me for not googling
instances of creationists talking to to Christian audiences. To be
fair, I first tried googling an exact phrase, and got:

Your search - "talk on intellignent design to a religious audience" -
did not match any documents.
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22talk+on+intellignent+design+to+a+religious+audience%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a

Then I left off the quotation marks, and got about 12,100,000 results
in 0.29 seconnds to:

intelligent design religious audience

The first hit in this enormous haystack was no needle--it was the
Wikipedia entry, which had no smoking gun of lectures to religious
audiences.

The second hit was to a site maintained by our old acquaintance, Larry
Moran. The reason it came in second? Moran did his usual
editorializing about how ID is creationism--to put it nicely.
Actually, he repeatedly uses the term "Intelligent Design Creationism"
as though it were redundant.

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2010/06/stephen-meyer-explains-intelligent.html

You would think that arguing with Julie Thomas would have made him
just a tad less biased. He came on her like gangbusters in the
beginning, with words that went more or less like this: "Oh, come off
it, Julie. We all know what you are really all about."

It took a lot of back and forth between him and her before he
developed even a modicum of respect for her, but near the end of her
all-too-short presence here, he was actually telling her not to mind
half the bozos who were attacking her as cluelessly as he had attacked
her at first.

Anyway, the this particular Moran blogspot features Stephen Meyer
being interviewed on the 700 Club, which I suppose is a religious
audience [I never watch the show myself.] It stalled about midway
through when I looked it on Internet Explorer, without me seening
anything about what the designer is supposed to be. ["It may have
religious implications, but it is based on scientific evidence" is as
close as he's gotten in the part I heard.]

I've started looking at it on Mozilla just now, and I'll try and see
whether the second half says anything like what you insist happens
most of the time when DI types talk to religious audiences.

> First, recognize your bias.

First, try to show real bias on my part by actually taking into
account years and years of experience with your allies crying "Wolf!"
over and over and over again where Behe and _DBB_ are concerned.

THAT is what made me skeptical when you made claims about Dembski
being a creationist, and about IDers behaving one way when
confronting your kind and another way when "preaching to the choir."

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

Your claim that you see nothing that resembles what you see in science
demands an explanation that isn't as transparently bogus as the one
you gave. Here is one stage of the argument, where you stuck by your
guns in a way that did violence to what you actually saw of Minnich's
words, still preserved above:

On Apr 8, 9:32 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> pnyikos wrote:
> > On Apr 4, 6:41 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> pnyikos wrote:

> >>> Do you even have the guts to say exactly what it is in Minnich's words
> >>> that you take issue with? And why?
> >> Well, he mischaracterizes what an argument from incredulity is. It isn't
> >> that he can't imagine a mechanism. It's that he thinks something is
> >> impossible because he can't imagine a mechanism.


Take note of this next line:


> > No. He thinks design is a better hypothesis
> > because nobody in the
> > world has imagined a mechanism,
> > except for the one "exaptation of Type
> > 3 secretory system plus a filament plus..." which he has undercut with
> > his research.

> I fail to see the distinction. He thinks it's impossible

"I have a better hypothesis" does NOT equate to "yours is
impossible".

Are you usually this bad at seeing distinctions?

> because nobody
> so far has imagined a mechanism. Therefore design?


Therefore, you are posting like a polemicist instead of like someone
with scientific training.
==================== end of excerpt

"He thinks it is impossible." In your reply, you leaned on my own
editorializing, "No, he thinks it is a better hypothesis because..."
which you then spin-doctored the bejesus out of to avoid retracting
your nonsense.

Just FTR, I never claimed it was his ONLY reason. You just assumed
that in your reply to the above, the rest of which was a Pee Wee
Hermanism based on counting your chickens before they were hatched.

[big snip of things to be discussed in a less confrontational manner]

> > I see you give the word "argument" the same exalted status that Mark
> > Isaak gives it. Something like "an argument that I can't think of a
> > good comeback to," eh?
>
> I have no idea what you were trying to accomplish with that other than
> to score a cheap point.

...pot...kettle...you know the rest.

> No, by "argument" I meant a reasoned series of
> propositions to advance a point of view. I have seen nothing like a
> reasoned argument in favor of panspermia.

You have seen nothing like an argument that involves empirical
evidence of panspermists, which is what most of the people on this
thread are demanding. But this is on the same level field as your
(and their) nonexistent empirical evidence for exapted precursors to
aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases, DNA polymerase, transcriptase and reverse
transcriptase, to name just a few of the most indispensible protein
enzymes.

But I've given reasoning galore for directed panspermia, from the
premise of "once-in-a-universe fluke" which I am free to go on
believing as long as no one produces reasoning to counter it.

> > Here I snipped some  things I argued against -- by my standards -- in
> > a post of April 9.
>
> Perhaps your standard need work.

"my standards" referred to a less exalted interpretation of "argued
against". You seem to miss that point:

> Consider the possibility, at least.

Possibility of what? of making greater demands on expressions like
"argument"? I prefer to make my demands on more suitable words and
phrases.

> > I see there that I was intending to get back to this post "next
> > week".  Well, better late than never.
>
> >>> What's more (irony of ironies!) the one person who has done most in
> >>> the opposite direction, and in the direction of showing that the
> >>> clotting and immune cascades are not nearly as hard to evolve as Behe
> >>> originally thought they were....
> >>> ...is Kenneth Miller, a believing Roman Catholic, whom atheist Coyne
> >>> has attacked dishonestly as part of a general campaign whose slogan
> >>> is:
> >>> "when one makes pronouncements about faith that involve assertions
> >>> about science, the science always suffers."
> >>>  -- quoted inhttp://www.millerandlevine.com/evolution/Coyne-Accommodation.htm
> >> I fail to see why that's ironic. You seem to believe in the law of
> >> contagion. Apparently, Jerry must think that if Ken Miller has ever made
> >> a pronouncement about faith, all his science must be suspect.
>
> > The following actually applies to your "Apparently...":
>
> >> Not at all  the point.
>
> > My main point was that it is ironic that the only person who tries to
> > refute Behe on Behe's own terms is someone who doesn't have the same
> > vested interest in refuting Behe that you and your fellow atheists
> > have.
>
> I think Ken Miller has exactly the same "vested interest" that the rest
> of us have.

You have a vested interest in atheism and hence in demolishing
essentially all Arguments from Design. He does not.

> Aren't you the person who claims that ID isn't a religious idea?

It isn't in the form Stephen Myers expounded on in the 700 club:

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2010/06/stephen-meyer-explains-intelligent.html

Now that I've heard the interview all the way, I can state:

The closest he comes to identifying "the designer" is where he says
that he doesn't think we can design life from scratch. I hope he
meant "at the present stage in our knowledge" rather than "what
knowledge we may acquire, given a thousand or so years."

Laurence A. Moran's repeated use of "Intelligent Design Creationism"
in the accompanying text is just his equivalent of "Pay no attention
to the man behind the curtain."

Peter Nyikos

[Robert Camp]

On May 9, 10:33 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On May 9, 12:43 am, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 8, 8:17 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On May 7, 2:45 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 7, 10:57 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> Pressed for time, I only respond now to what I think is the heart of
> the matter.
>
> > > > > > I understand that you've put a lot of time and thought into this. That
> > > > > > doesn't make it parsimonious.
>
> > > > > Nor do any of your arguments so far make any of the alternatives
> > > > > parsimonious.
>
> > > > Of course they do. I don't posit unnecessary conditions.
>
> > > You posit that a protein takeover took place, without the tiniest
> > > shred of evidence for it.
>
> > I don't posit anything of the kind, and you know it.
>
> On the contrary, your championing of homegrown abiogenesis necessarily
> entails it, whether you realize it or not.

I realize nothing of the sort, nor do any of my assumptions require
it. It's within the realm of possibility that every thing we know
about what went before your putative takeover gap and everything we
know of what came after is seriously in error. If true, then the
answer to your takeover "problem" might look nothing like what we
would currently expect or propose. Even in that case nothing in my
perspective is compromised in the least.

You continue to miss the point. I'm not championing homegrown
abiogenesis. I'm not considering the details of any particular
scenario, nor do I need to. Your faulty reasoning puts me in the
position of simply championing coherent argument. Earthly chemistry
and biochemistry have satisfied as explanations for what we know so
far. Until some sort of discovery obligates looking beyond that, there
is no reason to posit extraneous multiplicities.

> > I simply refuse
> > to indulge in fallacious reasoning.
>
> It's debatable whether you actually haven't indulged in it already.
> Be that as it may, what you are doing is refusing to indulge in
> reasoning out the consequences of your premises.

You do not understand the consequences of my premises.

> > And the most amazing thing to me is that you actually think panspermia
> > solves this "problem."
>
> One form of it does, the form which says that we are the result of
> ribozyme-based life where no protein takeover ever took place.  If you
> haven't figured this out, you are paying very little  attention to
> what I am saying on this thread.
>
> You may retort that you aren't interested in what I say to others, but
> don't pretend you know where I am coming from if you ignore it all.
>
>  >All it does is transplant the issue to an older
>
> > time and another planet. If in fact there is a ribozyme puzzle that
> > cannot be explained by earthly biochemical processes, your solution
> > is, "Well, it just happened somewhere else."
>
> And it might have been the result of advanced nanotechnology instead
> of natural, undirected processes.
>
> Capice?

What I understand is that when you have no response to (or simply
don't understand) the meta argument here (regarding the logic of your
inference) you retreat to irrelevant comments about minutiae. Perhaps
you really are incapable of evaluating your position.

> >That doesn't explain
> > anything. All it does is defer explanation.
>
> > In this context, that's no better than Goddidit.
>
> > RLC
>
> You sure have a knack for counting your chickens before they are
> hatched.

And you continue your penchant for evasion. Your content-free response
above to my comments about deferring the explanation is another
example.

(Again ignoring the lack of parsimony for the purposes of discussion)
Saying panspermists-did-it misses the point of providing an
explanation for your proposed takeover "problem" in the same way "He
just always existed" misses the point of "Who created God?" questions.
Theists escape this difficulty by suggesting that the existence of God
need not be subject to physical law, by which argument they remove the
issue from empirical discussion and place it squarely in the arena of
faith. I'm sure you don't intend the same interpretation of your
panspermia inference.

Without a good explanation of how the panspermists overcame the
takeover problem (or avoided it*) all you've done is taken your
putative "problem," added a completely unwarranted set of assumptions
and multiplied the improbability unnecessarily.

(* Please don't respond with an argument along the lines of "The
panspermists were of sufficiently different biology that they need not
have encountered the protein takeover problem." If you don't see how
that posits an even greater multiplicity of assumptions then I despair
of continuing on.)

RLC

[pnyikos]

Googling him gives:

Instructor at The Princeton Review

Not a Professor in the usual sense of the word.

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

[John S. Wilkins]

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

> On May 9, 10:52 am, James Beck <jdbeck11...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 8, 6:14 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On May 8, 4:17 pm, James Beck <jdbeck11...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On May 8, 9:07 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > On May 7, 12:05 am, James Beck <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Consider this exchange between Professors Nyikos and Harshman on the
> > > > > > 'protein takeover' thread:
> >
> > > Harshman, a Professor? I wouldn't have guessed it.
> >
> > Oh yes. Quite a good one, too. Solid. Credible. Likable. Calm.
> > Generous with his time and talent. Gives clear, accessible answers to
> > poorly framed questions. Sturdy research orientation. An ideal co-
> > author. He'll be a credit to a faculty and popular with his colleagues
> > and students.
>
> Googling him gives:
>
> Instructor at The Princeton Review
>
> Not a Professor in the usual sense of the word.

A bit of better Googling has him as a member of the California Academy
of Sciences and of the Field Museum.

http://www.cbse.ucsc.edu/events/event/1248

--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

[John Harshman]

Still, not a professor, since I have no university appointment. But thanks.

[John Harshman]

Ah, I believe I saw this at the mad tea party. I can't have more tea
because I haven't had any tea. But then I could hardly have less tea,
could I?

>>> [snip of another tidbit dealt with on April 9]
>>>>>> I used the word
>>>>>> "credulity" because you just seem to accept whatever Minnich says.
>>>>> And I use the words "outrageous fallacy" for you jumping to this
>>>>> conclusion on the basis of me quoting just a few things from Minnich
>>>>> to illustrate a few points.
>>>> And yet when I look closely at what Minnich said in the quoted bits, you
>>>> deny he really meant what he said.
>>> I can't make any sense out of this, unless you are implicitly claiming
>>> to read either my mind or Minnich's mind here. I haven't denied
>>> anything that is explicitly there in what I quoted from him.
>> I don't remember what I meant there. Did you snip out an explanation, by
>> any chance?
>
> There was none.

Then I can't say what I was talking about. No context.

>>>>> I also use the words "double standard" for the behavior of someone who
>>>>> relentlessly attacks ID and its proponents (except me: you are much
>>>>> more careful with me, because I can and will fight back) on the one
>>>>> hand...
>>>> Try not to inflate your self-importance too much here. It's already
>>>> about to burst.
>>> Your own self-importance seems to make you impervious to the charge of
>>> a double standard.
>
> That continues to hold true. Or did I tweak your conscience just
> enough to cause you to lash back with a standard Internet Vandal
> "bloated ego" comeback?

Yes, of course. You tweak my conscience all the time with your shining
example of probity. I'm so ashamed.

>>> I saw more of it this morning and will comment on
>>> it before long.
>> I have no doubt you will. Try not to accuse me of cowardice next time,
>> though, will you?
>
> Try not to spin-doctor so much ["accuse me of cowardice"] next time.
> You are prudent where I am concerned. And you would be even more
> prudent if you were face to face with me, as I would with you.

Oh, I thought you were saying, "You're brave enough against a foe who
can't strike back." If you weren't saying anything of the sort, then
never mind.

>>>>> ... and on the other hand, expects me to balance my corrections of
>>>>> false and distorted claims about ID with criticism of ID proponents
>>>>> that amounts to adding a little bit to y'all's massive overkill.
>>>> I have no idea where you got that from.
>>> I got it from the way you sarcastically claimed, more than once, that
>>> I always seem to be ignorant of things that put ID proponents in a bad
>>> light.
>> I don't see the similarity. You do profess considerable ignorance of the
>> actions of IDers. How is that a demand for you to criticize them?
>
> The sarcasm, which is totally absent this time around, is what did
> it. You used words like "conveniently", which poisoned the wells as
> far as giving me the benefit of the doubt as to lack of bias.

Sorry if the sarcasm was absent. I'll try to do better in future. And
yes, "conveniently". My hypothesis is that your spotty ignorance is in
subjects you don't want to understand, as it would interfere with your
opinions. What that has to do with demands to criticize people is still
not clear to me.

>>>> I'm merely asking you to take an
>>>> unbiased look at the DI and at prominent IDers.
>>> I take it you aren't satisfied with concessions like "Game, set, and
>>> match to you. Congratulations." where Dembski is concerned. So I
>>> don't think you'd recognize an unbiased look if you saw it.
>> Do you know how long it took to get that admission, when a simple google
>> should have told you everything?
>
> You continue to indulge in blatant double standards. You are too lazy
> to even look at links that I give you, a lot of the time.

Hardly ever. Only when the link is to a lengthy document.

> That reminds me: another time, you ragged on me for not googling
> instances of creationists talking to to Christian audiences. To be
> fair, I first tried googling an exact phrase, and got:
>
> Your search - "talk on intellignent design to a religious audience" -
> did not match any documents.
> https://www.google.com/search?q=%22talk+on+intellignent+design+to+a+religious+audience%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a

So what you're saying is that you're not very good at searching.
Sometimes I have trouble too. Try something else.

[snip irrelevant attacks on Larry Moran]

> Anyway, the this particular Moran blogspot features Stephen Meyer
> being interviewed on the 700 Club, which I suppose is a religious
> audience [I never watch the show myself.]

You suppose? It's exactly this sort of ignorance that makes me wonder
about you. I never watch the 700 club, but I know very well what it is.
How can you not?

> It stalled about midway
> through when I looked it on Internet Explorer, without me seening
> anything about what the designer is supposed to be. ["It may have
> religious implications, but it is based on scientific evidence" is as
> close as he's gotten in the part I heard.]
>
> I've started looking at it on Mozilla just now, and I'll try and see
> whether the second half says anything like what you insist happens
> most of the time when DI types talk to religious audiences.

OK. Let me know.

>> First, recognize your bias.
>
> First, try to show real bias on my part by actually taking into
> account years and years of experience with your allies crying "Wolf!"
> over and over and over again where Behe and _DBB_ are concerned.
>
> THAT is what made me skeptical when you made claims about Dembski
> being a creationist, and about IDers behaving one way when
> confronting your kind and another way when "preaching to the choir."

In other words, you have a bias. I'm sure you have reasons for that
bias, but it's still a bias. I note that you don't seem equally
skeptical of creationists and/or IDers. I suppose that's because you
haven't been arguing with them.

[John Harshman]

John S. Wilkins wrote:
> pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> On May 9, 10:52 am, James Beck <jdbeck11...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On May 8, 6:14 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On May 8, 4:17 pm, James Beck <jdbeck11...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On May 8, 9:07 am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On May 7, 12:05 am, James Beck <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Consider this exchange between Professors Nyikos and Harshman on the
>>>>>>> 'protein takeover' thread:
>>>> Harshman, a Professor? I wouldn't have guessed it.
>>> Oh yes. Quite a good one, too. Solid. Credible. Likable. Calm.
>>> Generous with his time and talent. Gives clear, accessible answers to
>>> poorly framed questions. Sturdy research orientation. An ideal co-
>>> author. He'll be a credit to a faculty and popular with his colleagues
>>> and students.
>> Googling him gives:
>>
>> Instructor at The Princeton Review
>>
>> Not a Professor in the usual sense of the word.
>
> A bit of better Googling has him as a member of the California Academy
> of Sciences and of the Field Museum.

Still, not a professor. Never claimed to be. The term isn't "member", by
the way. Anyone can be a member, and it gets you in free to the museum.
The term is "research associate". That gets you in too, but to the
non-public part, and lets you use the labs and such.

> http://www.cbse.ucsc.edu/events/event/1248
>