More evolution by breaking things?

[RonO]

https://www.science.org/content/article/your-simple-throat-reason-you-don-t-sound-chimp

Since IC failed to amount to anything Behe has resorted to the
perplexing IDiotic denial stupidity of claiming that "Darwinian"
evolution has often occurred by breaking existing genes and systems.
This weird argument has IDiots like Glenn perplexed because Behe is
claiming that "Darwinian" evolution can account for things like the
evolution of whales from terrestrial mammals. His argument is that it
isn't the type of evolution that designer did it evolution can do.
Behe's example is that his designer is required to evolve the flagellum
from preexisting part, but his designer isn't needed for evolution of
whales because Behe claims that, that evolution occurred by breaking
things. Even though whale evolution is an amazing transformation for
Behe it is devolution. Behe is claiming that some evolution can occur
when the designer isn't looking. He is trying to allow the IDiots to
wallow in denial and lie to themselves about the reality of biological
evolution by claiming that natural evolution can account for the
evolution that is so messed up that it doesn't require a designer.
IDiots like Glenn only want to hear the negative claims and remain
willfully ignorant of the fact that Behe is actually telling them that
things like whales could have evolved by natural means.

This Science news article is about the structure of the larynx in
primates, and how humans lack a couple of membrane folds that other apes
and other primates have. The loss of these structures have reduced the
ability to ocillate through a wide range of frequencies very rapidly,
but they think that it stabilized the vocalization so that it could be
more controled and easily interpreted. They haven't demonstrated that
it does improve speech interpretation, but it does seem to reduce the
frequency range of sounds and make us less like chimp vocalizations.

For some reason we lost these structures in the larynx, and future
research will likely tell us what this did in terms of the evolution of
modern humans.

Ron Okimoto

[Robert Carnegie]

Dame Jane Goodall's "party piece" is her chimpanzee
impression IIRC. But I don't know if it impresses chimpanzees.

[RonO]

I've seen video of Goodall imitating the vocalization of a chimp. I
wonder if we had kept these membrane folds, if opera singers would be
better able to vocalize sixteenth notes in a wider range?

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

I've seen posts of yours that imitate behaviors typical of chimps.

I doubt whether they would impress chimps.

[RonO]

Projection is a stupid self defense mechanism because the perpetrator
has to understand what he is in order to do it. You should stop doing
such a stupid thing to yourself.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

You should realize that you soil yourself as a result of your wet dreams about me.
It is a sign of mental illness. And when you refuse to accept even the possibility that
you are wrong about insisting on what and how I believe, your mental illness becomes
more obvious. When you refuse to accept my past attempts to deter you from your path,
little doubt remains that your impaired mental state and capacity to reason is not restricted to the subject of ID. You're much worse, and more dangerous to society and science, than the most religious fundamentalists.

[RonO]

What type of posts did you just project onto me? More projection
doesn't do much. It is just kicking yourself in the butt and placing a
sticker on your forehead. Aren't you talking about your own mental
illness that you present when you post what you do? Just pointing out
that you are doing those mentally ill things doesn't make a person
mentally ill. What have you posted recently that isn't described by you
above? When rational posts with some honest intent are a minority, you
should consider what your projection onto others means.

Ron Okimoto

[daud....@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 4:00:20 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> https://www.science.org/content/article/your-simple-throat-reason-you-don-t-sound-chimp
>
> Since IC failed to amount to anything Behe has resorted to the
> perplexing IDiotic denial stupidity of claiming that "Darwinian"
> evolution has often occurred by breaking existing genes and systems.
> This weird argument has IDiots like Glenn perplexed because Behe is
> claiming that "Darwinian" evolution can account for things like the
> evolution of whales from terrestrial mammals. His argument is that it
> isn't the type of evolution that designer did it evolution can do.
> Behe's example is that his designer is required to evolve the flagellum
> from preexisting part, but his designer isn't needed for evolution of
> whales because Behe claims that, that evolution occurred by breaking
> things. Even though whale evolution is an amazing transformation for
> Behe it is devolution. Behe is claiming that some evolution can occur
> when the designer isn't looking. He is trying to allow the IDiots to
> wallow in denial and lie to themselves about the reality of biological
> evolution by claiming that natural evolution can account for the
> evolution that is so messed up that it doesn't require a designer.
> IDiots like Glenn only want to hear the negative claims and remain
> willfully ignorant of the fact that Behe is actually telling them that
> things like whales could have evolved by natural means.
>
> This Science news article is about the structure of the larynx in
> primates, and how humans lack a couple of membrane folds that other apes
> and other primates have. The loss of these structures have reduced the

> ability to oscillate through a wide range of frequencies very rapidly,

> but they think that it stabilized the vocalization so that it could be

> more controlled and easily interpreted. They haven't demonstrated that

> it does improve speech interpretation, but it does seem to reduce the
> frequency range of sounds and make us less like chimp vocalizations.
>
> For some reason we lost these structures in the larynx, and future
> research will likely tell us what this did in terms of the evolution of
> modern humans.
>
> Ron Okimoto

How certain is it that humans lost the membranes, as opposed to not enlarging them to the same extant as arboreal primates? Do most mammals have them? Do small gibbons have them (they and humans have no enlarged laryngeal sacs, unlike all other extant hominoids & 'Lucy')?

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 4:00:20 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:

> https://www.science.org/content/article/your-simple-throat-reason-you-don-t-sound-chimp

>
> Since IC failed to amount to anything

False. It certainly makes Darwinian explanations more difficult by giving
"more bang for the buck": indirect circuitous explanations are made much tougher,
particularly in Behe's IC examples in _DBB_, in the absence of any strictly
straightforward explanation.

> Behe has resorted to the
> perplexing IDiotic denial stupidity of claiming that "Darwinian"
> evolution has often occurred by breaking existing genes and systems.

Behe has devoted a whole book to this theme, _Darwin_Devolves_.
Nowhere in this thread do you hint at the existence of this book.
Have you ever looked at a copy of it?

More importantly, you do not deny that this breaking has occurred,
nor that such breaking is "Dawinian," thereby
showing that you were in denial when you wrote, "perplexing IDiotic denial stupidity."

To top it all off, the _Science_ article you cite nowhere mentions Behe, but
does hypothesize that LOSS of certain membranes in the larynx
made human speech [also song] possible in all its glory.

Can you think of a more plausible explanation than gene breakage for its loss?

> This weird argument has IDiots like Glenn perplexed because Behe is
> claiming that "Darwinian" evolution can account for things like the
> evolution of whales from terrestrial mammals.

Behe is claiming no such thing, only that certain key characters of
cetaceans are due to neo-Darwinian gradualism in the form of
gene breakage.

> His argument is that it
> isn't the type of evolution that designer did it evolution can do.

Not "can do"; "necessarily did" is correct. You are trying to
drive a wedge between Behe and creationists, without
acknowledging how it gives the lie to the favorite smear
of your fellow anti-ID fanatics, that ID is a form of creationism.

> Behe's example is that his designer is required to evolve the flagellum
> from preexisting part,

Parts. Plural. And "required" is your atheist-mimicking editorializing.
He hypothesizes design and challenges people to show otherwise.
Minnich showed in the 2005 Dover case that the challenge has not been met.
Behe revisits this example in _Darwin_Devolves_ and explains how ZERO
progress has been made since 2005 in debunking it.

>but his designer isn't needed for evolution of

> whales because Behe claims that, that evolution occurred by breiaking

> things. Even though whale evolution is an amazing transformation for
> Behe it is devolution.

He's only identified a few isolated features. Can you name what they are?

>Behe is claiming that some evolution can occur
> when the designer isn't looking. He is trying to allow the IDiots to
> wallow in denial and lie to themselves about the reality of biological
> evolution by claiming that natural evolution can account for the
> evolution that is so messed up that it doesn't require a designer.

You are as bad at "reading Behe's mind" as John Harshman
has been at "reading Glenn's mind" in sci.bio.paleontology
these last two months.

> IDiots like Glenn only want to hear the negative claims and remain
> willfully ignorant of the fact that Behe is actually telling them that
> things like whales could have evolved by natural means.

I'd love to see you provide what you think of as documentation
for this claim.


Finally, you start talking about the article you linked.

>
> This Science news article is about the structure of the larynx in
> primates, and how humans lack a couple of membrane folds that other apes
> and other primates have. The loss of these structures have reduced the
> ability to ocillate through a wide range of frequencies very rapidly,
> but they think that it stabilized the vocalization so that it could be
> more controled and easily interpreted. They haven't demonstrated that
> it does improve speech interpretation, but it does seem to reduce the
> frequency range of sounds and make us less like chimp vocalizations.
>
> For some reason we lost these structures in the larynx, and future
> research will likely tell us what this did in terms of the evolution of
> modern humans.

Notice the double standard. Behe's examples of gene breakage in
cetaceans, which are purely scientific data, are supposedly
explanatory in his mind of how whales evolved from purely terrestrial animals.
But you wouldn't dream of saying that the authors of the _Science_ article
have a hypothesis of how humans evolved from their LCA with chimps.


> Ron Okimoto


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

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 10:30:21 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> On 8/14/2022 8:21 AM, Glenn wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 5:10:21 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >> On 8/13/2022 6:49 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 21:00:20 UTC+1, Ron O wrote:
> >>>> https://www.science.org/content/article/your-simple-throat-reason-you-don-t-sound-chimp

> >>> Dame Jane Goodall's "party piece" is her chimpanzee
> >>> impression IIRC. But I don't know if it impresses chimpanzees.
> >>>
> >> I've seen video of Goodall imitating the vocalization of a chimp.
> >
> > I've seen posts of yours that imitate behaviors typical of chimps.
> >
> > I doubt whether they would impress chimps.
> >
> Projection is a stupid self defense mechanism because the perpetrator
> has to understand what he is in order to do it.

Unsupported bot-like accusations of projection are a staple of yours, as here.

Fortunately for you, your idiotic undocumented comments about
Glenn and Behe on the OP show a modicum of originality
compared to your mindless bot-like ramblings in so many posts,
including other OP's. Hence Glenn's comments are not so obviously
clever as they would be if you hadn't exhibited any nontrivial originality.

> You should stop doing
> such a stupid thing to yourself.

Harshman keeps indulging in similar GIGO against both me and Glenn.
It's happened several times in the last two months in sci.bio.paleontology.


Peter Nyikos

[RonO]

On 8/15/2022 12:37 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 10:30:21 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>> On 8/14/2022 8:21 AM, Glenn wrote:
>>> On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 5:10:21 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>>>> On 8/13/2022 6:49 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 21:00:20 UTC+1, Ron O wrote:
>>>>>> https://www.science.org/content/article/your-simple-throat-reason-you-don-t-sound-chimp
>
>>>>> Dame Jane Goodall's "party piece" is her chimpanzee
>>>>> impression IIRC. But I don't know if it impresses chimpanzees.
>>>>>
>>>> I've seen video of Goodall imitating the vocalization of a chimp.
>>>
>>> I've seen posts of yours that imitate behaviors typical of chimps.
>>>
>>> I doubt whether they would impress chimps.
>>>
>> Projection is a stupid self defense mechanism because the perpetrator
>> has to understand what he is in order to do it.
>
> Unsupported bot-like accusations of projection are a staple of yours, as here.

You of all posters should know how projection works. Do you really need
a reference? You've had plenty of time to figure out what you do a lot
of the time.

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

QUOTE:
Psychological projection is the process of misinterpreting what is
"inside" as coming from "outside".[1] It forms the basis of empathy by
the projection of personal experiences to understand someone else's
subjective world.[1] In its malignant forms, it is a defense mechanism
in which the ego defends itself against disowned and highly negative
parts of the self by denying their existence in themselves and
attributing them to others, breeding misunderstanding and causing untold
interpersonal damage.
END QUOTE:

>
> Fortunately for you, your idiotic undocumented comments about
> Glenn and Behe on the OP show a modicum of originality
> compared to your mindless bot-like ramblings in so many posts,
> including other OP's. Hence Glenn's comments are not so obviously
> clever as they would be if you hadn't exhibited any nontrivial originality.

Glenn knows that they aren't undocumented comments about Behe because he
lived them and wrote those posts. You may not have written Glenn's
posts, but who cares? You don't even document what comments about Glenn
and Behe were supposed to have occurred. It isn't in this post because
you snipped it out without marking your snips, again.

>
>
>> You should stop doing
>> such a stupid thing to yourself.
>
> Harshman keeps indulging in similar GIGO against both me and Glenn.
> It's happened several times in the last two months in sci.bio.paleontology.

There is absolutely no doubt that Glenn should stop doing what he does
to himself. For whatever reason other IDiots and exIDiots will not help
him out. Kalk should explain why it is stupid to keep going back to the
ID perps for second rate denial stupidity after not being able to deal
with the ID perp's Top Six because Kalk did that for a few months with
Glenn and then quit supporting the ID scam. Kalk is still a
creationist, he just doesn't go to the ID perps for second rate denial
stupidity any longer. Glenn still does.

I don't care about you and Harshman because I know that I can't trust
anything that you write, and I don't know what you are talking about.

Ron Okimoto

>
>
> Peter Nyikos
>

[RonO]

They have corrected the article and changed membrane folds to just vocal
membranes. The original paper talks about a structure that they call
the vocal membrane. It is the loss of this membrane that is part of the
simplification of the human larynx. They claim that the membrane exists
in over 20 genera of hominoids except humans. In the paper they note
that the vocal membrane is different, but still there in gibbons and
siamangs.

QUOTE:
In the gibbons and siamang (hylobatids), the vocal membrane extends from
the lateral wall of the laryngeal cavity and has become disconnected
from the vocal fold
END QUOTE:

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm1574

The paper is paywalled, but I have a subscription.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 09:08:22 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 4:00:20 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>> https://www.science.org/content/article/your-simple-throat-reason-you-don-t-sound-chimp
>
>>
>> Since IC failed to amount to anything
>
>False. It certainly makes Darwinian explanations more difficult by giving
>"more bang for the buck": indirect circuitous explanations are made much tougher,
>particularly in Behe's IC examples in _DBB_, in the absence of any strictly
>straightforward explanation.

Give an example of how you think IC provides more explanatory "bang
for the buck".

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[RonO]

On 8/15/2022 11:08 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 4:00:20 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>> https://www.science.org/content/article/your-simple-throat-reason-you-don-t-sound-chimp
>
>>
>> Since IC failed to amount to anything
>
> False. It certainly makes Darwinian explanations more difficult by giving
> "more bang for the buck": indirect circuitous explanations are made much tougher,
> particularly in Behe's IC examples in _DBB_, in the absence of any strictly
> straightforward explanation.

You are just wrong. You could demonstrate that what you claim is true,
but you can't because Behe never got any further than making the claims
that IC might exist in nature. He never verified that his type of IC
existed, and it turned out that if he did, most IDiots are still YEC and
they would not want to believe any verification of something that
happened over a billion years ago in the context of what existed at that
time. Once Behe started looking for his 3 neutral mutations to
demonstrate IC, the IC ploy was over for most IDiots that understood
what he would need to do in order to find those 3 neutral mutations.

>
>
>> Behe has resorted to the
>> perplexing IDiotic denial stupidity of claiming that "Darwinian"
>> evolution has often occurred by breaking existing genes and systems.
>
> Behe has devoted a whole book to this theme, _Darwin_Devolves_.
> Nowhere in this thread do you hint at the existence of this book.
> Have you ever looked at a copy of it?

What do you think the devolution statement comes from? The whale
example is just something that Glenn did not want to understand, and
wanted to remain willfully ignorant about. It forced him to realize
that he had kept himself willfully ignorant of what Behe had been
telling IDiot rubes for decades about biological evolution being a fact
of nature. I had to put up quotes from Behe from the turn of the
century to demonstrate what Glenn should not have been ignorant of,
because Glenn claimed that I was lying about what Behe believed about
biological evolution. One of the statments came from Behe's responses
to his critics from the the turn of the century that you should have
read by now. How many times did I put them up and the links?

>
> More importantly, you do not deny that this breaking has occurred,
> nor that such breaking is "Dawinian," thereby
> showing that you were in denial when you wrote, "perplexing IDiotic denial stupidity."

Why should I? Biological evolution just happens. It doesn't matter
where the variation came from. If it makes a difference and that
differnece has some selective advantage in the current envirnoment, then
it will likely be selected for.

It is just Behe's way to fool the IDiot rubes. He wants them to focus
on the negative, when it is actually evidence that biological evolution
has always been occurring.

It is like Behe's edge of evolution argument for Thornton's steroid
receptor work. Behe accepted the fact that Thornton could determine
what two neutral mutations had to occur in the transition between what
ligands could be bound by the receptors. Thornton was able to put the
changes into the ancestral sequence one at a time and show that both
were needed to have occurred in order to create the new function. Behe
admitted that two such neutral mutations could occur naturally, but in
order to perpetuate the creationist denial he claimed that that was all
biological evolution could be expected to do, and that it could not be
responsible for his 3 neutral mutations that he needed for his IC
systems. So he tried to cover up the positive evidence for evolution by
putting up the denial that nature could not do what his designer could
do, but the stupid thing was that he has never found any system that has
needed 3 neutral mutations to evolve. He has only claimed that, that
might be the case for his IC systems.

Behe only wants the creationist rubes to wallow in the negative aspects,
and not deal with the positive evidence for biological evolution. That
is all that the edge of evolution and Darwin devolves does. He tries to
belittle aspects of biological evolution in order to fool the rubes and
sell books.

>
> To top it all off, the _Science_ article you cite nowhere mentions Behe, but
> does hypothesize that LOSS of certain membranes in the larynx
> made human speech [also song] possible in all its glory.

I mention Behe because it is evolution by breaking things, what didn't
you understand about that?

>
> Can you think of a more plausible explanation than gene breakage for its loss?

You seem to have misinterpreted what I wrote, and what a bogus line Behe
has been feeding creationist rubes about devolution. I did not deny
that this was evolution by breaking things. I put it up as an example
of evolution by breaking things.

>
>
>> This weird argument has IDiots like Glenn perplexed because Behe is
>> claiming that "Darwinian" evolution can account for things like the
>> evolution of whales from terrestrial mammals.
>
> Behe is claiming no such thing, only that certain key characters of
> cetaceans are due to neo-Darwinian gradualism in the form of
> gene breakage.

You are wrong about your interpretation of what Behe claims. He clearly
states that the evolution is devolution and not evolution of building
things that his designer is responsible for. Read what Behe writes. He
thinks that evolution by breaking things can occur naturally, and is
what is expected from Darwinian evolution. That is his argument. It is
only an attempt to throw dirt onto the real science, so that the rubes
can continue to lie to themselves about something that Behe understands
to be a fact of nature.

>
>
> > His argument is that it
>> isn't the type of evolution that designer did it evolution can do.
>
> Not "can do"; "necessarily did" is correct. You are trying to
> drive a wedge between Behe and creationists, without
> acknowledging how it gives the lie to the favorite smear
> of your fellow anti-ID fanatics, that ID is a form of creationism.

Behe clearly states that evolution by breaking things is what
"Darwinian" evolution can do. Behe disparages that type of evolution
calling evolution by breaking things and devolution in order to keep the
rubes from understanding that he is undercutting their creationist
beliefs. It is why Glenn was perplexed by the obfuscastion and denial
argument. All Behe is claiming is that it is a "bad" type of evolution,
but it obviously did happen. All he wants the rubes to take away from
it is the "bad" part and not understand that he is telling them that
biological evolution is a fact of nature. The only reason to do
something like this is to sell books and fool the rubes like Glenn.
Glenn was only interested in the negative denial aspects, and didn't
want to understand the evolutionary consequences.

Why do you think that Glenn projected what he usually posts onto me
instead of deal with reality?

>
>
>> Behe's example is that his designer is required to evolve the flagellum
>> from preexisting part,
>
> Parts. Plural. And "required" is your atheist-mimicking editorializing.
> He hypothesizes design and challenges people to show otherwise.
> Minnich showed in the 2005 Dover case that the challenge has not been met.
> Behe revisits this example in _Darwin_Devolves_ and explains how ZERO
> progress has been made since 2005 in debunking it.

Put up the scientific evidence that Behe's IC amounted to anything in
the last 25 years.

Behe and Minnich both put up the same "scientific" test for IC, and both
claimed that they had never attempted such a verification test, and
neither has done it since. It isn't up to others to support your claims
when you have no support for your claims. Behe eventually claimed that
multiple parts were not needed, because he could tell IC systems by the
order and arrangement of mutations during the evolution of the system.
He came up with his 3 neutral mutation claim, but has never demonstrated
that any such system exists. We have identified systems where two
neutral mutations had to occur in order to produce the new function, but
Behe has only pooh poohed them claiming that they are on the edge of
evolution and not what the designer is capable of doing. That is how
stupid Behe's denigration arguments are.

IC has never been demonstrated to exist in nature. Behe doesn't even
want to verify that his systems are IC because most of the IDiot rubes
are still YEC and they don't want to know what some designer may have
done over a billion years ago. Who would buy the book if Behe came up
with verification that the flagellum was designed over a billion years
ago using parts that existed at that time?

Behe has already told them that others have identified two neutral
mutations that occurred in steroid receptors before the Cambrian
explosion, but he fooled them into maintaining their denial by
denigrating the evolution as something that didn't require a designer.
Really, the latest devolution and edge of evolution denial stupidity out
of Behe kills YEC IDiocy. The steroid receptor example involved the two
types of steroid receptors that were found to be amazingly useful in the
evolution of multicellular animals over half a billion years ago.

>
>
> >but his designer isn't needed for evolution of
>> whales because Behe claims that, that evolution occurred by breiaking
>> things. Even though whale evolution is an amazing transformation for
>> Behe it is devolution.
>
> He's only identified a few isolated features. Can you name what they are?

This is the Darwin Devolves article that had Glenn so confused.

https://evolutionnews.org/2019/10/darwin-devolves-evidence-keeps-rolling-in/

QUOTE:
The second paper is an in-depth look at genetic changes associated with
the evolution of the cetacean (whales and dolphins) lineage. This is the
kind of amazing work that is now possible in our brave new world of
relatively easy genome sequencing. The authors compared the genomes of a
half dozen different cetacean species to scores of other mammalian
genomes. So did they find some jazzy new cetacean molecular machinery?
Or complex, constructive changes in the whale genome to explain its
fantastic change in shape and lifestyle?

Well, no. They found a lot of devolution.

We found 85 gene losses. Some of these were likely beneficial for
cetaceans, for example, by reducing the risk of thrombus formation
during diving (F12 and KLKB1), erroneous DNA damage repair (POLM), and
oxidative stress–induced lung inflammation (MAP3K19). Additional gene
losses may reflect other diving-related adaptations, such as enhanced
vasoconstriction during the diving response (mediated by SLC6A18) and
altered pulmonary surfactant composition (SEC14L3), while loss of SLC4A9
relates to a reduced need for saliva. Last, loss of melatonin synthesis
and receptor genes (AANAT, ASMT, and MTNR1A/B) may have been a
precondition for adopting unihemispheric sleep. Our findings suggest
that some genes lost in ancestral cetaceans were likely involved in
adapting to a fully aquatic lifestyle.
END QUOTE:

>
>
> >Behe is claiming that some evolution can occur
>> when the designer isn't looking. He is trying to allow the IDiots to
>> wallow in denial and lie to themselves about the reality of biological
>> evolution by claiming that natural evolution can account for the
>> evolution that is so messed up that it doesn't require a designer.
>
> You are as bad at "reading Behe's mind" as John Harshman
> has been at "reading Glenn's mind" in sci.bio.paleontology
> these last two months.

That is what Behe is telling the rubes. He claims that Darwinian
evolution should be dominated by breaking things, and that whales are an
example of that. Darwinian evolution is not IDiotic evolution.

>
>
>> IDiots like Glenn only want to hear the negative claims and remain
>> willfully ignorant of the fact that Behe is actually telling them that
>> things like whales could have evolved by natural means.
>
> I'd love to see you provide what you think of as documentation
> for this claim.

What do you think Behe is doing? He plays off the negative while
demonstrating that biological evolution has occurred. In order to sell
his books to the rubes he has to sell the negative, and fool them about
the fact of biological evolution. That is all Behe has accomplished
with his Edge of evolution and Devolution stupidity. Evolution is
evolution. It doesn't matter if Behe wants to claim that his designer
can do better than what happened, or that things get broken during
biological evolution, but he has to sell books to the rubes.

>
>
> Finally, you start talking about the article you linked.
>>
>> This Science news article is about the structure of the larynx in
>> primates, and how humans lack a couple of membrane folds that other apes
>> and other primates have. The loss of these structures have reduced the
>> ability to ocillate through a wide range of frequencies very rapidly,
>> but they think that it stabilized the vocalization so that it could be
>> more controled and easily interpreted. They haven't demonstrated that
>> it does improve speech interpretation, but it does seem to reduce the
>> frequency range of sounds and make us less like chimp vocalizations.
>>
>> For some reason we lost these structures in the larynx, and future
>> research will likely tell us what this did in terms of the evolution of
>> modern humans.
>
> Notice the double standard. Behe's examples of gene breakage in
> cetaceans, which are purely scientific data, are supposedly
> explanatory in his mind of how whales evolved from purely terrestrial animals.
> But you wouldn't dream of saying that the authors of the _Science_ article
> have a hypothesis of how humans evolved from their LCA with chimps.

It doesn't even have to be stated that humans evolved from a common
ancestor with chimps. Even Behe agrees that, that happened. The
article found that all other primates tested (apes and monkeys) had the
structure, and it was obvious that humans had lost it sometime after
separating from chimps.

It is just another example of devolution for Behe, but that doesn't mean
that it didn't happen because it obviously did happen.

QUOTE:
Given these anatomical data, the most parsimonious evolutionary
conclusion is that the vocal membrane is an ancestral primate feature,
and that this feature was lost in the human lineage to yield the rounded
vocal fold typical of humans (Fig. 1B). Thus, we argue that the absence
of a vocal membrane in the human larynx is an evolutionarily derived
feature.
END QUOTE:

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm1574

Ron Okimoto

[Mark Isaak]

On 8/15/22 9:08 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 4:00:20 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>> https://www.science.org/content/article/your-simple-throat-reason-you-don-t-sound-chimp
>
>>
>> Since IC failed to amount to anything
>
> False. It certainly makes Darwinian explanations more difficult by giving
> "more bang for the buck": indirect circuitous explanations are made much tougher,
> particularly in Behe's IC examples in _DBB_, in the absence of any strictly
> straightforward explanation.

Behe: IC cannot (for practical purposes) evolve, and some things are IC,
so consider that a designer is a best explanation for them.

Others: But there is absolutely nothing inherent in IC that prevents it,
or even significantly hinders it, from originating by evolving.

Behe: Never mind. Consider these examples [...]. I can't think of how
they could have evolved.

Others: We can.

Behe: Never mind. You can't prove they evolved in the way you suggest,
so you don't count.

Others: You're crazy illogical. There's no point in dealing with you
any more.

Behe: Never mind. People like Peter still believe in me. That's all
that matters.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 12:00:22 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 8/15/22 9:08 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 4:00:20 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> >> https://www.science.org/content/article/your-simple-throat-reason-you-don-t-sound-chimp
> >
> >>
> >> Since IC failed to amount to anything
> >
> > False. It certainly makes Darwinian explanations more difficult by giving
> > "more bang for the buck": indirect circuitous explanations are made much tougher,
> > particularly in Behe's IC examples in _DBB_, in the absence of any strictly
> > straightforward explanation.
> Behe: IC cannot (for practical purposes) evolve, and some things are IC,
> so consider that a designer is a best explanation for them.
>
> Others: But there is absolutely nothing inherent in IC that prevents it,
> or even significantly hinders it, from originating by evolving.
>
> Behe: Never mind. Consider these examples [...]. I can't think of how
> they could have evolved.
>
> Others: We can.
>
> Behe: Never mind. You can't prove they evolved in the way you suggest,
> so you don't count.

This is my "favorite" retreat in their argument, from "There's no conceivable way this could have evolved," to "You cannot prove that this evolved in the conceivable way you just mentioned."

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 9:30:23 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 09:08:22 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 4:00:20 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> >> https://www.science.org/content/article/your-simple-throat-reason-you-don-t-sound-chimp
> >
> >>
> >> Since IC failed to amount to anything
> >
> >False. It certainly makes Darwinian explanations more difficult by giving
> >"more bang for the buck": indirect circuitous explanations are made much tougher,
> >particularly in Behe's IC examples in _DBB_, in the absence of any strictly
> >straightforward explanation.

> Give an example of how you think IC provides more explanatory "bang
> for the buck".

The word string "provides more explanatory" is ill-chosen.
Correct would be "puts more obstacles in the way of a neo-Darwinian
gradualist explanation of how it came to be in its present state."

Are you sure you aren't conflating IC with ID? The logic here is
that in order to explain an IC structure without resorting to
"hopeful monsters," you first have to get a scenario for
a *bigger* non-IC structure and then either (1) remove one or more
parts that are not needed for its basic function or (2)
mutate one or more parts and thereby make it necessary for the basic function.

Any one of Behe's examples can be used to illustrate
the way that works, but here is a good one where
the clotting mechanism became redundant in one of
the factors when whale ancestors took to the sea.

In in 2009, Kenneth Miller took on Casey Luskin in a National Geographic article, where he mentions a specific breakage in cetaceans and thus helps Behe's case that Okimoto is trying to misrepresent:

"Whales possess a Factor XII pseudogene, an inactivated version of the very same gene carried by land-dwelling mammals. That pseudogene is a direct mark of their common ancestry with other mammals, and disproves any suggestion that constraints on cetacean “design” required the absence of Factor XII. Rather, ordinary genetic processes knocked out the gene, and today the pseudogene remains merely as evidence of their evolutionary ancestry."
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/ken-millers-guest-post-part-two

I don't know whether the cetacean clotting cascade is IC now, but it is clear from
what Behe's nemesis wrote that it became non-IC at some point.

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

PS I left in the rest below, even though you said nothing about it,
so you can see why the "breakage" of that XII gene is relevant to the debate.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Below, Mark Isaak writes a clumsy work of fiction that is about 70 IQ points below
a satire that I wrote a while back on Mark's polemical treatment
the word "part" in this IC context. I think it is only a matter of time before Mark makes it
appropriate to repost that satire.

On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 12:00:22 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:

> On 8/15/22 9:08 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 4:00:20 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> >> https://www.science.org/content/article/your-simple-throat-reason-you-don-t-sound-chimp
> >
> >>
> >> Since IC failed to amount to anything
> >
> > False. It certainly makes Darwinian explanations more difficult by giving
> > "more bang for the buck": indirect circuitous explanations are made much tougher,
> > particularly in Behe's IC examples in _DBB_, in the absence of any strictly
> > straightforward explanation.

> Behe: IC cannot (for practical purposes) evolve, and some things are IC,
> so consider that a designer is a best explanation for them.

Behe never said any such thing. You seem to be conflating Casey Luskin with Behe.
In the National Geographic article that I cited for jillery, Kenneth Miller
even says, "Casey, if you really want to defend Michael Behe, a good place to start would be by reading him."

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/ken-millers-guest-post-part-two

> Others: But there is absolutely nothing inherent in IC that prevents it,
> or even significantly hinders it, from originating by evolving.

It's a good thing the Others aren't quite as clueless as you make
them out to be. Everything hinges on how big and complex the
IC structure is. If you had quoted the right things from p. 40 of _DBB_
this would be clear.

> Behe: Never mind.

Gross misrepresentation of what Behe wrote in _DBB_.

> [Behe, allegedly.]Consider these examples [...]. I can't think of how
> they could have evolved.

Unfair: NO ONE has come up with a plausible scenario of
how they could have evolved by gradualist steps.

> Others: We can.

I'd love to see you come up with ONE example that
doesn't simply cook up a phylogenetic tree of proteins.
Phylogenetic trees are useless for establishing direct
ancestry, and without that, you can't get to first base
in explaining how those proteins evolved while improving fitness.

>
> Behe: Never mind.

Gross misrepresentation of what Behe said in the 2005 Dover trial.

[Behe, allegedly:] You can't prove they evolved in the way you suggest,

> so you don't count.

Behe never had to go that far. "We can. " is Garbage In, and the rest is Garbage Out.

>
> Others: You're crazy illogical. There's no point in dealing with you
> any more.

For "Others" read "Mark Isaak, who loves knocking down straw men
and then driving one stake after another through their hearts."

> Behe: Never mind. People like Peter still believe in me. That's all
> that matters.

You are deep in a private fantasy world, Mark.
You are like Ron Okimoto in that respect. The only advantage
you have over him is that your fantasy world is less cramped than his.

> --
> Mark Isaak
> "Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
> doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

I doubt that you will live long enough to discover that difference, Mark.
But one can always hope.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[erik simpson]

IC essentially means "I can't conceive of a neo-Darwinian gradualist process that could have produced [...]".
So what are the alternatives? Obviously the careful finger of God (or whatever), or well-laid (or possibly not)
efforts of aliens. Are there other possibilities? As perhaps that organisms actually and literally could conceive
such things, over some indeterminate number of generations? Other ideas? ID falls into pretty much the
same situation. The next question is clearly "Which of these or other possibilities are testable?".

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 6:35:23 AM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 12:00:22 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:

<snip puerile fantasy, demolished in reply to Mark earlier today>

> This is my "favorite" retreat in their argument, from "There's no conceivable way this could have evolved," to "You cannot prove that this evolved in the conceivable way you just mentioned."

Who is referred to in "their"? Do you have any examples that you can document
of such a retreat? Or are you simply taking the word of Mark Isaak and/or others that
such retreats have existed?

Whatever the answers, I suggest you look at my reply to jillery this morning
to see realistic examples of the kind of patient spadework that needs to
accompany any arguments, pro or con. The Quote of the Day below my
electronic signature applies to "attack" as well as "defend."


Peter Nyikos

************************** Quote of the day ***************************

Casey, if you really want to defend Michael Behe, a good place to start would be by reading him. --Kenneth Miller

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Snipped this time around, to get to your words, Erik.


> IC essentially means "[In 2.5 decades, no one has conceived] of a neo-Darwinian gradualist process that could have produced [...]".

Fixed it for you.

Did you read any of what I wrote to jillery, Erik [preserved above]? If so, you might be able to see that,
unlike some nasty "Fixed it for you" taunts, my usage is accurate.

> So what are the alternatives? Obviously the careful finger of God (or whatever),

Possibly. Of course, if you think (like your comrade-in-arms Harshman) that such a
powerful supernatural entity is a fairy tale that mature adults need to grow out of,
you might as well skip to the next alternative.

> or well-laid (or possibly not)
> efforts of aliens.

Yes, and I've used the Directed Panspermia (DP) hypothesis, whose main purpose
is simply to account for the beginning of life on earth, as a kind of back door:
"Given DP, the panspermists could have easily designed _______________"
[fill in appropriate example from microbiology].

The Cambrian Explosion, which is utterly unique in the history of eukaryotic organisms,
could be accounted for by a close approach [to the outskirts of the Oort cloud, or closer]
of a planetary system with an intelligent species with technological accomplishments
hundreds of years ahead of our stage of technology. The possible details are more interesting
and more elaborate than for DP, and some day I could give them if there is enough interest.

> Are there other possibilities? As perhaps that organisms actually and literally could conceive
> such things, over some indeterminate number of generations?

"indeterminate" is where the devil is in the details. In response to one scenario for
blood clotting evolution, Behe commented,

"Doolittle apparently needs to shuffle and deal himself a number of perfect bridge hands.
Unfortunately, the universe does not have time to wait." -_DBB_, p. 94.

> Other ideas? ID falls into pretty much the
> same situation. The next question is clearly "Which of these or other possibilities are testable?".

Various DP scenarios are testable. I posted on how this works several times,
but people like you never responded, because the reasoning was too airtight and,
like you, they were only interested in attacking what they perceived to be the
remaining weaknesses.

The Cambrian explosion possibility is probably not testable in the narrow sense of the word.
What is needed, instead, is an explanation for why ALL fossilizable phyla appeared
in the space of 40 million years before its end [Bryozoa was the lone holdout for decades]
and why no new body plans evolved after the great extinctions that ended the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras.

Why, for example, is Chordata the only phylum whose members have
extended flexible solid internal skeletons? There are any number of phyla
of "worms" that could have come up with them, but none ever did, not even
during the Cambrian explosion itself.

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

************************** Quote of the day ***************************

Casey, if you really want to defend Michael Behe, a good place to start would be by reading him. --Kenneth Miller

[N.B. the same is true if you substitute "attack" for "defend."]

[Lawyer Daggett]

Or, get this, the description of systems as IC is often based on cartoonish ideas about
biochemistry.

The cascades that mostly work by the
scheme of activated A (A*) activates B, B* activates C, C* activates D
may well be true, but it tends to ignore that A* can also have some activity
in activating C, and B* can also have some activity in activating D. In the case
of the coagulation cascade this cross-over activity was known in the 60s
and was fairly obvious given the dibasic cleavage sites and otherwise similar
upstream sequences. It was also measured, even if the rates of cross-over
activity were often 10 or 20-fold lower.

So describing such systems are IC is an artifice crafted for polemic purposes.
That artifice is abused further by abusing notions of "function" to fit to artificial
constraints.

Further, consider heterozygous organisms who inherit a pair of, as per the example
above, B alleles, one of which is defective. That produces a ripe environment for
enhancement of the pair of A and C to increase their pairwise cross-over matching.
This can lead to the complete loss of B without any especially strange hopeful
monsters required, or bizarre leaps of evolution.

I also must comment on the following quote

> > >False. It certainly makes Darwinian explanations more difficult by giving
> > >"more bang for the buck": indirect circuitous explanations are made much tougher,
> > >particularly in Behe's IC examples in _DBB_, in the absence of any strictly
> > >straightforward explanation.

which is ironically followed by:

> The word string " ... " is ill-chosen.

I think the word strong " It certainly makes Darwinian explanations more difficult"
is ill-chosen. Whichever of the various meanings of IC is intended for "It" above,
I don't see that IC makes Darwinian explanations more difficult, for most meanings
of "Darwinian explanations". Of course the potential for equivocations between
multiple meanings of IC and multiple meanings of Darwinian explanation make this
a breeding ground for cross-talk and miscommunication.

Most of the perceived problems exist because of this artificial way that the ID proponents
use various concepts of IC to back into a poorly formed question. It is poorly formed
because what it does is pick a current result, something observed to exist today,
and treat it as a target. Then it asks for an explanation of how evolution was able
to aim for this particular target, and claim that natural selection couldn't aim for
that target when it didn't have selective advantages related to that target to leverage
to advantage through natural selection. It's sophistry, a reverse engineered sophistry.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Nominated for Post of the Month.

[*Hemidactylus*]

peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[snip]

>
> Yes, and I've used the Directed Panspermia (DP) hypothesis, whose main purpose
> is simply to account for the beginning of life on earth, as a kind of back door:
> "Given DP, the panspermists could have easily designed _______________"
> [fill in appropriate example from microbiology].
>
> The Cambrian Explosion, which is utterly unique in the history of eukaryotic organisms,
> could be accounted for by a close approach [to the outskirts of the Oort cloud, or closer]
> of a planetary system with an intelligent species with technological accomplishments
> hundreds of years ahead of our stage of technology. The possible details
> are more interesting
> and more elaborate than for DP, and some day I could give them if there is enough interest.
>

Some think pandemic causing pathogens have fallen from space with about as
much traction or utility to earthbound scientists as other forms of
panspermia or astrobiology. These accounts impede rather than add to
progress in epidemiology or evolutionary biology.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/the-strange-theory-of-coronavirus-from-space

[Mark Isaak]

On 8/16/22 9:38 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> Below, Mark Isaak writes a clumsy work of fiction that is about 70 IQ points below
> a satire that I wrote a while back on Mark's polemical treatment
> the word "part" in this IC context. I think it is only a matter of time before Mark makes it
> appropriate to repost that satire.
>
> On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 12:00:22 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 8/15/22 9:08 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 4:00:20 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>>>> https://www.science.org/content/article/your-simple-throat-reason-you-don-t-sound-chimp
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Since IC failed to amount to anything
>>>
>>> False. It certainly makes Darwinian explanations more difficult by giving
>>> "more bang for the buck": indirect circuitous explanations are made much tougher,
>>> particularly in Behe's IC examples in _DBB_, in the absence of any strictly
>>> straightforward explanation.
>
>> Behe: IC cannot (for practical purposes) evolve, and some things are IC,
>> so consider that a designer is a best explanation for them.
>
> Behe never said any such thing. You seem to be conflating Casey Luskin with Behe.
> In the National Geographic article that I cited for jillery, Kenneth Miller
> even says, "Casey, if you really want to defend Michael Behe, a good place to start would be by reading him."

I think everyone in the world except you would recognize that nothing I
wrote was direct quotation. Behe never said the exact words I
attributed to him, but he *has* said its gist. You should read DBB
sometime.

> https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/ken-millers-guest-post-part-two
>
>> Others: But there is absolutely nothing inherent in IC that prevents it,
>> or even significantly hinders it, from originating by evolving.
>
> It's a good thing the Others aren't quite as clueless as you make
> them out to be. Everything hinges on how big and complex the
> IC structure is.

No, it doesn't. There is absolutely nothing inherent in IC that
prevents it from originating by evolution. Those who say otherwise are
simply wrong. As for "big and complex," complexity is one of the things
that evolution excels at.

>> Behe: Never mind.
>
> Gross misrepresentation of what Behe wrote in _DBB_.

It may surprise you to learn that Behe has written things that never
appeared in DBB.

> > [Behe, allegedly.]Consider these examples [...]. I can't think of how
>> they could have evolved.
>
> Unfair: NO ONE has come up with a plausible scenario of
> how they could have evolved by gradualist steps.

They have for at least two of Behe's examples. Since Behe is such a
washout, I admit I have not followed his career for the last decade or
so, which also means I have not followed rebuttals to him. But I know
those rebuttals exist, and so do you. I'm not surprised you dismiss
them, since they only give enough detail to show that the gradualist
steps are possible, and since they were not personally endorsed by God
Almighty in glowing letters.

Not that it matters. The very definition of IC is enough to show that
IC systems could have evolved.

>> Behe: Never mind.
>
> Gross misrepresentation of what Behe said in the 2005 Dover trial.

Well, if you want to go with that trial:

Behe: Uhh . . . . . . . .

>> Others: You're crazy illogical. There's no point in dealing with you
>> any more.
>
> For "Others" read "Mark Isaak, who loves knocking down straw men
> and then driving one stake after another through their hearts."

I'm willing to be shown otherwise. Please make a list of all credible
biologists (i.e., not affiliated with the so-called Intelligent Design
movement) who have favorably cited Behe in their papers in the last 15
years.

[erik simpson]

On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 12:05:23 PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 12:40:24 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 9:00:24 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

...

> Snipped this time around, to get to your words, Erik.
>
>
> > IC essentially means "[In 2.5 decades, no one has conceived] of a neo-Darwinian gradualist process that could have produced [...]".
>
> Fixed it for you.

Thank you so much. There's a difference?

>
> Did you read any of what I wrote to jillery, Erik [preserved above]? If so, you might be able to see that,
> unlike some nasty "Fixed it for you" taunts, my usage is accurate.

That's funny, it looks the same to me. But again, thanks for preserving me.

> > So what are the alternatives? Obviously the careful finger of God (or whatever),
> Possibly. Of course, if you think (like your comrade-in-arms Harshman) that such a
> powerful supernatural entity is a fairy tale that mature adults need to grow out of,
> you might as well skip to the next alternative.
> > or well-laid (or possibly not)
> > efforts of aliens.
> Yes, and I've used the Directed Panspermia (DP) hypothesis, whose main purpose
> is simply to account for the beginning of life on earth, as a kind of back door:
> "Given DP, the panspermists could have easily designed _______________"
> [fill in appropriate example from microbiology].
>

Hypotheses without supporting evidence, or a least a prospect of evidence, rely exclusively on
plausibility. If plausible enough, they might be called hypotheses, but they're otherawise
indistinguiahable from fairy stories.

<snip verbiage about the Cambrian "explosion" being "unique" (of course it is), and irrelevancies
about Behe and blood clotting. Also expansions on unfounded hypotheses (fairy stories) usually
make the story less plausible, not more. "Airtight reasoning", indeed.>

> The Cambrian explosion possibility is probably not testable in the narrow sense of the word."

!!!

> What is needed, instead, is an explanation for why ALL fossilizable phyla appeared
> in the space of 40 million years before its end [Bryozoa was the lone holdout for decades]
> and why no new body plans evolved after the great extinctions that ended the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras.
>

It's quite evident that many phyla had substantial developement in the Ediacaran, so 40 Myr is a
serious underestimate. "Fossilizable" is a loaded word.

> Why, for example, is Chordata the only phylum whose members have
> extended flexible solid internal skeletons? There are any number of phyla
> of "worms" that could have come up with them, but none ever did, not even
> during the Cambrian explosion itself.

Do you really consider that a serious objection? Why do only echinoderms possess stereom?
Why do only Cnidaria possess cnidocysts? The stability of body plans is more interesting; certainly I
don't know the answer, but it undoubtedly involves the absence of large-scale genome duplication in post-Cambrian
times, at least in metazoa.

...

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Not in the way Behe dealt with it in _DBB_

> The cascades that mostly work by the
> scheme of activated A (A*) activates B, B* activates C, C* activates D
> may well be true, but it tends to ignore that A* can also have some activity
> in activating C, and B* can also have some activity in activating D.

The catch is in the unquantified word "some". You do provide something
in the way of quantification below, but it is incomplete.

> In the case
> of the coagulation cascade this cross-over activity was known in the 60s
> and was fairly obvious given the dibasic cleavage sites and otherwise similar
> upstream sequences.

Not just cross-over but autocatalytic in some cases. This was the
key ingredient in Kenneth Miller's Darwinian scenario for the
evolution of the clotting cascade from relatively few factors
despite its IC nature. But hardly anyone realizes how indispensable
autocatalycity was for this demonstration. Most critics of Behe parrot
the words "gene duplication and subsequent divergence" without
having any idea how Miller's clever scenario went.

> It was also measured, even if the rates of cross-over
> activity were often 10 or 20-fold lower.

Did you ever try to find out what the "-fold" numbers were in the case
of genetically modified mice that Doolittle completely misunderstood and Behe
set straight in his Dover testimony? Those mice had two factors knocked
out, only one of which promoted clotting [the other, plasminogen, breaks up clots].
None of the mice involved could form clots, and none survived pregnancy.

>
> So describing such systems are IC is an artifice crafted for polemic purposes.

Non sequitur. If the function of the system drops below a realistic level,
it is useless for survival.

> That artifice is abused further by abusing notions of "function" to fit to artificial
> constraints.

On the contrary, function is an essential part of the description of the system.
Behe was careless about spelling this out when defining IC, but the concrete
examples make it clear.

> Further, consider heterozygous organisms who inherit a pair of, as per the example
> above, B alleles, one of which is defective. That produces a ripe environment for
> enhancement of the pair of A and C to increase their pairwise cross-over matching.

By being mutated in exactly the right way? I don't get it.

> This can lead to the complete loss of B without any especially strange hopeful
> monsters required, or bizarre leaps of evolution.
>
> I also must comment on the following quote
> > > >False. It certainly makes Darwinian explanations more difficult by giving
> > > >"more bang for the buck": indirect circuitous explanations are made much tougher,
> > > >particularly in Behe's IC examples in _DBB_, in the absence of any strictly
> > > >straightforward explanation.
> which is ironically followed by:
>
> > The word string " ... " is ill-chosen.
>
> I think the word strong " It certainly makes Darwinian explanations more difficult"
> is ill-chosen. Whichever of the various meanings of IC is intended for "It" above,
> I don't see that IC makes Darwinian explanations more difficult, for most meanings
> of "Darwinian explanations".

It's the extra steps that make it comparatively more difficult. I do agree that
creationists like Casey Luskin make it sound impossible, which is nonsense.

> Of course the potential for equivocations between
> multiple meanings of IC and multiple meanings of Darwinian explanation make this
> a breeding ground for cross-talk and miscommunication.

Heaven forbid that either of us would go down that route.

> Most of the perceived problems exist because of this artificial way that the ID proponents
> use various concepts of IC to back into a poorly formed question. It is poorly formed
> because what it does is pick a current result, something observed to exist today,
> and treat it as a target. Then it asks for an explanation of how evolution was able
> to aim for this particular target, and claim that natural selection couldn't aim for
> that target when it didn't have selective advantages related to that target to leverage
> to advantage through natural selection. It's sophistry, a reverse engineered sophistry.

It is vague generalities like this, without a concrete example, that breed sophistry.

Take the specific, concrete function, "swimming." The bacterial flagellum provides this function
admirably. So does the eukaryotic cilium, another IC organelle described in detail
by Behe. You are free to imagine alternatives that solve the problem of swimming
differently, but if you are unable to come up with evolutionary explanations for ANY
of them, then you haven't made a dent in Behe's case.

IOW, the target is an efficient swimming apparatus, not any vague old "something observed to exist today."

You would do well to read some of William James's essays to see how
he emphasizes the specific and concrete over the general and theoretical.

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

************************** Quote of the day ***************************

Casey, if you really want to defend Michael Behe, a good place to start would be by reading him. --Kenneth Miller

[Of course, that knife cuts both ways: put "attack" for "defend" and it is just as valid.]

[Glenn]

That rant lead to some interesting scientific papers. Thanks. Just one,

"Indeed, the external surface of the face mask may be the main carrier of the physical contamination."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7358766/

analogous to your claim of "impeding evolutionary biology".

[Glenn]

But "substantial" isn't? "Serious underestimate" isn't?

[peter2...@gmail.com]

You sure are an impressionable dude. See my reply to Lawyer Daggett's spiel of which
you seem to think so highly.

That may be a useless exercise for you, since I have never seen you put together
a rational rebuttal to anything relevant to what talk.origins was set up for.
Your appraisal of DP in another reply you did to me today is a prime example
of you being a polemicist first, a propagandist second, and a reasoner a vanishingly distant third.


Peter Nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 12:30:21 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> On 8/14/2022 10:02 AM, Glenn wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 7:30:21 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >> On 8/14/2022 8:21 AM, Glenn wrote:

> >> Projection is a stupid self defense mechanism because the perpetrator
> >> has to understand what he is in order to do it. You should stop doing
> >> such a stupid thing to yourself.

I've commented on this mindless attempt to insert a square peg
("projection") into a round hole (Glenn's words) directly. Glenn's reply below
is the sort of generic reply that you do, Ron O, except that I have seen
you behave exactly as Glenn describes below.

> > You should realize that you soil yourself as a result of your wet dreams about me.
> > It is a sign of mental illness. And when you refuse to accept even the possibility that
> > you are wrong about insisting on what and how I believe, your mental illness becomes
> > more obvious. When you refuse to accept my past attempts to deter you from your path,
> > little doubt remains that your impaired mental state and capacity to reason is not restricted to the subject of ID.

Over the years, Ron O, you have repeatedly alleged that Glenn is afraid to deal with
what you ignorantly call "the top six ID arguments" because it would undermine his concept of what God is.
But you lack the minimal backbone to even HINT at what you think Glenn's concept is,
while simultaneously saying nothing about what YOUR concept is. So don't be too surprised
by what Glenn wrote about you above.

You were already notorious for this tight-lipped behavior about your concept
when I returned to talk.origins in December 2010.
You claimed for a long time to "believe in a creator" but resisted all attempts to
elicit a description of what sort of creator you believe in. Membership in
a Methodist congregation, which you kept talking about, says NOTHING about that.

It's been a few years since I've seen you make this claim, and I asked
you whether you are now upfront about being an atheist. So far, you
have avoided talking about this. Will you continue to avoid talking about it?

> What type of posts did you just project onto me?

That you are forced to ASK this question instead of documenting
or even hinting at what sorts of posts by Glenn exhibit that kind of projection,
only illustrates how mindlessly you use "projection" as a stick
to hit people over the head with.


Glenn may have been on target with the following parting shot:

> > You're much worse, and more dangerous to society and science, than the most religious fundamentalists.

You are certainly dangerous to talk.origins, the way you went like a crybaby to DIG
and got him to ban Dr. Dr. Kleinman. Worse yet, you have dropped hints that
if I were to keep persisting too long in setting the record straight about the things
in dispute between us, I would get the same treatment.

> More projection doesn't do much. It is just kicking yourself in the butt and placing a
> sticker on your forehead. Aren't you talking about your own mental
> illness that you present when you post what you do?

No. Glenn has been posting quite sanely in sci.bio.paleontology these last three months,
often on topic. But Harshman is so paranoid about Glenn's often helpful on-topic
references, he is obsessed by the thought that Glenn's real reason for posting
them is that Glenn is anti-science.

> Just pointing out
> that you are doing those mentally ill things doesn't make a person
> mentally ill. What have you posted recently that isn't described by you
> above?

I can post ample documentation for what I wrote above about s.b.p.
Would you like to see it?

> When rational posts with some honest intent are a minority, you
> should consider what your projection onto others means.

You have perfectly described your own behavior in the first clause.
I have ample documentation for that, and the things I mention above
are just the tip of the iceberg.

And so, your allegation of projection is itself an act of projection.


Peter Nyikos

[Lawyer Daggett]

I only have time right now to address one point but it is illustrative. The rest will have to wait.
"swimming" is but one means of locomotion. The significant "function" behind the swimming
you speak of is chemotaxis. This is the ability to sense a chemical gradient and react to
it --- either to move towards a food stuff or away from a sense of danger, perhaps a toxin.

So it's a mistake to begin with the question of "how did swimming" evolve in a narrowly
focused manner. One ought to widen one's view to consider movement in general, as well
as the tie to environmental sensing involved in chemotaxis. Otherwise, you are being
overly target specific. You are asking the odds of being dealt the specific bridge hand
that you happen to have. The answer can be "pretty low, you're sitting at a poker table"
or "but we're playing hearts 4-handed". If you are in fact playing bridge, the answer is
a foolish bit of trivia when asked after the hand is dealt. The point is that some questions
are manufactured as part of rationalizing towards a predetermined conclusion under
the false guise of "just asking questions". That Behe has done so is obvious based
on his early associations with the authors of the Wedge Document/Strategy and his
own alignment to that ethos that view Naturalism to be a source of malignancy in
society because he thinks it erodes people's faith and beliefs in a higher power. His goal
is to reveal what he believes to be an Elephant in the room. He often pretends to
be "just asking questions."

[*Hemidactylus*]

How quickly he forgets hybrid immunity, class switch recombination, somatic
hypermutation and other immunology topics quite over his head.

And there’s the Rorschach test inkblot projection you do with Glenn’s posts
yet typically resort to putting me and others down. The irony.

That you can’t see the connect to Steele’s speculation in your DP scenario
isn’t my problem. Yet Steele’s speculation per COVID is of a more proximal
nature (an event several years ago), where you speculate on things millions
to billions of years ago…far more distally removed.

[Glenn]

Tell that to a man with no legs.

[Lawyer Daggett]

I'll settle for a man with no leg to stand on.

. . . That!

[Glenn]

That would be you and your argument. It is equivalent to implying but not supporting which came first, the chicken or the egg.

Your "the significant" function is not the only significant function, and without those other functions, "the" significant function you describe won't get you anywhere, and you won't move towards or away from anything. Kind of reminds me of your arguments.

[Glenn]

I wonder if you would consider this to be a reasonable observation:

" The narrative fallacy addresses our limited ability to look at sequences of facts without weaving an explanation into them, or, equivalently, forcing a logical link, an arrow of relationship upon them. Explanations bind facts together. They make them all the more easily remembered; they help them make more sense. Where this propensity can go wrong is when it increases our impression of understanding.

—Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Black Swan"

https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/narrative-fallacy

I assume this is another take on "false narratives".

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Of what? Your reply is illustrative of your ability to inadvertently take a strong case for Behe and
(especially) Minnich and make it even stronger.

> > >The rest will have to wait.

Take all the time you want.

> > > "swimming" is but one means of locomotion. The significant "function" behind the swimming
> > > you speak of is chemotaxis. This is the ability to sense a chemical gradient and react to
> > > it --- either to move towards a food stuff or away from a sense of danger, perhaps a toxin.

You realize, don't you, that you are just adding new set of problems to the evolution of
the bacterial flagellum: the ability to use an IC swimming apparatus in just the right way.

Glenn perfectly sensed a flaw in your bungling attempt: the word "move",
with no discernable means provided. He reacted appropriately:

> > Tell that to a man with no legs.

> I'll settle for a man with no leg to stand on.
>
> . . . That!

Mindless repartee noted.


Peter Nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

You illustrate my third point very well by missing the whole point
of what DP is all about:

> How quickly he forgets hybrid immunity, class switch recombination, somatic
> hypermutation and other immunology topics quite over his head.

You simpleton, you are comparing an isolated modern day problem
with the grand issue of choosing one of three explanations for the origin of life on earth
that doesn't involve goddidit.

1. Homegrown abiogenesis, which is so far from being understood
that the best argument a man with your understanding of the difficulties
can come up with is on the level of

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

2. The undirected panspermia of Arrhenius, Hoyle, and Wickramasinghe,
superficially like the speculation about coronavirus coming from
space, but requiring the transportation across vast light-years of
things that are the basis for life as we know it. Viruses are a dead end.

3. Directed panspermia, about which I have posted extensive FAQs
showing the scientific issues involved in great depth and detail.

And you led the way in sabotaging the last one, Internet Vandal that you are.
The mental caliber of your sabotage was about on the level of the
silly verbal salad you concoct next, but far more prolonged and hateful:

>
> And there’s the Rorschach test inkblot projection you do with Glenn’s posts
> yet typically resort to putting me and others down. The irony.

Pure drivel.

> That you can’t see the connect to Steele’s speculation in your DP scenario
> isn’t my problem.

It isn't anyone's problem, because of the huge flaw I relate in 2,
which you conflate with 3, simpleton that you are.

>Yet Steele’s speculation per COVID is of a more proximal
> nature (an event several years ago), where you speculate on things millions
> to billions of years ago…far more distally removed.

You think like a YEC.

Or like a primitive human who has no curiosity about how the
world around him came to be.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics

Univ. of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 6:35:23 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 3:45:23 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>
>>>> Nominated for Post of the Month.
>>>
>>> You sure are an impressionable dude. See my reply to Lawyer Daggett's spiel of which
>>> you seem to think so highly.
>>>
>>> That may be a useless exercise for you, since I have never seen you put together
>>> a rational rebuttal to anything relevant to what talk.origins was set up for.
>>> Your appraisal of DP in another reply you did to me today is a prime example
>>> of you being a polemicist first, a propagandist second, and a reasoner a
>>> vanishingly distant third.
>
> You illustrate my third point very well by missing the whole point
> of what DP is all about:
>
>> How quickly he forgets hybrid immunity, class switch recombination, somatic
>> hypermutation and other immunology topics quite over his head.
>
> You simpleton, you are comparing an isolated modern day problem
> with the grand issue of choosing one of three explanations for the origin of life on earth
> that doesn't involve goddidit.
>

Nope. Merely pointing out you hadn’t shown yourself conversant in key areas
of immunology and I’m sure Lawyer Daggett recalls much unfinished business
you left unaddressed on that topic.

>
> 1. Homegrown abiogenesis, which is so far from being understood
> that the best argument a man with your understanding of the difficulties
> can come up with is on the level of
>
> "Mother Earth did it, this I know,
> For Ockham's Razor tells me so."
>

The alternatives creationism (aka ID) and DP are wack.

>
> 2. The undirected panspermia of Arrhenius, Hoyle, and Wickramasinghe,
> superficially like the speculation about coronavirus coming from
> space, but requiring the transportation across vast light-years of
> things that are the basis for life as we know it. Viruses are a dead end.
>

Yet that Steele addresses something a bit more contemporary makes the flaws
in distal applications all the more glaring.

>
> 3. Directed panspermia, about which I have posted extensive FAQs
> showing the scientific issues involved in great depth and detail.
>

If you say so.

>
> And you led the way in sabotaging the last one, Internet Vandal that you are.
> The mental caliber of your sabotage was about on the level of the
> silly verbal salad you concoct next, but far more prolonged and hateful:
>>
>> And there’s the Rorschach test inkblot projection you do with Glenn’s posts
>> yet typically resort to putting me and others down. The irony.
>
> Pure drivel.
>

Bang on instead. I’m thinking of the guy who saw something in the singing
frog per Looney Tunes. How’d that work out for him?

>
>> That you can’t see the connect to Steele’s speculation in your DP scenario
>> isn’t my problem.
>
> It isn't anyone's problem, because of the huge flaw I relate in 2,
> which you conflate with 3, simpleton that you are.
>

Nope. The proximal issues in 2 relate to the distal issues in 3 plus the
“directed” BS that drag an ID goddidit howler into the mix.

>
>> Yet Steele’s speculation per COVID is of a more proximal
>> nature (an event several years ago), where you speculate on things millions
>> to billions of years ago…far more distally removed.
>
> You think like a YEC.
>
> Or like a primitive human who has no curiosity about how the
> world around him came to be.
>

Well given the SCOTUS deck is stacked religiously driven nonsense will be
forced into public schools soon enough. People like Glenn with their
Uncommon Descent and Evolution News will be ecstatic as science education
goes into the crapper.

My curiosity has no room for unwarranted nonsense whether religious or
fever dream scifi fantasy. I think I may have pointed out the
Reptoid-mongers who think some mystery planet comes around rarely may have
more of a leg to stand on than far flung civilizations sending an
exorbitantly expensive fleet of seeding start up kits…

[Zen Cycle]

On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 9:30:23 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 09:08:22 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 4:00:20 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> >> https://www.science.org/content/article/your-simple-throat-reason-you-don-t-sound-chimp
> >
> >>
> >> Since IC failed to amount to anything
> >
> >False. It certainly makes Darwinian explanations more difficult by giving
> >"more bang for the buck": indirect circuitous explanations are made much tougher,
> >particularly in Behe's IC examples in _DBB_, in the absence of any strictly
> >straightforward explanation.
> Give an example of how you think IC provides more explanatory "bang
> for the buck".

It's simple Jillery, "goddidit" is the broad brush that explains everything (and yes peter, regardless of your protestations, IC is simply goddidit wearing different shoes)

> >Peter Nyikos

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

[jillery]

On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 08:57:04 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"

<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 9:30:23 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 09:08:22 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
>> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 4:00:20 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>> >> https://www.science.org/content/article/your-simple-throat-reason-you-don-t-sound-chimp
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Since IC failed to amount to anything
>> >
>> >False. It certainly makes Darwinian explanations more difficult by giving
>> >"more bang for the buck": indirect circuitous explanations are made much tougher,
>> >particularly in Behe's IC examples in _DBB_, in the absence of any strictly
>> >straightforward explanation.
>
>> Give an example of how you think IC provides more explanatory "bang
>> for the buck".
>
>The word string "provides more explanatory" is ill-chosen.
>Correct would be "puts more obstacles in the way of a neo-Darwinian
>gradualist explanation of how it came to be in its present state."

More transparent obfuscating evasion.

>Are you sure you aren't conflating IC with ID?

Are you sure you comprehend written English?

>The logic here is
>that in order to explain an IC structure without resorting to
>"hopeful monsters," you first have to get a scenario for
>a *bigger* non-IC structure and then either (1) remove one or more
>parts that are not needed for its basic function or (2)
>mutate one or more parts and thereby make it necessary for the basic function.

What you describe above is Behe's and your "logic". However,
evolution isn't limited to that method. Evolution also takes an
existing part and *adds* to it.

>Any one of Behe's examples can be used to illustrate
>the way that works, but here is a good one where
>the clotting mechanism became redundant in one of
>the factors when whale ancestors took to the sea.
>
>In in 2009, Kenneth Miller took on Casey Luskin in a National Geographic article, where he mentions a specific breakage in cetaceans and thus helps Behe's case that Okimoto is trying to misrepresent:
>
>"Whales possess a Factor XII pseudogene, an inactivated version of the very same gene carried by land-dwelling mammals. That pseudogene is a direct mark of their common ancestry with other mammals, and disproves any suggestion that constraints on cetacean “design” required the absence of Factor XII. Rather, ordinary genetic processes knocked out the gene, and today the pseudogene remains merely as evidence of their evolutionary ancestry."
>https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/ken-millers-guest-post-part-two
>
>I don't know whether the cetacean clotting cascade is IC now, but it is clear from
>what Behe's nemesis wrote that it became non-IC at some point.

The whale blood clotting cascade is a specific example that shows how
Behe's and your "logic" is falsified. That it evolved from a previous
land-mammal version yet still clots shows the previous version doesn't
meet Behe's specification for IC. Not sure how you *still* don't
understand this.

If you meant the whale blood-clotting cascade to be your example of
how IC "puts more obstacles in the way of a neo-Darwinian gradualist
explanation of how it came to be in its present state.", you can't get
more gradual than knocking out a single factor. And you failed to
identify any obstacle. Try again.

[jillery]

On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 20:57:52 -0700 (PDT), Zen Cycle
<funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 9:30:23 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 09:08:22 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
>> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 4:00:20 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>> >> https://www.science.org/content/article/your-simple-throat-reason-you-don-t-sound-chimp
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Since IC failed to amount to anything
>> >
>> >False. It certainly makes Darwinian explanations more difficult by giving
>> >"more bang for the buck": indirect circuitous explanations are made much tougher,
>> >particularly in Behe's IC examples in _DBB_, in the absence of any strictly
>> >straightforward explanation.
>> Give an example of how you think IC provides more explanatory "bang
>> for the buck".
>
>It's simple Jillery, "goddidit" is the broad brush that explains everything (and yes peter, regardless of your protestations, IC is simply goddidit wearing different shoes)

The peter's compulsive excursions into asinine ad-hominems suggest he
knows he has no examples that aren't tacit admissions of "goddidit".

[jillery]

On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 12:00:44 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 12:40:24 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:

<snip for focus>

> > Other ideas? ID falls into pretty much the
>> same situation. The next question is clearly "Which of these or other possibilities are testable?".
>
>Various DP scenarios are testable. I posted on how this works several times,
>but people like you never responded, because the reasoning was too airtight and,
>like you, they were only interested in attacking what they perceived to be the
>remaining weaknesses.
>
>The Cambrian explosion possibility is probably not testable in the narrow sense of the word.
>What is needed, instead, is an explanation for why ALL fossilizable phyla appeared
>in the space of 40 million years before its end [Bryozoa was the lone holdout for decades]
>and why no new body plans evolved after the great extinctions that ended the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras.
>
>Why, for example, is Chordata the only phylum whose members have
>extended flexible solid internal skeletons? There are any number of phyla
>of "worms" that could have come up with them, but none ever did, not even
>during the Cambrian explosion itself.

There are multiple strategies for colonies of single-celled organisms
to become true multicellular forms. Worm-type tubes is but one
strategy. From there, a stiffening chord would be advantageous in some
environments, but not in others. The first lineage to evolve a
stiffening chord would have rapidly filled those niches where that
feature was advantageous, making it much more difficult for other
lineages to take advantage of those niches. That wouldn't stop other
lineages from using other strategies to take advantage of other
niches.

Before you again derail and obfuscate by demanding plausible
explanations for past events, you need to first explain why you think
these events are so unlikely they require the intervention of
purposeful agents. And you need to first explain why you think
existing hypotheses are *not* plausible. You have never done either.
Prove me wrong by doing so here, or by citing where you think you have
done so in the past.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

You keep badgering me to post things that are off-topic in every
sense of the word. But then, you've never shown any sign of
regretting having badgered John Harshman to stop replying on-topic
to me, because it keeps me posting to talk.origins.

It all fits together.

> > 3. Directed panspermia, about which I have posted extensive FAQs
> > showing the scientific issues involved in great depth and detail.
> >
> If you say so.

You show your true opinion several times below, turkey.

> > And you led the way in sabotaging the last one, Internet Vandal that you are.
> > The mental caliber of your sabotage was about on the level of the
> > silly verbal salad you concoct next, but far more prolonged and hateful:
> >>
> >> And there’s the Rorschach test inkblot projection you do with Glenn’s posts
> >> yet typically resort to putting me and others down. The irony.
> >
> > Pure drivel.
> >
> Bang on instead. I’m thinking of the guy who saw something in the singing
> frog per Looney Tunes. How’d that work out for him?

> >> That you can’t see the connect to Steele’s speculation in your DP scenario
> >> isn’t my problem.
> >
> > It isn't anyone's problem, because of the huge flaw I relate in 2,
> > which you conflate with 3, simpleton that you are.
> >
> Nope. The proximal issues in 2 relate to the distal issues in 3

In your science-deprived imagination. The genome that viruses
carry would be utter gibberish to civilizations far in advance of ours,
if they are built on a different genetic code. The reason we
can decode the genomes is that ribosomes and a host of enzymes
do practically all the legwork.

When Steele starts declaiming on how bacteria are brought to
earth by comets from distant planetary systems, you just might
start being on topic to talk.origins.

> “directed” BS that drag an ID goddidit howler into the mix.

Be sure to compliment Zencycle for having insulted me
in a similar way to the way you are implicitly insulting the atheist Francis Crick here.

In fact, you seem to have inspired Zencycle to do it: his post is the very
next one to yours on this thread in Google Groups.

In case you are using a different newsreader, the following link
will take you there in a jiffy.

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/0GJ7i2VKEbg/m/tRyAUqUlAAAJ

> >> Yet Steele’s speculation per COVID is of a more proximal
> >> nature (an event several years ago), where you speculate on things millions
> >> to billions of years ago…far more distally removed.
> >
> > You think like a YEC.
> >
> > Or like a primitive human who has no curiosity about how the
> > world around him came to be.
> >
> Well given the SCOTUS deck is stacked religiously driven nonsense will be
> forced into public schools soon enough.

Not any more than it has been up to now. Ron O has often enough posted
the statement that teaching "ID science" in public schools is protected by the Constitution.

This means talking about ID using the methodology of pure science, which
the atheist Francis Crick did in _Life Itself_.


<snip of things to be dealt with in a separate post>

> My curiosity has no room for unwarranted nonsense whether religious or
> fever dream scifi fantasy.

You persist in insulting Francis Crick. Do you even know what he received
the Nobel Prize for?

> I think I may have pointed out the
> Reptoid-mongers who think some mystery planet comes around rarely may have
> more of a leg to stand on than far flung civilizations sending an
> exorbitantly expensive fleet of seeding start up kits…

You are also insulting world-class biochemist Leslie Orgel here. A pity neither
he nor Crick are alive to put you in your place.


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

PS Unlike the Reptoid-mongers, the Cambrian explosion scenario of which
I wrote would have been a (purely hypothetical) chance one-time event.
I also think abiogenesis resulting in a technological civilization is a once-in-a-universe event;
Crick and Orgel took this possibility seriously, otherwise they would not have come
up with their article in _Icarus_ which formulated the directed panspermia hypothesis.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 8:35:24 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 12:00:44 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 12:40:24 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> <snip for focus>
> > > Other ideas? ID falls into pretty much the
> >> same situation. The next question is clearly "Which of these or other possibilities are testable?".
> >
> >Various DP scenarios are testable. I posted on how this works several times,
> >but people like you never responded, because the reasoning was too airtight and,
> >like you, they were only interested in attacking what they perceived to be the
> >remaining weaknesses.
> >
> >The Cambrian explosion possibility is probably not testable in the narrow sense of the word.
> >What is needed, instead, is an explanation for why ALL fossilizable phyla appeared
> >in the space of 40 million years before its end [Bryozoa was the lone holdout for decades]
> >and why no new body plans evolved after the great extinctions that ended the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras.
> >
> >Why, for example, is Chordata the only phylum whose members have
> >extended flexible solid internal skeletons? There are any number of phyla
> >of "worms" that could have come up with them, but none ever did, not even
> >during the Cambrian explosion itself.

> There are multiple strategies for colonies of single-celled organisms
> to become true multicellular forms.

Are you suggesting that all the eumetazoan phyla that appeared in the Cambrian explosion
arose directly from colonies of single-celled animals?

I think you know better than that, but your wording suggests otherwise.

> Worm-type tubes is but one
> strategy. From there, a stiffening chord would be advantageous in some
> environments, but not in others.

Do you have any idea of what an example of each
kind of environment might look like? I don't, so I could sure use
some enlightenment.

Keep in mind that larval tunicates lose their extensive notochords
in adulthood. So it seems that they are able to be both things
in the same environment.

>The first lineage to evolve a
> stiffening chord would have rapidly filled those niches where that
> feature was advantageous, making it much more difficult for other
> lineages to take advantage of those niches.

Science popularizers talk in this way about "niches",
but I wonder why the sessile cnidarians did not prevent adult
tunicates from taking advantage of what looks like the same niches.

It was even once claimed that it is impossible
for a phylum to go extinct, because each phylum is uniquely
adapted to their "niche." I doubt that any biologist would go this far today.
In fact, many have hypothesized that Vetulicolia is a phylum that went extinct in the Cambrian.

>That wouldn't stop other
> lineages from using other strategies to take advantage of other
> niches.
>
> Before you again derail and obfuscate by demanding plausible
> explanations for past events,

"again" is implying something that I haven't done in connection
with scientific matters. Even now, it would be wrong to claim
that I am demanding specifics about the points I make.
If you can't give a helpful response to something I say or ask above, you are
quite free to refrain from trying.

By the way, might you be thinking something Bill Rogers said includes me?

#This is my "favorite" retreat in their argument, from "There's no conceivable way this could have evolved," to "You cannot prove #that this evolved in the conceivable way you just mentioned."

If you do, that would explain your use of the word "again."

> you need to first explain why you think
> these events are so unlikely they require the intervention of
> purposeful agents.

I do not think that at all. But the utter uniqueness of the Cambrian explosion
needs to be explained in the light of nothing remotely like it happening
at the end of the great extinctions that ended the Paleozoic and Mesozoic Eras.
In contrast, the Ediacarans that are not assigned to any metazoan phyla ALL
went extinct around the beginning of the Cambrian.

Until a satisfactory explanation is found, ID is very much on the table.
And I explained why it is not necessarily a case of "goddidit",
something you and Zencycle seem to have suffered complete amnesia about.

>And you need to first explain why you think
> existing hypotheses are *not* plausible.

Name some that you think are plausible.

>You have never done either.

I am far too busy to respond to nonexistent challenges.
And note, the misrepresentation inherent in the first challenge up there
did not deter me from responding to it.

> Prove me wrong by doing so here, or by citing where you think you have
> done so in the past.

First you need to document past challenges like the two you gave here.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

University of So. Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[Glenn]

You're much too polite. They take advantage of that, and people are less likely to want to wipe the crap off the window.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

It's a bit unclear. The last sentence talks about a "propensity" which seems to refer to
making explanations that "bind facts together." But it goes on to suggest that understanding
does not follow from making the explanations. Often it does not,
as in the case of Ron O's oft-deranged elaborate weaving of what he thinks of as facts.
But if the explanation is done well, understanding does sometimes follow.

Perhaps a reading of The Black Swan would clarify just what Taleb
had in mind, but I can't spare the time that it would take this month,
and probably not this year.

>
> I assume this is another take on "false narratives".

Ron O is so full of them, he is almost paralyzed as far as making sense of things.
But what you quote up there seems to be making a different point.

> > Take the specific, concrete function, "swimming." The bacterial flagellum provides this function
> > admirably. So does the eukaryotic cilium, another IC organelle described in detail
> > by Behe. You are free to imagine alternatives that solve the problem of swimming
> > differently, but if you are unable to come up with evolutionary explanations for ANY
> > of them, then you haven't made a dent in Behe's case.
> >
> > IOW, the target is an efficient swimming apparatus, not any vague old "something observed to exist today."
> >
> > You would do well to read some of William James's essays to see how
> > he emphasizes the specific and concrete over the general and theoretical.
> > Peter Nyikos
> > Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> > University of South Carolina
> > http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> > ************************** Quote of the day ***************************
> > Casey, if you really want to defend Michael Behe, a good place to start would be by reading him. --Kenneth Miller
> >
> > [Of course, that knife cuts both ways: put "attack" for "defend" and it is just as valid.]

Peter Nyikos

[Glenn]

"Taleb mathematically defines the black swan problem as "stemming from the use of degenerate metaprobability""

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

metaprobability -
"Bayesian probability is an interpretation of the concept of probability, in which, instead of frequency or propensity of some phenomenon, probability is interpreted as reasonable expectation[1] representing a state of knowledge[2] or as quantification of a personal belief."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability#Probabilities_of_probabilities

Perhaps I see Ron in a different light as do you.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On the other hand, there are times when being polite results in me learning fascinating new on-topic information.
A prime example is on the thread I began this week in sci.bio.paleontology. Harshman provided what
looks like just the right articles to read to resolve a lot of confusion about how five orders of mammals,
including our own Primates, are related.

Such information may not interest you, but it is one more example of how there are a lot of
conflicting phylogenetic trees out there, and this is something in which you HAVE shown interest.

Even here, what has happened is that jillery has goaded me into thinking hard about
"niches"; if it hadn't been for her, I might never have thought about tunicates (sea squirts)
being relevant to the bigger picture. Nor would I have learned that Vetulicolia
is a (probable) [1] phylum that went extinct in the Cambrian.
It's like a grain of sand that stimulates an oyster to produce a pearl.


[1] There has been a huge amount of uncertainty as to where vetulicolians fit in.
You might enjoy reading about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vetulicolia

[RonO]

On 8/16/2022 5:19 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 12:30:21 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>> On 8/14/2022 10:02 AM, Glenn wrote:
>>> On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 7:30:21 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>>>> On 8/14/2022 8:21 AM, Glenn wrote:
>
>>>> Projection is a stupid self defense mechanism because the perpetrator
>>>> has to understand what he is in order to do it. You should stop doing
>>>> such a stupid thing to yourself.
>
> I've commented on this mindless attempt to insert a square peg
> ("projection") into a round hole (Glenn's words) directly. Glenn's reply below
> is the sort of generic reply that you do, Ron O, except that I have seen
> you behave exactly as Glenn describes below.

Why don't you deal with your previous stupidity before making more of a
mess? Those previous posts of yours are left undefended so why even
mention them. It just shows that you know what you did, but can't deal
with what you did.

You are the king of projection. You weren't back posting on TO for very
long before you started threads like the "Dirty Debating" thread, and
who had been the dirty debater? What dirty debating tactics did you use
in that thread? It was obvious projection of what you were.

You could try to get Glenn to deal honestly with the Top Six, but it is
a lost cause. When Glenn puts one of them up because he doesn't
understand what he is posting, Glenn runs instead of trying to defend
what he did. Really, he doesn't even make an excuse for doing something
as stupid as putting up something that he has been running from for years.

Go for it, or stop lying about things that you shouldn't be lying about.

Deal with the stupidity that you have already posted before making up
new junk to lie to yourself about.

When are you going to start lying about some made up posting limit in
order to run from what you have done?

You are just a sad and dishonest loser. Projecting that onto someone
else is your issue.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

I don't believe the gasket that Ron blew out is even available on the market anymore.

[RonO]

Nykos wrote the junk that you are addressing with your projection. It
dosn't seem that you understand that. Who's gasket got blown a long
time ago, and even you can't stand the smell that seeps out in your posts?

Can you put up any second rate denial that you have gotten from the ID
perps in the last 5 years that you want to defend as something worth
defending? What does that tell you about your last 5 years worth of posts?

Why have you posted one of the Top Six and then run without making any
excuses for doing something that stupid? How many times have you done
that in the last 5 years?

Ron Okimoto

[peter2...@gmail.com]

He sure did blow one. He yammered about some "stupidity" which he doesn't
even bother to identify, and talked about "previous posts that [I] left undefended"
even though he only attacked one of them on this thread before he composed this rant.

To demonstrate what a hypocrite he is, he compulsively left in a lot of searing indictments
I did where I very specifically singled out and clearly identified a number of despicable
things he has done over the years.

I say "compulsively" because one of his favorite weapons is accusing people
of "running away." In his sick mind, he is under the impression that leaving
indictments of him unsnipped, he isn't guilty of "running away" from them.

I do believe he NEVER intends to deal with any of them. Even if I keep
reposting individual ones, he'll just continue leaving them in while acting as though
he were oblivious of them, and telling himself he isn't really running away...

To use a formula truthfully that I've never seen Ron O use truthfully,
even though I have seen him use it maybe a hundred times over the years:

You can't make this stuff up.


Another example of exactly the same sort is:

How sad is that?


Peter Nyikos

PS All of the above is part of the history of talk.origins that might fascinate historians of the future.
I said a few things about that to jillery today on the thread, "Antedating Sagan."

[Glenn]

Tell me all about it. Ron.

[Glenn]

Well it doesn't appear that Ron would ever willingly submit to a strip search, though he clearly thinks he has that power over others and thinks he knows what he finds.
Even were to think he found nothing incriminating, Ron would not accept or believe it.
He *needs* 'them" to be "guilty". It's off with their heads.
I guess it is too late for him though, one day an intelligent aspiring young genius will fail to discover a cure for mankind that would kill us all if not found, because he was tainted by Intelligent Design as an undergrad.

In other words, in other words, you can't win em all.

[Glenn]

I forgot one other thing, but then when rum is involved, well it goes to show you never know. So...do you think there is anything that could be seen ironic in the thread header as it pertains to Ron?

[jillery]

On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 16:42:32 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 6:25:24 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:

Glenn and the peter continue to play with themselves and each other...

>> On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 3:10:24 PM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 8:35:24 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> > > On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 12:00:44 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
>> > > <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 12:40:24 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
>> > > <snip for focus>
>> > > > > Other ideas? ID falls into pretty much the
>> > > >> same situation. The next question is clearly "Which of these or other possibilities are testable?".
>> > > >
>> > > >Various DP scenarios are testable. I posted on how this works several times,
>> > > >but people like you never responded, because the reasoning was too airtight and,
>> > > >like you, they were only interested in attacking what they perceived to be the
>> > > >remaining weaknesses.
>> > > >
>> > > >The Cambrian explosion possibility is probably not testable in the narrow sense of the word.
>> > > >What is needed, instead, is an explanation for why ALL fossilizable phyla appeared
>> > > >in the space of 40 million years before its end [Bryozoa was the lone holdout for decades]
>> > > >and why no new body plans evolved after the great extinctions that ended the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras.
>> > > >
>> > > >Why, for example, is Chordata the only phylum whose members have
>> > > >extended flexible solid internal skeletons? There are any number of phyla
>> > > >of "worms" that could have come up with them, but none ever did, not even
>> > > >during the Cambrian explosion itself.
>> >
>> > > There are multiple strategies for colonies of single-celled organisms
>> > > to become true multicellular forms.
>
>> > Are you suggesting that all the eumetazoan phyla that appeared in the Cambrian explosion
>> > arose directly from colonies of single-celled animals?

Since you asked, no. Not sure why you suggested I suggested that.
You're welcome.

>> > I think you know better than that, but your wording suggests otherwise.

You have trouble enough comprehending what I actually wrote. Forget
about correctly divining what I might have suggested.

>> > > Worm-type tubes is but one
>> > > strategy. From there, a stiffening chord would be advantageous in some
>> > > environments, but not in others.
>
>> > Do you have any idea of what an example of each
>> > kind of environment might look like? I don't, so I could sure use
>> > some enlightenment.

Are you denying there were such environments? If not, your question
above is just more of your transparent obfuscating evasions.

>> > Keep in mind that larval tunicates lose their extensive notochords
>> > in adulthood. So it seems that they are able to be both things
>> > in the same environment.
>
>> > >The first lineage to evolve a
>> > > stiffening chord would have rapidly filled those niches where that
>> > > feature was advantageous, making it much more difficult for other
>> > > lineages to take advantage of those niches.
>
>> > Science popularizers talk in this way about "niches",
>> > but I wonder why the sessile cnidarians did not prevent adult
>> > tunicates from taking advantage of what looks like the same niches.
>> >
>> > It was even once claimed that it is impossible
>> > for a phylum to go extinct, because each phylum is uniquely
>> > adapted to their "niche." I doubt that any biologist would go this far today.
>> > In fact, many have hypothesized that Vetulicolia is a phylum that went extinct in the Cambrian.
>
>
>> > >That wouldn't stop other
>> > > lineages from using other strategies to take advantage of other
>> > > niches.
>> > >
>> > > Before you again derail and obfuscate by demanding plausible
>> > > explanations for past events,
>
>
>> > "again" is implying something that I haven't done in connection
>> > with scientific matters.

Your comment above is willfully stupid denial. You did exactly that
in your previous post, as documented by the quoted text above.

>> > Even now, it would be wrong to claim
>> > that I am demanding specifics about the points I make.
>> > If you can't give a helpful response to something I say or ask above, you are
>> > quite free to refrain from trying.

More of your willfully stupid denial. My posted comments are a direct
response to your posted comments. That you find them "unhelpful" is a
*you* problem.

>> > By the way, might you be thinking something Bill Rogers said includes me?
>> >
>> > #This is my "favorite" retreat in their argument, from "There's no conceivable way this could have evolved," to "You cannot prove
>#that this evolved in the conceivable way you just mentioned."
>> >
>> > If you do, that would explain your use of the word "again."

My use of "again" requires no explanation. Rogers' comments don't
inform said use. Your comment above is just more of your transparent
obfuscating evasions.

>> > > you need to first explain why you think
>> > > these events are so unlikely they require the intervention of
>> > > purposeful agents.
>
>> > I do not think that at all.

Your advocacy of DP and ID puts the lie to your comment above.

>> > But the utter uniqueness of the Cambrian explosion
>> > needs to be explained in the light of nothing remotely like it happening
>> > at the end of the great extinctions that ended the Paleozoic and Mesozoic Eras.
>> > In contrast, the Ediacarans that are not assigned to any metazoan phyla ALL
>> > went extinct around the beginning of the Cambrian.

Not sure why you act so incredulous that major changes to the global
environment cause major extinctions.

More to the point, the end of the Ediacaran wasn't the first mass
extinction nor the worst, but one among many. Earlier extinctions
almost certainly wiped out several novel forms of life. Later
extinctions would be challenged by increased diversity.

>> > Until a satisfactory explanation is found, ID is very much on the table.

Once again, that *you* find existing explanations unsatisfactory is a
*you* problem.

>> > And I explained why it is not necessarily a case of "goddidit",
>> > something you and Zencycle seem to have suffered complete amnesia about.

Don't mistake readers' amnesia for writer's lack of coherence and
credibility.

>> > >And you need to first explain why you think
>> > > existing hypotheses are *not* plausible.
>
>> > Name some that you think are plausible.

Are you denying there are no plausible hypotheses? If not, your
comment above is just more of your transparent obfuscating evasions.

>> > >You have never done either.
>
>> > I am far too busy to respond to nonexistent challenges.

The challenge is for you to back up your claims. And you *still*
haven't explained why you think existing hypotheses are not plausible.
I'll save us both time by assuming you have no idea why, and are just
posting mindless noise for the sake of it.

>> > And note, the misrepresentation inherent in the first challenge up there
>> > did not deter me from responding to it.

Your transparent obfuscating evasions don't qualify as a response.

>> > > Prove me wrong by doing so here, or by citing where you think you have
>> > > done so in the past.
>
>> > First you need to document past challenges like the two you gave here.
>
>> You're much too polite. They take advantage of that, and people are less likely to want to wipe the crap off the window.

Even if you knew the meaning of "polite", Glenn has no problem proving
he can be impolite for both of you and is proud of it.

<snip your remaining transparently obfuscating noise>

[RonO]

Why lie about something so stupid? I addressed both of your posts to me
in this thread the day before you made the post under discussion to
another of my posts instead of deal with the stupidity that you had
already established in this thread.

Stop lying and try to defend the lies that you have already produced.

>
> To demonstrate what a hypocrite he is, he compulsively left in a lot of searing indictments
> I did where I very specifically singled out and clearly identified a number of despicable
> things he has done over the years.

Your searing indictments are just more lies about the past. Just take
your claims about my religious beliefs. I am the one that told you that
Methodists did not have a set doctrine about the creation. You kept
lying about that statement as you do above. It was an example of you
manipulating my post to make it look like I had not addressed the issue,
but I obviously had. It is one of the incidences that I had to link
back to and you had to run from (how many times?). Now you project your
own stupidity onto me when it was you that could not accept what the
Methodists believed. I even save the link from back then because it was
always something that you keep lying about.

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/avf9ye9cUE0/m/TjfWT5GhoIMJ

QUOTE:
I probably have the standard Methodist view on creation. It just
isn't important and we don't care how it happened just that it did.
I'm willing to go with whereever the evidence leads and see where that
gets me. Just check it out. We don't have an official stance on the
subject except to say that we are for separation of church and state
so that it never becomes an issue that we have to worry about.
END QUOTE

Read the quote in context. As usual you had to manipulate the post and
snipped out all but one line in order to keep lying about the issue.

This is your bogus and dishonest response, and you have run from this
and lied about the episode for years. Your post is from 2012. That is
how sad you are.

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/avf9ye9cUE0/m/vbIoLNY89MkJ

I am the one that told you that Methodists do not have an official
stance on the issue, but for your own Nykosian reasons you have to
project your senseless denial onto me.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

It is something that I shouldn't have to tell you about. Your willful
ignorance is likely the aspect of yourself that makes you post junk like
you do. How has that worked out? Why did you do those things? You
can't deny that you did them.

Ron Okimoto

[*Hemidactylus*]

Well somatic hypermutation and class switch recombination sure aren’t OT as
they helped you and you ancestors survive so you could post here. Somatic
hypermutation is adaptive in two senses of the word. First it facilitates
your survival. It also leads to a better fit between antibodies and
antigens based on cycles of mutation and selection in immunocytic
populations within your body. As Robert Jack and Louis Du Pasquier point
out in Evolutionary Concepts in Immunology there is an asymmetry between us
and pathogenic microbes in generational time (20 years vs 20 minutes) that
adaptive immunity helps remedy.

>
>>> 3. Directed panspermia, about which I have posted extensive FAQs
>>> showing the scientific issues involved in great depth and detail.
>>>
>> If you say so.
>
> You show your true opinion several times below, turkey.
>

So I’m a Thanksgiving Day cannibal?

>
>>> And you led the way in sabotaging the last one, Internet Vandal that you are.
>>> The mental caliber of your sabotage was about on the level of the
>>> silly verbal salad you concoct next, but far more prolonged and hateful:
>>>>
>>>> And there’s the Rorschach test inkblot projection you do with Glenn’s posts
>>>> yet typically resort to putting me and others down. The irony.
>>>
>>> Pure drivel.
>>>
>> Bang on instead. I’m thinking of the guy who saw something in the singing
>> frog per Looney Tunes. How’d that work out for him?
>
>>>> That you can’t see the connect to Steele’s speculation in your DP scenario
>>>> isn’t my problem.
>>>
>>> It isn't anyone's problem, because of the huge flaw I relate in 2,
>>> which you conflate with 3, simpleton that you are.
>>>
>> Nope. The proximal issues in 2 relate to the distal issues in 3
>
> In your science-deprived imagination. The genome that viruses
> carry would be utter gibberish to civilizations far in advance of ours,
> if they are built on a different genetic code. The reason we
> can decode the genomes is that ribosomes and a host of enzymes
> do practically all the legwork.
>
> When Steele starts declaiming on how bacteria are brought to
> earth by comets from distant planetary systems, you just might
> start being on topic to talk.origins.
>

Well they speculate on origin of fungal disease here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7358766/

“Abstract

The origins and global spread of two recent, yet quite different, pandemic
diseases is discussed and reviewed in depth: Candida auris, a eukaryotic
fungal disease, and COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2), a positive strand RNA viral
respiratory disease. Both these diseases display highly distinctive
patterns of sudden emergence and global spread, which are not easy to
understand by conventional epidemiological analysis based on simple
infection-driven human- to-human spread of an infectious disease (assumed
to jump suddenly and thus genetically, from an animal reservoir). Both
these enigmatic diseases make sense however under a Panspermia in-fall
model and the evidence consistent with such a model is critically
reviewed.”

What did Linus Pauling or Kary Mullis win theirs for?

>
> > I think I may have pointed out the
>> Reptoid-mongers who think some mystery planet comes around rarely may have
>> more of a leg to stand on than far flung civilizations sending an
>> exorbitantly expensive fleet of seeding start up kits…
>
> You are also insulting world-class biochemist Leslie Orgel here. A pity neither
> he nor Crick are alive to put you in your place.
>

Yeah well take some ascorbic acid megadoses per Pauling. Mullis thought he
had conversed with a glowing raccoon and had some odd views on HIV not
causing AIDS. Nobels don’t automatically confer respectability on other
ideas a scientist might have.

>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
>
> PS Unlike the Reptoid-mongers, the Cambrian explosion scenario of which
> I wrote would have been a (purely hypothetical) chance one-time event.
> I also think abiogenesis resulting in a technological civilization is a
> once-in-a-universe event;
> Crick and Orgel took this possibility seriously, otherwise they would not have come
> up with their article in _Icarus_ which formulated the directed panspermia hypothesis.
>

Well the panspermy notion for disease is at least speculative about the
here and now. Directed panspermy is about a galaxy far far away and long
ago leaving DP amounting to a Russell’s teapot except much further away and
long since vanished from existence?

[jillery]

On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 11:18:04 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"

<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:23 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

<snip for focus>

>> Well given the SCOTUS deck is stacked religiously driven nonsense will be
>> forced into public schools soon enough.
>
>Not any more than it has been up to now. Ron O has often enough posted
>the statement that teaching "ID science" in public schools is protected by the Constitution.
>This means talking about ID using the methodology of pure science, which
>the atheist Francis Crick did in _Life Itself_.

The above stupidly misrepresents what RonO says. RonO is careful to
correctly specify that ID can be taught in U.S. public schools as part
of *comparative religious* studies, while you are careful to avoid
mentioning that qualification.

[Glenn]

Are politics and civil law on topic for talk.origins?

Do you think that the Dover decision is the law of the land?

Speaking of stupid, you make an unsupported claim in response to an unsupported claim.
I suppose you consider that scientific. Were I you, I might have challenged Peter to provide documentation to support his claim about what Ron has said.

You may also not realize that what you claim Ron is careful to specify does not falsify Peter's claim about what Ron has posted, nor whether it is even relevant, nor do you supply the reasoning behind your claim that Peter was careful to avoid mentioning what you claim.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Oops, I overlooked this one until today, when I saw Ron O's response
to what I had written about him to Glenn yesterday evening.

On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 7:30:22 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> On 8/15/2022 12:37 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> > On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 10:30:21 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> >> On 8/14/2022 8:21 AM, Glenn wrote:

> >>> On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 5:10:21 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >>>> On 8/13/2022 6:49 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:

> >>>>> On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 21:00:20 UTC+1, Ron O wrote:
> >>>>>> https://www.science.org/content/article/your-simple-throat-reason-you-don-t-sound-chimp
> >

> >>>>> Dame Jane Goodall's "party piece" is her chimpanzee
> >>>>> impression IIRC. But I don't know if it impresses chimpanzees.
> >>>>>
> >>>> I've seen video of Goodall imitating the vocalization of a chimp.
> >>>
> >>> I've seen posts of yours that imitate behaviors typical of chimps.
> >>>
> >>> I doubt whether they would impress chimps.

Here, I snipped some purely personal remarks,
to which I will respond either this evening or tomorrow,
to get to some on-topic themes.

> > Fortunately for you, your idiotic undocumented comments about
> > Glenn and Behe on the OP show a modicum of originality
> > compared to your mindless bot-like ramblings in so many posts,
> > including other OP's. Hence Glenn's comments are not so obviously
> > clever as they would be if you hadn't exhibited any nontrivial originality.

> Glenn knows that they aren't undocumented comments about Behe because he
> lived them and wrote those posts.

The ones about Behe conisisted of falsehoods. Here is documentation
of one of them that you wrote in the OP, followedby my response:

QUOTE:

> This weird argument has IDiots like Glenn perplexed because Behe is
> claiming that "Darwinian" evolution can account for things like the
> evolution of whales from terrestrial mammals.

Behe is claiming no such thing, only that certain key characters of
cetaceans are due to neo-Darwinian gradualism in the form of
gene breakage.

END OF QUOTE



I know you are not stupid enough to claim that whales descended from purely terrestrial animals
due to breakage of a mere 85 genes, which is the most Behe ever talked about.

In reply to the above, you made an even more preposterous claim:

"You are wrong about your interpretation of what Behe claims. He clearly
states that the evolution is devolution and not evolution of building
things that his designer is responsible for."

He never makes any statement like that; what he says is that
evolution by devolution is vastly EASIER than producing evolution
by adding new genes or parts to existing genes.

>Read what Behe writes.

Would you like me to email Behe and show him this idiotic claim of yours?


By the way, on the day you posted the OP, Behe put up an article about a new discovery
that more woolly mammoth genes had been broken than had heretofore been suspected:

https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/mammoth-support-for-devolution/
Excerpt:
In *Darwin Devolves*, I also mentioned work on DNA extracted from frozen woolly mammoth carcasses that showcased devolution: “26 genes were shown to be seriously degraded, many of which (as with polar bear) were involved in fat metabolism, critical in the extremely cold environments that the mammoth roamed.” It turns out that was an underestimate. A new paper [1] that has sequenced DNA from several more woolly mammoth remains says the true number is more than triple that — 87 genes broken compared to their elephant relatives.

[1] Van der Valk, Tom, et al. 2022. Evolutionary consequences of genomic deletions and insertions in the woolly mammoth genome. iScience 25, 104826.


> You may not have written Glenn's
> posts, but who cares? You don't even document what comments about Glenn
> and Behe were supposed to have occurred.

They were in the OP, and the above quote shows my response to one of them.


> It isn't in this post because
> you snipped it out without marking your snips, again.

I've never seen anyone but you making a fuss over others not documenting
things on the spot after having clearly described where they are to be found.

Do you imagine this to be a commendable trait of yours?

> >> You should stop doing
> >> such a stupid thing to yourself.
> >

There is nothing stupid in anything I've done on this thread.

> > Harshman keeps indulging in similar GIGO against both me and Glenn.

Harshman is similarly off in la-la land with his wild paranoid imaginings about Glenn.
He indulges in pure hypocrisy to make insincere claims about me.

> > It's happened several times in the last two months in sci.bio.paleontology.

And he is just as wrong as you are in claiming that

> There is absolutely no doubt that Glenn should stop doing what he does
> to himself. For whatever reason other IDiots and exIDiots will not help
> him out. Kalk should explain why it is stupid to keep going back to the
> ID perps for second rate denial stupidity after not being able to deal
> with the ID perp's Top Six.

In what way did you expect Glenn to deal with it?
After years of you fussing about what you calI "the top six,"
I finally set up a whole thread challenging people to either
support them or argue against them, depending on where
their sympathies lie, and there were no takers for either
on even ONE of the top six.

I got tired of waiting around, and, hoping to set the ball
rolling, I posted a *criticism* of one of them. Still no takers.

And then you came on, and said that I misunderstood what
you were after. You didn't WANT anyone to either support
or attack any of the six. Your objectives had to do with
wanting to making Glenn see how the top six would
ruin his belief in a God who did creation according
to the top six.

But you have never dared to hint at what you think Glenn's belief is.


> because Kalk did that for a few months with
> Glenn and then quit supporting the ID scam.

Here, you call ID a scam. Did you LIE when you claimed
you weren't looking for anyone to attack any of the top six?

Did you LIE when you claimed you weren't looking for anyone to DEFEND any of the top six?
"anyone" includes Glenn, you know.


> Kalk is still a
> creationist, he just doesn't go to the ID perps for second rate denial
> stupidity any longer. Glenn still does.

Glenn doesn't realize that there are ID arguments that are
stronger than those that are in what you anachronistically
call the top six. One of them has to do with the protein translation mechanism.
Bill Rogers is so afraid of it, he retreats to comfortable
stuff that comes even before DNA polymerase. He doesn't want
to confront the huge obstacles that come before the protein translation


> I don't care about you and Harshman because I know that I can't trust
> anything that you write,

Keep telling yourself that, and you will stick your head in the sand
even deeper than Bill Rogers about my argument.

I can see it now. "What a bonehead," you will say and then immediately
launch into personal attacks, and leaving the on-topic arguments untouched.

You simply cannot conceive of someone like me arguing that the
case for ID is still open without me being a parrot for the DI, can you?
You decided that I was a "rube" in 2010 and that fixed your opinion for all time, didn't it?


> and I don't know what you are talking about.

You don't WANT to know what I'm talking about. I could show you
documentation about Harshman's idiotic obsession till it comes
out your ears, and you will be afraid to read it.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

University of So. Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 3:00:26 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 11:18:04 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:23 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> <snip for focus>

> >> Well given the SCOTUS deck is stacked religiously driven nonsense will be
> >> forced into public schools soon enough.
> >
> >Not any more than it has been up to now. Ron O has often enough posted
> >the statement that teaching "ID science" in public schools is protected by the Constitution.

The statement was made by the Discovery Institute. Ron O never dared to
deny it was true, but instead he indulged in complete illogic about it. See my PS below.

The following is an explanation by myself, which is not in the statement Ron O quoted
dozens of times.

> >This means talking about ID using the methodology of pure science, which
> >the atheist Francis Crick did in _Life Itself_.


> The above stupidly misrepresents what RonO says.

The only stupidity above is that of Hemidactylus.

"misrepresents" is your illogical polemical word for "says something Ron O said, but does
not mention a redundant detail that Ron O talked about elsewhere".

Are you hoping to outshine Lawyer Daggett with cheap courtroom tricks?

> RonO is careful to
> correctly specify that ID can be taught in U.S. public schools as part
> of *comparative religious* studies, while you are careful to avoid
> mentioning that qualification.

Because it omits the freedom-of-speech issue of which I wrote,
and serves the falsehood that ID is an exclusively religious issue.
It is not, and it is NOT a religious issue at all when Behe talks about it.

See my quote from an article that became public three days ago, complete with an impeccable
scientific source to back it up, by Behe. Tell me where you find religion anywhere
in that article.

> --
> You're entitled to your own opinions.
> You're not entitled to your own facts.

The "You're" here is literally true. Jillery posts hundreds of distorted or false "facts"
that she feels perfectly entitled to, as above, exempting herself from the "yous" about whom she posts.


Peter Nyikos

PS Ron O always misrepresented the DI quote as saying that the DI is claiming to have the ID
science in a form suitable for teaching in the public schools on a level competitive with the usual ID-less
science. Ron O often left off the part starting with "in a form" and especially the part starting with
"on a level" but they were always implicitly there. His perennial charge of a "Bait and switch scam"
collapses without this nefariously warped interpretation.

[Glenn]

Of course he is that 'stupid' enough, even were he to realize the foolishness of doing so.
I don't recall him actually saying that, though. But it appears that Ron follows the golden rule that states the ends justify the means. It is in my opinion, about as far away from science as one can get.
But even with what Ron provides above is enough to see that I am not claiming anything, and that my name is not Behe. He needs me to be "perplexed" by what he claims is Behe's position, in order to support his view of my religious beliefs. That *is* "stupid enough".
"Support" is a scientific concept. But I believe Ron doesn't even realize what he is saying, and supports my claim that he is severely mentally impaired. He's made such mistakes for many many years, and shows absolutely no sign that he is even marginally aware of the religious nature of his thought processes. Yes, I also consider him an atheist, though that would be a subject for a different day. I suspect that you may have some interest in that as it might relate to your own philosophy, and perhaps another time I'd be inclined to elaborate on my regard of atheism.

But back to Behe himself, he has made it clear he thinks that an intelligent designer has intervened occasionally to create "new" information, and he includes that in his comments on whale evolution. Basically, Behe is asking where such novel information originally comes from. With whales specifically, I have not seen Behe identify what genes he thinks were added, in addition to all the ones he identifies as having been repurposed. That, if an omission, does not lend credence to Behe thinking that whales evolved solely by devolution. In fact, he does make mention of such "hopeful monster" changes in an article about devolution and whales:

"Not only is devolution the dominant mode in microevolution we observe in real time in lab experiments today, but also in the macroevolutionary change that we infer from genome sequences over geological ages — punctuated by bursts of new information."

https://evolutionnews.org/2019/10/darwin-devolves-evidence-keeps-rolling-in/

Nowhere can I find Behe claiming that whales evolved from terrestrial animals solely by devolution, or breaking existing genes. Certainly, the fact that Behe did not specifically claim such an intervention occurred in the whale does not support what Ron claims.

I would welcome corrections. If not, I would welcome admissions.

>
> In reply to the above, you made an even more preposterous claim:
>
> "You are wrong about your interpretation of what Behe claims. He clearly
> states that the evolution is devolution and not evolution of building
> things that his designer is responsible for."
>
> He never makes any statement like that; what he says is that
> evolution by devolution is vastly EASIER than producing evolution
> by adding new genes or parts to existing genes.
>
> >Read what Behe writes.
>
> Would you like me to email Behe and show him this idiotic claim of yours?

Why bother Behe about what some idiot called Ron claims to read?

[*Hemidactylus*]

peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 3:00:26 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 11:18:04 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
>> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:23 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> <snip for focus>
>
>>>> Well given the SCOTUS deck is stacked religiously driven nonsense will be
>>>> forced into public schools soon enough.
>>>
>>> Not any more than it has been up to now. Ron O has often enough posted
>>> the statement that teaching "ID science" in public schools is protected
>>> by the Constitution.
>
> The statement was made by the Discovery Institute. Ron O never dared to
> deny it was true, but instead he indulged in complete illogic about it. See my PS below.
>
> The following is an explanation by myself, which is not in the statement Ron O quoted
> dozens of times.
>
>>> This means talking about ID using the methodology of pure science, which
>>> the atheist Francis Crick did in _Life Itself_.
>
>
>> The above stupidly misrepresents what RonO says.
>
> The only stupidity above is that of Hemidactylus.
>

Bullshit. Right wing Catholic scumbag Alito is chomping at the bit.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/08/10/supreme-court-separation-of-church-and-state-00050571

Creationism (aka ID) taught as science in public schools is perhaps just
around the corner.

> "misrepresents" is your illogical polemical word for "says something Ron O said, but does
> not mention a redundant detail that Ron O talked about elsewhere".
>
> Are you hoping to outshine Lawyer Daggett with cheap courtroom tricks?
>
>
>> RonO is careful to
>> correctly specify that ID can be taught in U.S. public schools as part
>> of *comparative religious* studies, while you are careful to avoid
>> mentioning that qualification.
>
> Because it omits the freedom-of-speech issue of which I wrote,
> and serves the falsehood that ID is an exclusively religious issue.
> It is not, and it is NOT a religious issue at all when Behe talks about it.
>

ID is religious presumption couched in pseudoscientific terms.

[snip more stuff about jillery and Ron O]

[Glenn]

Da bugger man goin'a getcha.

[Glenn]

On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 3:45:26 PM UTC-7, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

> peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 3:00:26 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> >> On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 11:18:04 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> >> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:23 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> >> <snip for focus>
> >
> >>>> Well given the SCOTUS deck is stacked religiously driven nonsense will be
> >>>> forced into public schools soon enough.
> >>>
> >>> Not any more than it has been up to now. Ron O has often enough posted
> >>> the statement that teaching "ID science" in public schools is protected
> >>> by the Constitution.
> >
> > The statement was made by the Discovery Institute. Ron O never dared to
> > deny it was true, but instead he indulged in complete illogic about it. See my PS below.
> >
> > The following is an explanation by myself, which is not in the statement Ron O quoted
> > dozens of times.
> >
> >>> This means talking about ID using the methodology of pure science, which
> >>> the atheist Francis Crick did in _Life Itself_.
> >
> >
> >> The above stupidly misrepresents what RonO says.
> >
> > The only stupidity above is that of Hemidactylus.
> >
> Bullshit. Right wing Catholic scumbag Alito is chomping at the bit.
>
> https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/08/10/supreme-court-separation-of-church-and-state-00050571
>

"Justice Scalia in 2007 heavily criticized the Court’s 1892 declaration in Holy Trinity v. United States that the historical record of America demonstrated that the United States “is a Christian nation.” The Court has since “wisely retreated from” that view, he retorted."

Perhaps that is accurate. But I don't find that to be a ruling;


" These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. In the face of all these, shall it be believed that a Congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation? "
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/143/457/

At the time...

Sorry, but Politico is probably not the best place to get your rants from. Try more basic things, like Jack and Jill, and what the hell was their problem in the first place.

but I suppose you would agree that it should be a misdemeanor, or perhaps a felony, for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation. To hell with separation and all that, right?

[peter2...@gmail.com]

This is talk.origins, not talk.contemporary. You are using a topsy-turvy standard for "glaring."

> >
> > You keep badgering me to post things that are off-topic in every
> > sense of the word. But then, you've never shown any sign of
> > regretting having badgered John Harshman to stop replying on-topic
> > to me, because it keeps me posting to talk.origins.
> >
> > It all fits together.

And you still aren't showing any sign of regretting it.

> Well somatic hypermutation and class switch recombination sure aren’t OT as
> they helped you and you ancestors survive so you could post here. Somatic
> hypermutation is adaptive in two senses of the word. First it facilitates
> your survival. It also leads to a better fit between antibodies and
> antigens based on cycles of mutation and selection in immunocytic
> populations within your body. As Robert Jack and Louis Du Pasquier point
> out in Evolutionary Concepts in Immunology there is an asymmetry between us
> and pathogenic microbes in generational time (20 years vs 20 minutes) that
> adaptive immunity helps remedy.

Time is too short to talk about things that could be one of 1,000 different
things that equally enhance fitness. What is called for is focus on
things that seem indispensable for evolution to a technologically
capable intelligent species. One of them is sexual reproduction.
If you can think of some form of it that does not include something as essential to
"intelligent life as we know it" as meiosis, let's hear it.

If not, I expect you to totally ignore the content of any revival of a thread
on which Harshman and I exchanged a lot of facts and ideas about meiosis
that are relevant to its evolutionary history, this time also trying to
get to first base on the question, "How did meiosis originate?"

I'll be lucky if you don't try to sabotage the thread with the
help of jerks like Wolffan and creeps like Zencycle, the
way you sabotaged my FAQ in Directed Panspermia
which featured answers to all the usual objections.

> >>> 3. Directed panspermia, about which I have posted extensive FAQs
> >>> showing the scientific issues involved in great depth and detail.
> >>>
> >> If you say so.
> >
> > You show your true opinion several times below, turkey.
> >
> So I’m a Thanksgiving Day cannibal?

No, you're a smart-alecky jerk who loves mindless repartee.

> >
> >>> And you led the way in sabotaging the last one, Internet Vandal that you are.
> >>> The mental caliber of your sabotage was about on the level of the
> >>> silly verbal salad you concoct next, but far more prolonged and hateful:
> >>>>
> >>>> And there’s the Rorschach test inkblot projection you do with Glenn’s posts
> >>>> yet typically resort to putting me and others down. The irony.
> >>>
> >>> Pure drivel.

The Rorsach test inkblot obsession was Hartman's, and you are just as obsessed
with interpreting Glenn in the worst imaginable way as he is. The irony
is that you are as steeped in the obsession as a fish is steeped in water to
the point that it is oblivious to it.

> >> Bang on instead. I’m thinking of the guy who saw something in the singing
> >> frog per Looney Tunes. How’d that work out for him?
> >
> >>>> That you can’t see the connect to Steele’s speculation in your DP scenario
> >>>> isn’t my problem.
> >>>
> >>> It isn't anyone's problem, because of the huge flaw I relate in 2,
> >>> which you conflate with 3, simpleton that you are.
> >>>
> >> Nope. The proximal issues in 2 relate to the distal issues in 3
> >
> > In your science-deprived imagination. The genome that viruses
> > carry would be utter gibberish to civilizations far in advance of ours,
> > if they are built on a different genetic code. The reason we
> > can decode the genomes is that ribosomes and a host of enzymes
> > do practically all the legwork.

That went completely over your head, didn't it?

> > When Steele starts declaiming on how bacteria are brought to
> > earth by comets from distant planetary systems, you just might
> > start being on topic to talk.origins.
> >
> Well they speculate on origin of fungal disease here:

One solitary disease, with no attempt at any general theory.

>
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7358766/
>
> “Abstract
>
> The origins and global spread of two recent, yet quite different, pandemic
> diseases is discussed and reviewed in depth: Candida auris, a eukaryotic
> fungal disease, and COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2), a positive strand RNA viral
> respiratory disease. Both these diseases display highly distinctive
> patterns of sudden emergence and global spread, which are not easy to
> understand by conventional epidemiological analysis based on simple
> infection-driven human- to-human spread of an infectious disease (assumed
> to jump suddenly and thus genetically, from an animal reservoir). Both
> these enigmatic diseases make sense however under a Panspermia in-fall
> model and the evidence consistent with such a model is critically
> reviewed.”

I skimmed it, and it sounds no more plausible than a bunch of crank theories
that Martin Gardner wrote about in a whole book, _In_the_Name_of_Science_.

Anyway, I see no promise for a real contribution for evolutionary
theory, what with it being a minor mutation of a well known earth fungus.

Ad hominem fallacy noted.

> > > I think I may have pointed out the
> >> Reptoid-mongers who think some mystery planet comes around rarely may have
> >> more of a leg to stand on than far flung civilizations sending an
> >> exorbitantly expensive fleet of seeding start up kits…
> >
> > You are also insulting world-class biochemist Leslie Orgel here. A pity neither
> > he nor Crick are alive to put you in your place.
> >
> Yeah well take some ascorbic acid megadoses per Pauling. Mullis thought he
> had conversed with a glowing raccoon and had some odd views on HIV not
> causing AIDS. Nobels don’t automatically confer respectability on other
> ideas a scientist might have.

Biochemistry is the very heart of abiogenesis theories,
and the reasoning had nothing to do with things happening in the here
and now. I went over it in one FAQ entry.

But you are a vandal who actively prevented talk.origins readers
from reading FAQ entries by drowning the thread with a mess of
posts without ever reading any of the posts I put up.

> >
> > Peter Nyikos
> > Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> > Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
> > http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> >
> > PS Unlike the Reptoid-mongers, the Cambrian explosion scenario of which
> > I wrote would have been a (purely hypothetical) chance one-time event.
> > I also think abiogenesis resulting in a technological civilization is a
> > once-in-a-universe event;
> > Crick and Orgel took this possibility seriously, otherwise they would not have come
> > up with their article in _Icarus_ which formulated the directed panspermia hypothesis.
> >
> Well the panspermy notion for disease is at least speculative about the
> here and now. Directed panspermy is about a galaxy far far away

No, you idiot. It's about a species in the same galaxy as earth, probably less
than 1000 parsecs from where earth was. You have deliberately avoided
learning the first thing about the DP hypothesis.

> and long
> ago leaving DP amounting to a Russell’s teapot

Is this a reference to how Tenniel's Mad Hatter looked a lot like Bertrand Russell?

> except much further away and
> long since vanished from existence?

The planet may still be out there somewhere, if its sun was a K-star that
hasn't swelled to destroy life on it. K-stars not much dimmer than Sol, our G-star,
can live at least twice as long.

Anyway, there is no point in reasoning about DP with the equivalent of a kid
who plugs his ears and shouts, "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!"


But you also have no interest in the truth about evolution through gene breakage, do you?
That might actually account for the differences between a woolly mammoth
and the Indian elephant, since the two species are similar enough that some speculate
that a clone could be produced if only a mammoth cell with a full genome could be found.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics

University of So. Carolina -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

> > The ones about Behe consisted of falsehoods. Here is documentation

> > of one of them that you wrote in the OP, followedby my response:
> >
> > QUOTE:
> > > This weird argument has IDiots like Glenn perplexed because Behe is
> > > claiming that "Darwinian" evolution can account for things like the
> > > evolution of whales from terrestrial mammals.
> >
> > Behe is claiming no such thing, only that certain key characters of
> > cetaceans are due to neo-Darwinian gradualism in the form of
> > gene breakage.
> > END OF QUOTE
> >
> >
> >
> > I know you are not stupid enough to claim that whales descended from purely terrestrial animals
> > due to breakage of a mere 85 genes, which is the most Behe ever talked about.

> Of course he is that 'stupid' enough, even were he to realize the foolishness of doing so.

It will be interesting to see how he responds, but I believe he has ample "book" knowledge
of biochemistry to know the absurdity of such a claim, no matter what he says.
Hell, even with the woolly mammoth, there are 87 breakages, according to the article Behe
writes about below.

> I don't recall him actually saying that, though. But it appears that Ron follows the golden rule that states the ends justify the means. It is in my opinion, about as far away from science as one can get.

> But even with what Ron provides above is enough to see that I am not claiming anything, and that my name is not Behe. He needs me to be "perplexed" by what he claims is Behe's position, in order to support his view of my religious beliefs. That *is* "stupid enough".

> "Support" is a scientific concept.

It is also a legal concept. Ron O's support for what he says usually isn't scientific, but it resembles that
of a shyster lawyer, just as jillery's does. Did you see how I called her out on it today?

>But I believe Ron doesn't even realize what he is saying, and supports my claim that he is severely mentally impaired. He's made such mistakes for many many years, and shows absolutely no sign that he is even marginally aware of the religious nature of his thought processes.

>Yes, I also consider him an atheist, though that would be a subject for a different day. I suspect that you may have some interest in that as it might relate to your own philosophy, and perhaps another time I'd be inclined to elaborate on my regard of atheism.

My philosophy has been developed over half a century of reading some of the best philosophers, both agnostic
like William James and Christian like C. S. Lewis and Catholic like G. K. Chesterton. The latter two are
sneered at by most professional philosophy faculty, most of whom don't deserve to be called "philosophers".
Plato would have appreciated GKC and possibly CSL, at least in his younger years. In his later years he
got a bit hidebound.

I don't think Ron O is even capable of reasoning philosophically.

>
> But back to Behe himself, he has made it clear he thinks that an intelligent designer has intervened occasionally to create "new" information, and he includes that in his comments on whale evolution. Basically, Behe is asking where such novel information originally comes from. With whales specifically, I have not seen Behe identify what genes he thinks were added, in addition to all the ones he identifies as having been repurposed. That, if an omission,
does not lend credence to Behe thinking that whales evolved solely by devolution.

Of course it is an omission. Behe does not have the grant support that is necessary to undertake such a task himself.
It may be a daunting task for anyone, given that the closest living relatives of cetaceans split from them over 50 million
years ago, to list them all. It may, however, be doable for the woolly mammoth, separated from the
Indian elephant for maybe only a million years. There is still plenty of hope for a hybrid between them, according
to the Wikipedia entry on the woolly mammoth.

All of which shows how idiotic Ron O was to bring up whale evolution, where Behe only talked about
85 breakages. The 87 breakages Behe mentions for a species in less than one-tenth the time
whales had, shows how absurd his claim was.

> In fact, he does make mention of such "hopeful monster" changes in an article about devolution and whales:
>
> "Not only is devolution the dominant mode in microevolution we observe in real time in lab experiments today, but also in the macroevolutionary change that we infer from genome sequences over geological ages — punctuated by bursts of new information."
>
> https://evolutionnews.org/2019/10/darwin-devolves-evidence-keeps-rolling-in/
>
> Nowhere can I find Behe claiming that whales evolved from terrestrial animals solely by devolution, or breaking existing genes.
> Certainly, the fact that Behe did not specifically claim such an intervention occurred in the whale does not support what Ron claims.

Also, if any animals required "bursts of new information," whales are right up there with bats.

By the way, there is stony silence in mainstream science about the problem
of evolving bat wings in a logical sequence. They love to trumpet successes like
the intermediate fossils linking cetaceans with their terrestrial ancestors,
but the transition was easy enough to imagine even before these discoveries.

The fossils don't show any clues as to how the evolution of bats MIGHT
have proceeded, and it is obvious that many "bursts of information" were
necessary.

>
> I would welcome corrections. If not, I would welcome admissions.
> >
> > In reply to the above, you made an even more preposterous claim:
> >
> > "You are wrong about your interpretation of what Behe claims. He clearly
> > states that the evolution is devolution and not evolution of building
> > things that his designer is responsible for."
> >
> > He never makes any statement like that; what he says is that
> > evolution by devolution is vastly EASIER than producing evolution
> > by adding new genes or parts to existing genes.
> >
> > >Read what Behe writes.
> >
> > Would you like me to email Behe and show him this idiotic claim of yours?

> Why bother Behe about what some idiot called Ron claims to read?

It's basically a rhetorical question. Ron O probably will fold.

You didn't comment on anything below, but I left in the part about the
woolly mammoth for easy reference, and I also had some further comments
on something where I also ask you an easy question.

> >
> > By the way, on the day you posted the OP, Behe put up an article about a new discovery
> > that more woolly mammoth genes had been broken than had heretofore been suspected:
> >
> > https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/mammoth-support-for-devolution/
> > Excerpt:
> > In *Darwin Devolves*, I also mentioned work on DNA extracted from frozen woolly mammoth carcasses that showcased devolution: “26 genes were shown to be seriously degraded, many of which (as with polar bear) were involved in fat metabolism, critical in the extremely cold environments that the mammoth roamed.” It turns out that was an underestimate. A new paper [1] that has sequenced DNA from several more woolly mammoth remains says the true number is more than triple that — 87 genes broken compared to their elephant relatives.
> >
> > [1] Van der Valk, Tom, et al. 2022. Evolutionary consequences of genomic deletions and insertions in the woolly mammoth genome. iScience 25, 104826.

< snip for focus>

> > There is absolutely no doubt that Glenn should stop doing what he does
> > > to himself. For whatever reason other IDiots and exIDiots will not help
> > > him out. Kalk should explain why it is stupid to keep going back to the
> > > ID perps for second rate denial stupidity after not being able to deal
> > > with the ID perp's Top Six.
> >
> > In what way did you expect Glenn to deal with it?

Did you see the thread I am talking about below, Glenn?

> > After years of you fussing about what you calI "the top six,"
> > I finally set up a whole thread challenging people to either
> > support them or argue against them, depending on where
> > their sympathies lie, and there were no takers for either
> > on even ONE of the top six.
> >
> > I got tired of waiting around, and, hoping to set the ball
> > rolling, I posted a *criticism* of one of them. Still no takers.
> >
> > And then you came on, and said that I misunderstood what
> > you were after. You didn't WANT anyone to either support
> > or attack any of the six. Your objectives had to do with
> > wanting to making Glenn see how the top six would
> > ruin his belief in a God who did creation according
> > to the top six.

More precisely: ruin your belief in God, if it turned out that
he did creation in the way the "top six" have it.

IMO, it only helps to make God suitably majestic BUT also approachable.
Better that than the neo-Deistic God of Kenneth Miller, whose public
dealings with ID suggest that God took a hands-off attitude towards
the earth until about 6000 years ago, when he suddenly took a keen interest in the goings-on here.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

U. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos


> >

[peter2...@gmail.com]

All you are really doing below, Hemi, is showing your solidarity with jillery.
I'm waiting to see how you respond to Glenn. I've given you
more of my time today than you are worth.

However, tomorrow I will respond to a part that I snipped out
of a reply to you. I'll do the same for your pal Ron O, for whom
you have even more sympathy than you have for jillery.

Peter Nyikos

[RonO]

On 8/18/2022 2:54 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> Oops, I overlooked this one until today, when I saw Ron O's response
> to what I had written about him to Glenn yesterday evening.
>
> On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 7:30:22 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>> On 8/15/2022 12:37 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 10:30:21 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>>>> On 8/14/2022 8:21 AM, Glenn wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 5:10:21 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/13/2022 6:49 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 21:00:20 UTC+1, Ron O wrote:
>>>>>>>> https://www.science.org/content/article/your-simple-throat-reason-you-don-t-sound-chimp
>>>
>>>>>>> Dame Jane Goodall's "party piece" is her chimpanzee
>>>>>>> impression IIRC. But I don't know if it impresses chimpanzees.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've seen video of Goodall imitating the vocalization of a chimp.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've seen posts of yours that imitate behaviors typical of chimps.
>>>>>
>>>>> I doubt whether they would impress chimps.
>
> Here, I snipped some purely personal remarks,
> to which I will respond either this evening or tomorrow,
> to get to some on-topic themes.

Why lie about something this stupids?

This is what you snipped out and ran from:

REPOST:

>>>
>>> I doubt whether they would impress chimps.
>>>

>> Projection is a stupid self defense mechanism because the perpetrator
>> has to understand what he is in order to do it.
>

> Unsupported bot-like accusations of projection are a staple of yours,
as here.

You of all posters should know how projection works. Do you really need
a reference? You've had plenty of time to figure out what you do a lot
of the time.

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

QUOTE:
Psychological projection is the process of misinterpreting what is
"inside" as coming from "outside".[1] It forms the basis of empathy by
the projection of personal experiences to understand someone else's
subjective world.[1] In its malignant forms, it is a defense mechanism
in which the ego defends itself against disowned and highly negative
parts of the self by denying their existence in themselves and
attributing them to others, breeding misunderstanding and causing untold
interpersonal damage.
END QUOTE:
END REPOST:

Nyikos relies on projection routinely. So his stupid comments about it
are things that he doesn't want to deal with. It is a major self
defense mechanism for Nyikos. That is why he can't defend his
statements about it, and had to snip and run from the stupid comments
that he made.

>
>>> Fortunately for you, your idiotic undocumented comments about
>>> Glenn and Behe on the OP show a modicum of originality
>>> compared to your mindless bot-like ramblings in so many posts,
>>> including other OP's. Hence Glenn's comments are not so obviously
>>> clever as they would be if you hadn't exhibited any nontrivial originality.
>
>> Glenn knows that they aren't undocumented comments about Behe because he
>> lived them and wrote those posts.
>
> The ones about Behe conisisted of falsehoods. Here is documentation
> of one of them that you wrote in the OP, followedby my response:
>
> QUOTE:
>> This weird argument has IDiots like Glenn perplexed because Behe is
>> claiming that "Darwinian" evolution can account for things like the
>> evolution of whales from terrestrial mammals.
>
> Behe is claiming no such thing, only that certain key characters of
> cetaceans are due to neo-Darwinian gradualism in the form of
> gene breakage.
> END OF QUOTE

What do you think has Glenn so messed up about the devolution stupidity.
Didn't I claim that Behe was claiming that the devolution was
Darwinian evolution? You don't even seem to understand that I said
exactly what you are claiming about what Behe meant. You are lying
about any falsehoods because even you claim that is what Behe claimed.
Why do you have to lie about what I posted? Behe is telling IDiot rubes
that whales evolved by Darwinian evolution, but he wants to allow them
to lie to themselves about the fact of biological evolution by
denigrating it as devolution and evolution by breaking things. He wants
to sell books to the rubes even when his stupid argument destroys their
anti-evolution beliefs. Glenn couldn't understand how Behe was fooling
him using this stupid argument.

Your stupid lie about falsehoods is countered by what you have admitted
that Behe claimed. It is obviously just what I claimed. The only way
that your statement about falsehoods could be true is if you just lied
about what Behe claims. How sad is that? One of your statements is a
lie. Which one is it? We can check your conclusion of what Behe
claimed, and it is just what I claimed, so your first lie about what I
posted is the obvious lie.

>
>
>
> I know you are not stupid enough to claim that whales descended from purely terrestrial animals
> due to breakage of a mere 85 genes, which is the most Behe ever talked about.
>
> In reply to the above, you made an even more preposterous claim:
>
> "You are wrong about your interpretation of what Behe claims. He clearly
> states that the evolution is devolution and not evolution of building
> things that his designer is responsible for."
>
> He never makes any statement like that; what he says is that
> evolution by devolution is vastly EASIER than producing evolution
> by adding new genes or parts to existing genes.
>
> >Read what Behe writes.
>
> Would you like me to email Behe and show him this idiotic claim of yours?

Since you are posting part of a post that you are obviously running from
and had to snip and run from what Behe actually wrote to lie about the
situation. You should email Behe and see if he wants to defend your
stupid and dishonest behavior.

You need to go to that post and defend your stupidity there without
snipping and running from anything. You have to deal with the fact that
what Behe wrote supports my claims about what his devolution argument
is, and why it has Glenn so messed up.

Even you, likely understand how self destructive what Glenn is doing to
himself is. Kalk quit doing what Glenn still does. Just check out his
posts for the last 5 years. TO has changed. Kalk and Bill no longer
support the ID scam. They are still creationists, but continuing to be
IDiots is not the type of creationism that they want to participate in
any longer. IDiots like you and Glenn are the only stupid and dishonest
creationists left trying to defend the junk. Glenn often puts up junk
from uncommon descent, but those IDiots are as lost as Glenn, and would
rather try to stamp out blasphemy rather than discuss the Top Six or
Luskin's recent junk about what IDiocy is supposed to be and how to
defend it.

>
> I got tired of waiting around, and, hoping to set the ball
> rolling, I posted a *criticism* of one of them. Still no takers.

Doesn't that indicate that there aren't any honest IDiots left?

>
> And then you came on, and said that I misunderstood what
> you were after. You didn't WANT anyone to either support
> or attack any of the six. Your objectives had to do with
> wanting to making Glenn see how the top six would
> ruin his belief in a God who did creation according
> to the top six.

What any IDiot left in existence should understand as something that
they need to do in order to remain to be an IDiot is to deal with the
Top Six in an honest and straightforward way. They need to understand
them enough to understand that they don't want any part of them, and
they are the best evidences for IDiocy that the ID perps have come up
with. Dealing honestly with any of the Top Six in conjunction with each
other is something that most IDiots can't do. You just have to take #1
(The Big Bang) IDiots do not want to believe in the designer that is
responsible for the Big Bang. It is one of the science topics that
IDiots/creationist types have tried to drop from their state's science
standards. Kansas succeeded for a bit until enough creationists had
been voted out of the board of education to reverse the stupidity, and
Texas discussed doing it, but decided not to go that route. Most IDiot
creationists do not want to deal with the Big Bang in and honest manner.
It is the same with the rest of the Top Six. The ID perps literally
killed off most of their remaining support by putting them up after
running the bait and switch for over 15 years. They did it when they
were running the bait and switch on the Utah rubes who wanted to teach
the science of IDiocy in their public schools. Utah dropped the issue.
There obviously was nothing to teach. If creationists are not willing
to teach the best of IDiocy, why teach anything at all?

The ID perps are still running the bait and switch scam. Since putting
up the Top Six in 2017 they have updated their teach ID scam propaganda
junk in 2018 and again in 2021. They still have their old education
policy in the latest edition that claims that ID can still be taught in
the public schools.

https://www.discovery.org/f/1453/

Something is weird about this propaganda pamphlet web page. They
updated the page that they had it on after they put out the 2021
edition, and reverted back to the 2018 edition. Earlier this year they
again had the 2021 edition up, but now they are back to the 2018
edition. It doesn't matter because nothing that you have been running
from for a decade has changed. They really do still have the Scottish
Verdict quote still in the 2018 and 2021 updates.

QUOTE:
Has ID Been Banned from Public Schools?

No. Science teachers have the right to teach science.
Since ID is a legitimate scientific theory, it should be
constitutional to discuss in science classrooms and it
should not be banned from schools. If a science teacher
wants to voluntarily discuss ID, she should have the
academic freedom to do so.
END QUOTE:

>
> But you have never dared to hint at what you think Glenn's belief is.

Why would I have to? Glenn's beliefs are his own, and he obviously
believes something that requires him to run from the Top Six and not
deal with them as any type of support for those beliefs.

>
>
> > because Kalk did that for a few months with
>> Glenn and then quit supporting the ID scam.
>
> Here, you call ID a scam. Did you LIE when you claimed
> you weren't looking for anyone to attack any of the top six?

ID has been a bait and switch scam for the last 20 years. The ID perps
sell the lie that they have the ID science to teach in the public
schools, but whenever there are any creationists rubes stupid enough to
to believe them, the ID perps run the bait and switch and the rubes only
get the switch scam that the ID perps claim has nothing to do with
IDiocy. That has been the IDiot's reality for the last 20 years. No
creationist rubes that have ever wanted to teach the junk, has ever
gotten any iD science from the ID perps to teach. IDiocy turned into a
stupid scam that creationists are running on themselves.

>
> Did you LIE when you claimed you weren't looking for anyone to DEFEND any of the top six?
> "anyone" includes Glenn, you know.

IDiots do not need to defend the Top Six. What any IDiots like you that
are still left have to do is to understand the Top Six enough to figure
out what kind of designer real science supports. Space alien designers
don't really fit in with the Top Six do they? Using the Top Six as
disembodied god-of-the-gaps stupidity so that the creationists can lie
to themselves until they forget everything in order lie to themselves
about the next gap isn't anything worth doing. The Top Six are
legitimate science topics. They need no defense. That is the real
issue with the Top Six and why IDiots like Glenn, Kalk and Bill can't
stand to think of them as the best that they have. Pagano even claimed
that they were bogus and not the Top Six evidences for IDiocy.

>
>
>> Kalk is still a
>> creationist, he just doesn't go to the ID perps for second rate denial
>> stupidity any longer. Glenn still does.
>
> Glenn doesn't realize that there are ID arguments that are
> stronger than those that are in what you anachronistically
> call the top six. One of them has to do with the protein translation mechanism.
> Bill Rogers is so afraid of it, he retreats to comfortable
> stuff that comes even before DNA polymerase. He doesn't want
> to confront the huge obstacles that come before the protein translation

No one cares. The ID perps claim them as the Top Six, and they are the
ones perpetrating the ID creationist scam, so why should you believe
anything else that they lie to the rubes about? Protein translation and
DNA polymerase are no better than the Top Six that included Behe's IC
IDiocy about the flagellum. Looks like it was designed never impressed
anyone except the rubes too stupid to understand that the IC flagellum
argument means that YEC is a dead issue. When was the flagellum
created? Behe claims that he is looking for his order and arrangement
of mutations that happened in the preexisting parts of the flagellum to
make the flagellum, and these preexisting parts existed over a billion
years ago.

The same goes for protein translation and DNA polymerase. Were you
posting when MarkE realized that he didn't want to believe in the
designer responsible for the origin of life gap that he spent a lot of
time defining. I told him that what he was doing was senseless. He was
spending a lot of time working out what the gap was. Conditions on the
planet at the time, what materials were present, what chemical reactions
were possible etc. I just had to remind him that he didn't want to
believe in the god that filled the gap that he was creating. It is
senseless to wallow in the denial if you don't want to believe in the
god that fills the gap that you are wallowing in. The same goes for
protein translation or any of the other Top Six other than #3 the origin
of life.

>
>
>> I don't care about you and Harshman because I know that I can't trust
>> anything that you write,
>
> Keep telling yourself that, and you will stick your head in the sand
> even deeper than Bill Rogers about my argument.

Just can it and post the stupidity to someone else. Since you feel the
need to post the junk, post it to Glenn. I really don't care because I
know what a lying asshole you are, so why would I be interested in
anything that you claimed about anyone else?

Ron Okimoto

[*Hemidactylus*]

The in-fall model for pandemics can be addressed and pushed back upon in
the here and now. Yours is a far weaker sort of in-fall presuming even more
than space sourced inbound pathogens. Both forms of panspermy stultify
knowledge.

Neuroskeptic skewers with: “Needless to say, this is not a theory with any
evidence for it. There is no evidence that viruses or bacteria (or any
other life) exist in space, and Steele et al. provide no direct evidence
that the coronavirus arrived from the heavens.”

Applies broadly to you and Steele et al.

>
>>>
>>> You keep badgering me to post things that are off-topic in every
>>> sense of the word. But then, you've never shown any sign of
>>> regretting having badgered John Harshman to stop replying on-topic
>>> to me, because it keeps me posting to talk.origins.
>>>
>>> It all fits together.
>
> And you still aren't showing any sign of regretting it.
>

Nope. More interested in Earthbound stuff that actually happened. What I
focus upon per immunology fits the bill. I don’t discount a form of
panspermy where life’s building blocks may have come from inbound comets or
whatever. That would actually strengthen the case for earthen abiogenesis.

>
>> Well somatic hypermutation and class switch recombination sure aren’t OT as
>> they helped you and you ancestors survive so you could post here. Somatic
>> hypermutation is adaptive in two senses of the word. First it facilitates
>> your survival. It also leads to a better fit between antibodies and
>> antigens based on cycles of mutation and selection in immunocytic
>> populations within your body. As Robert Jack and Louis Du Pasquier point
>> out in Evolutionary Concepts in Immunology there is an asymmetry between us
>> and pathogenic microbes in generational time (20 years vs 20 minutes) that
>> adaptive immunity helps remedy.
>
> Time is too short to talk about things that could be one of 1,000 different
> things that equally enhance fitness.

IOW you don’t care for stuff that actually took place?

> What is called for is focus on
> things that seem indispensable for evolution to a technologically
> capable intelligent species. One of them is sexual reproduction.
> If you can think of some form of it that does not include something as essential to
> "intelligent life as we know it" as meiosis, let's hear it.
>

Without antibody producing immunocytes the intelligent life we are biased
toward here and you project into some remote panspermic obsessed
civilization out there wouldn’t be speculating based on scifi fantasy they
read as a youth.

>
> If not, I expect you to totally ignore the content of any revival of a thread
> on which Harshman and I exchanged a lot of facts and ideas about meiosis
> that are relevant to its evolutionary history, this time also trying to
> get to first base on the question, "How did meiosis originate?"
>

I’m more interested in adaptive immunity. But Leo Buss had some interesting
ideas on the evolution of individuality I read decades ago. Not scifi
fantasy.

>
> I'll be lucky if you don't try to sabotage the thread with the
> help of jerks like Wolffan and creeps like Zencycle, the
> way you sabotaged my FAQ in Directed Panspermia
> which featured answers to all the usual objections.
>
>
>>>>> 3. Directed panspermia, about which I have posted extensive FAQs
>>>>> showing the scientific issues involved in great depth and detail.
>>>>>
>>>> If you say so.
>>>
>>> You show your true opinion several times below, turkey.
>>>
>> So I’m a Thanksgiving Day cannibal?
>
> No, you're a smart-alecky jerk who loves mindless repartee.
>
>
>>>
>>>>> And you led the way in sabotaging the last one, Internet Vandal that you are.
>>>>> The mental caliber of your sabotage was about on the level of the
>>>>> silly verbal salad you concoct next, but far more prolonged and hateful:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And there’s the Rorschach test inkblot projection you do with Glenn’s posts
>>>>>> yet typically resort to putting me and others down. The irony.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pure drivel.
>
> The Rorsach test inkblot obsession was Hartman's,

Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman’s? Or comic genius Phil Hartman’s?

>and you are just as obsessed
> with interpreting Glenn in the worst imaginable way as he is. The irony
> is that you are as steeped in the obsession as a fish is steeped in water to
> the point that it is oblivious to it.
>
>>>> Bang on instead. I’m thinking of the guy who saw something in the singing
>>>> frog per Looney Tunes. How’d that work out for him?
>>>
>>>>>> That you can’t see the connect to Steele’s speculation in your DP scenario
>>>>>> isn’t my problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> It isn't anyone's problem, because of the huge flaw I relate in 2,
>>>>> which you conflate with 3, simpleton that you are.
>>>>>
>>>> Nope. The proximal issues in 2 relate to the distal issues in 3
>>>
>>> In your science-deprived imagination. The genome that viruses
>>> carry would be utter gibberish to civilizations far in advance of ours,
>>> if they are built on a different genetic code. The reason we
>>> can decode the genomes is that ribosomes and a host of enzymes
>>> do practically all the legwork.
>
> That went completely over your head, didn't it?
>

How do ribosomes do this legwork? My point is that panspermic infall is
proximal spatially and temporally. It attempts to address a contemporary
biological issue and fails. How does your far more distally based DP GIGO
fare any better? You are not addressing that glaring disparity.

Team Steele says some fungal disease is better accounted for by infall than
earthen epidemiology. Team Nyikos poo poos earthen evolutionary biology and
paleontology and says a far flung seeding civilization is necessary to fill
in some gaps in current knowledge. Scifi fantasy run wild.

>
>>> When Steele starts declaiming on how bacteria are brought to
>>> earth by comets from distant planetary systems, you just might
>>> start being on topic to talk.origins.
>>>
>> Well they speculate on origin of fungal disease here:
>
> One solitary disease, with no attempt at any general theory.
>

Well DP has more holes than run of the mill localized contemporary
panspermy then. Whoosh.

>
>>
>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7358766/
>>
>> “Abstract
>>
>> The origins and global spread of two recent, yet quite different, pandemic
>> diseases is discussed and reviewed in depth: Candida auris, a eukaryotic
>> fungal disease, and COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2), a positive strand RNA viral
>> respiratory disease. Both these diseases display highly distinctive
>> patterns of sudden emergence and global spread, which are not easy to
>> understand by conventional epidemiological analysis based on simple
>> infection-driven human- to-human spread of an infectious disease (assumed
>> to jump suddenly and thus genetically, from an animal reservoir). Both
>> these enigmatic diseases make sense however under a Panspermia in-fall
>> model and the evidence consistent with such a model is critically
>> reviewed.”
>
> I skimmed it, and it sounds no more plausible than a bunch of crank theories
> that Martin Gardner wrote about in a whole book, _In_the_Name_of_Science_.
>
> Anyway, I see no promise for a real contribution for evolutionary
> theory, what with it being a minor mutation of a well known earth fungus.
>

DP fares far worse then.

I am deflating your argument from authority. Yours is the actual genetic
fallacy. Maybe a positive sort of ad hominem in your treatment. Crick’s
Nobel doesn’t shield him from scrutiny on ridiculous ideas. Same goes for
Pauling and Mullis. The clue fairy called but your phone was off network.

>
>>>> I think I may have pointed out the
>>>> Reptoid-mongers who think some mystery planet comes around rarely may have
>>>> more of a leg to stand on than far flung civilizations sending an
>>>> exorbitantly expensive fleet of seeding start up kits…
>>>
>>> You are also insulting world-class biochemist Leslie Orgel here. A pity neither
>>> he nor Crick are alive to put you in your place.
>>>
>> Yeah well take some ascorbic acid megadoses per Pauling. Mullis thought he
>> had conversed with a glowing raccoon and had some odd views on HIV not
>> causing AIDS. Nobels don’t automatically confer respectability on other
>> ideas a scientist might have.
>
> Biochemistry is the very heart of abiogenesis theories,
> and the reasoning had nothing to do with things happening in the here
> and now. I went over it in one FAQ entry.
>

Pauling didn’t use biochemistry to sex up his stance on Vitamin C
megadoses? One could offer a promotional FAQ on that too.

>
> But you are a vandal who actively prevented talk.origins readers
> from reading FAQ entries by drowning the thread with a mess of
> posts without ever reading any of the posts I put up.
>
>>>
>>> Peter Nyikos
>>> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
>>> Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
>>> http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
>>>
>>> PS Unlike the Reptoid-mongers, the Cambrian explosion scenario of which
>>> I wrote would have been a (purely hypothetical) chance one-time event.
>>> I also think abiogenesis resulting in a technological civilization is a
>>> once-in-a-universe event;
>>> Crick and Orgel took this possibility seriously, otherwise they would not have come
>>> up with their article in _Icarus_ which formulated the directed panspermia hypothesis.
>>>
>> Well the panspermy notion for disease is at least speculative about the
>> here and now. Directed panspermy is about a galaxy far far away
>
> No, you idiot. It's about a species in the same galaxy as earth, probably less
> than 1000 parsecs from where earth was. You have deliberately avoided
> learning the first thing about the DP hypothesis.
>

Regardless no more plausible or warranted. It diverts attention from
earthen events just as the viral or fungal infall diverts from earthen
epidemiology. Quoting myself based on Neuroskeptic’s critique of panspermic
infall “Some think pandemic causing pathogens have fallen from space with
about as much traction or utility to earthbound scientists as other forms
of panspermia or astrobiology. These accounts impede rather than add to
progress in epidemiology or evolutionary biology.”

>
>> and long
>> ago leaving DP amounting to a Russell’s teapot
>
> Is this a reference to how Tenniel's Mad Hatter looked a lot like Bertrand Russell?
>
>
>> except much further away and
>> long since vanished from existence?
>
> The planet may still be out there somewhere, if its sun was a K-star that
> hasn't swelled to destroy life on it. K-stars not much dimmer than Sol, our G-star,
> can live at least twice as long.
>
> Anyway, there is no point in reasoning about DP with the equivalent of a kid
> who plugs his ears and shouts, "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!"
>

The teapot was spot on, no?

>
> But you also have no interest in the truth about evolution through gene breakage, do you?
> That might actually account for the differences between a woolly mammoth
> and the Indian elephant, since the two species are similar enough that some speculate
> that a clone could be produced if only a mammoth cell with a full genome could be found.
>

More interested in duplication and divergence as driving evolutionary
novelty.

[*Hemidactylus*]

peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> All you are really doing below, Hemi, is showing your solidarity with jillery.
> I'm waiting to see how you respond to Glenn.

I don’t respond to Glenn so don’t hold your breath for too long.

> I've given you
> more of my time today than you are worth.
>
> However, tomorrow I will respond to a part that I snipped out
> of a reply to you. I'll do the same for your pal Ron O, for whom
> you have even more sympathy than you have for jillery.
>

How often do I interact with Ron? He obnoxiously interacts with Glenn in
interminable circle jerk threads as does jillery. That annoys me greatly.
That I still reply to you should be taken as a major compliment.

[snip Pete’s lack of actual substantive reply]

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 8:55:25 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> On 8/16/2022 5:19 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 12:30:21 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> >> On 8/14/2022 10:02 AM, Glenn wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 7:30:21 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >>>> On 8/14/2022 8:21 AM, Glenn wrote:
> >
> >>>> Projection is a stupid self defense mechanism because the perpetrator
> >>>> has to understand what he is in order to do it. You should stop doing
> >>>> such a stupid thing to yourself.
> >
> > I've commented on this mindless attempt to insert a square peg
> > ("projection") into a round hole (Glenn's words) directly. Glenn's reply below
> > is the sort of generic reply that you do, Ron O, except that I have seen
> > you behave exactly as Glenn describes below.

> Why don't you deal with your previous stupidity before making more of a
> mess?

You are referring to nonexistent events. I'd like to see what passes
for evidence in your sick mind, though.

>Those previous posts of yours are left undefended so why even
> mention them.

I dealt with one of them today, and came down even harder
on you than I would have if I HAD replied before you posted this.

> It just shows that you know what you did, but can't deal
> with what you did.

You are such an egomaniac, thinking every post of yours is supposed
to be replied to on YOUR timetable.

I've said it often enough to your kind:

Be patient: the mills of justice grind slowly,
but they grind exceeding fine.

That's taken from a famous 19th century poem, except that the poet
had "God" where I put justice. Reason being, you have never shown
any sign of The Fear of the Lord, but your atheistic buddies at least
have to pay lip service to justice.

> You are the king of projection.

Are you so deluded that you actually BELIEVE what you said just now?

> You weren't back posting on TO for very
> long before you started threads like the "Dirty Debating" thread, and
> who had been the dirty debater?

You and a bunch of others using dirty tactics. I described several,
and one of them fit you.

> What dirty debating tactics did you use
> in that thread?

None whatsoever, and you are powerless to document otherwise.

> It was obvious projection of what you were.

What a laugh! Right here you are adopting a dirty debating tactic
you've employed many times: asking questions that are cunningly
designed to make the reader think that the right answer is the opposite of what it really is.

>
> You could try to get Glenn to deal honestly with the Top Six, but it is
> a lost cause. When Glenn puts one of them up because he doesn't
> understand what he is posting, Glenn runs instead of trying to defend
> what he did.

In the thread I started a few years ago, and which I talked about in my reply to that
post which I had earlier overlooked, you made it seem like you didn't WANT
anyone to defend OR attack any of the top six. Was that because you are so
insecure about actually debating them, that you are secretly relieved that Glenn "ran,"
as you put it?

> Really, he doesn't even make an excuse for doing something
> as stupid as putting up something that he has been running from for years.

You ran from discussing the top six, which YOU had been harping on for years.
Must I revive that old thread of mine to show how out of character you behaved on it?

> Go for it, or stop lying about things that you shouldn't be lying about.

You are lost in a fantasy world of your own invention.

> Deal with the stupidity that you have already posted before making up
> new junk to lie to yourself about.

You are more to be pitied than hated when you rant like this.

The beginning of wisdom is fear of the Lord, but you won't take the first step.

I've been through a spiritual odyssey lasting almost half a century. It has left me with very
little confidence in the existence of the Lord, but I still have a healthy
fear that is tempered with hopes of mercy, should He exist.

> When are you going to start lying about some made up posting limit in
> order to run from what you have done?

You don't even have the guts to name a specific example that you can credibly document.

Anyway, if I were to do what you wrote a few lines earlier, you would just rant and rave
through a seemingly endless back and forth, the end result of which would be you running to DIG
again like a crybaby in hopes of him banning me the way you had Kleinman banned.

> You are just a sad and dishonest loser. Projecting that onto someone
> else is your issue.

The loser is you. You can't even deal with what Glenn and I wrote about you below.
>
> Ron Okimoto

Since you left what Glenn and I wrote in, I will comment on it, so that it won't just disappear
behind an ellipsis in Google Groups. Readers deserve to see immediately what searing commentary
you are unable to deal with.

> >>> You should realize that you soil yourself as a result of your wet dreams about me.
> >>> It is a sign of mental illness. And when you refuse to accept even the possibility that
> >>> you are wrong about insisting on what and how I believe, your mental illness becomes
> >>> more obvious. When you refuse to accept my past attempts to deter you from your path,
> >>> little doubt remains that your impaired mental state and capacity to reason is not restricted to the subject of ID.
> >
> >
> > Over the years, Ron O, you have repeatedly alleged that Glenn is afraid to deal with
> > what you ignorantly call "the top six ID arguments" because it would undermine his concept of what God is.
> > But you lack the minimal backbone to even HINT at what you think Glenn's concept is,
> > while simultaneously saying nothing about what YOUR concept is. So don't be too surprised
> > by what Glenn wrote about you above.

All I said here was true, and you couldn't cope with it.

> > You were already notorious for this tight-lipped behavior about your concept
> > when I returned to talk.origins in December 2010.
> > You claimed for a long time to "believe in a creator" but resisted all attempts to
> > elicit a description of what sort of creator you believe in. Membership in
> > a Methodist congregation, which you kept talking about, says NOTHING about that.

Nor does the fact that the denomination takes no stand on what creation is like;
that says NOTHING about your personal beliefs.

> > It's been a few years since I've seen you make this claim, and I asked
> > you whether you are now upfront about being an atheist. So far, you
> > have avoided talking about this. Will you continue to avoid talking about it?

Evidently the answer is YES. You could easily deny being an atheist,
if that were the truth. But you never do that.

How sad is that?

> >
> >> What type of posts did you just project onto me?
> >
> > That you are forced to ASK this question instead of documenting
> > or even hinting at what sorts of posts by Glenn exhibit that kind of projection,
> > only illustrates how mindlessly you use "projection" as a stick
> > to hit people over the head with.
> >
> >
> > Glenn may have been on target with the following parting shot:
> >
> >>> You're much worse, and more dangerous to society and science, than the most religious fundamentalists.
> >
> > You are certainly dangerous to talk.origins, the way you went like a crybaby to DIG
> > and got him to ban Dr. Dr. Kleinman. Worse yet, you have dropped hints that
> > if I were to keep persisting too long in setting the record straight about the things
> > in dispute between us, I would get the same treatment.

Your ranting and raving practically forced me to repeat that implied threat of yours before you signed off.

> >
> >> More projection doesn't do much. It is just kicking yourself in the butt and placing a
> >> sticker on your forehead. Aren't you talking about your own mental
> >> illness that you present when you post what you do?
> >
> > No. Glenn has been posting quite sanely in sci.bio.paleontology these last three months,
> > often on topic. But Harshman is so paranoid about Glenn's often helpful on-topic
> > references, he is obsessed by the thought that Glenn's real reason for posting
> > them is that Glenn is anti-science.
> >
> >
> >> Just pointing out
> >> that you are doing those mentally ill things doesn't make a person
> >> mentally ill. What have you posted recently that isn't described by you
> >> above?
> >
> > I can post ample documentation for what I wrote above about s.b.p.
> > Would you like to see it?

The answer is no, but that doesn't stop you from pretending to yourself that it doesn't exist.

[Glenn]

Ron is imploding. I fear if I, or anyone, could shake him with anything that would confound his narratives that he would have a real mental breakdown. Even were that not a concern, I see no reason to try.
It appears as if you are being pulled in too deeply into his web. It can serve no purpose, Peter.

[jillery]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 18:15:17 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 4:50:25 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:

Glenn and the peter continue to play with themselves and each other...

>> "Support" is a scientific concept.
>
>It is also a legal concept. Ron O's support for what he says usually isn't scientific, but it resembles that
>of a shyster lawyer, just as jillery's does. Did you see how I called her out on it today?

The peter is a legend in his own mind.

[jillery]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 18:31:56 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>All you are really doing below, Hemi, is showing your solidarity with jillery.

Since Hemidactylus responded to nothing jillery posted below, the
peter's comment above yet another one of his willfully stupid remarks.

[jillery]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 12:41:29 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 12:00:26 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 11:18:04 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
>> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:23 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> <snip for focus>
>> >> Well given the SCOTUS deck is stacked religiously driven nonsense will be
>> >> forced into public schools soon enough.
>> >
>> >Not any more than it has been up to now. Ron O has often enough posted
>> >the statement that teaching "ID science" in public schools is protected by the Constitution.
>> >This means talking about ID using the methodology of pure science, which
>> >the atheist Francis Crick did in _Life Itself_.
>> The above stupidly misrepresents what RonO says. RonO is careful to
>> correctly specify that ID can be taught in U.S. public schools as part
>> of *comparative religious* studies, while you are careful to avoid
>> mentioning that qualification.
>> --
>Are politics and civil law on topic for talk.origins?

Don't ask me. I didn't start this topic or this thread.

>Do you think that the Dover decision is the law of the land?

The Dover decision doesn't inform anything posted above.

>Speaking of stupid, you make an unsupported claim in response to an unsupported claim.
>I suppose you consider that scientific.

Your suppositions don't inform anything posted above.

>Were I you, I might have challenged Peter to provide documentation to support his claim about what Ron has said.

Were I you, I wouldn't brag about posting mindless challenges for the
sake of it.

>You may also not realize that what you claim Ron is careful to specify does not falsify Peter's claim about what Ron has posted,

You don't realize that what the peter claims RonO says is completely
orthogonal to what RonO actually says.

>nor whether it is even relevant,

The peter's claims are almost never relevant.

>nor do you supply the reasoning behind your claim that Peter was careful to avoid mentioning what you claim.

The peter's claim does not mention an essential part of what RonO
says, and so misrepresents RonO's comments. Whether the peter was
careful or mindless about misrepresenting RonO's comments doesn't
alter that fact.

[Glenn]

On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 8:30:27 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 18:31:56 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >All you are really doing below, Hemi, is showing your solidarity with jillery.
> Since Hemidactylus responded to nothing jillery posted below, the
> peter's comment above yet another one of his willfully stupid remarks.

Is 'solidarity" not your favorite word?

[jillery]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 13:29:41 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"

<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 3:00:26 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 11:18:04 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
>> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:23 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> <snip for focus>
>
>> >> Well given the SCOTUS deck is stacked religiously driven nonsense will be
>> >> forced into public schools soon enough.
>> >
>> >Not any more than it has been up to now. Ron O has often enough posted
>> >the statement that teaching "ID science" in public schools is protected by the Constitution.
>
>The statement was made by the Discovery Institute. Ron O never dared to
>deny it was true, but instead he indulged in complete illogic about it. See my PS below.
>
>The following is an explanation by myself, which is not in the statement Ron O quoted
>dozens of times.
>
>> >This means talking about ID using the methodology of pure science, which
>> >the atheist Francis Crick did in _Life Itself_.
>

>The only stupidity above is that of Hemidactylus.
>
>"misrepresents" is your illogical polemical word for "says something Ron O said, but does
>not mention a redundant detail that Ron O talked about elsewhere".
>
>Are you hoping to outshine Lawyer Daggett with cheap courtroom tricks?

Restored context to mitigate your transparent obfuscating evasion:


>> The above stupidly misrepresents what RonO says. RonO is careful to

>> correctly specify that ID can be taught in U.S. public schools as part
>> of *comparative religious* studies, while you are careful to avoid
>> mentioning that qualification.
>
>Because it omits the freedom-of-speech issue of which I wrote,

You did *not* previously write about freedom-of-speech issues in this
thread.
.
RonO's comments to which you allude are *not* about freedom-of-speech
issues.
.
What Francis Crick wrote in _Life Itself_ is not about
freedom-of-speech issues.
.
Your claim above about freedom-of-speech issues is a transparent,
obfuscating, self-serving lie.

>and serves the falsehood that ID is an exclusively religious issue.
>It is not, and it is NOT a religious issue at all when Behe talks about it.
>
>See my quote from an article that became public three days ago, complete with an impeccable
>scientific source to back it up, by Behe. Tell me where you find religion anywhere
>in that article.
>
>> --
>> You're entitled to your own opinions.
>> You're not entitled to your own facts.
>
>The "You're" here is literally true. Jillery posts hundreds of distorted or false "facts"
>that she feels perfectly entitled to, as above, exempting herself from the "yous" about whom she posts.

Here's another challenge for you to evade: Cite and back up an
example of these distorted or false facts to which you allude. Failure
to do so is good evidence you know there are none, and are just
flinging more of your mindless made-up crap... allegedly for the sake
of future historians.

>Peter Nyikos
>
>PS Ron O always misrepresented the DI quote as saying that the DI is claiming to have the ID
>science in a form suitable for teaching in the public schools on a level competitive with the usual ID-less
>science. Ron O often left off the part starting with "in a form" and especially the part starting with
>"on a level" but they were always implicitly there. His perennial charge of a "Bait and switch scam"
>collapses without this nefariously warped interpretation.

[Glenn]

On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 8:35:26 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 12:41:29 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
> >On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 12:00:26 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> >> On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 11:18:04 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> >> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:23 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> >> <snip for focus>
> >> >> Well given the SCOTUS deck is stacked religiously driven nonsense will be
> >> >> forced into public schools soon enough.
> >> >
> >> >Not any more than it has been up to now. Ron O has often enough posted
> >> >the statement that teaching "ID science" in public schools is protected by the Constitution.
> >> >This means talking about ID using the methodology of pure science, which
> >> >the atheist Francis Crick did in _Life Itself_.
> >> The above stupidly misrepresents what RonO says. RonO is careful to
> >> correctly specify that ID can be taught in U.S. public schools as part
> >> of *comparative religious* studies, while you are careful to avoid
> >> mentioning that qualification.
> >> --
> >Are politics and civil law on topic for talk.origins?

> Don't ask me. I didn't start this topic or this thread.

That has never stopped you in the past. Are you and Ron imploding together?
Hemi only appears to be off his meds.

[erik simpson]

God help those poor historians.

[Glenn]

The future is here, always. And everyone is an historian, as well as an a-hole.
"Failure to do so is good evidence you know there are none"..."alluded" fact?

[RonO]

On 8/18/2022 9:30 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 8:55:25 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>> On 8/16/2022 5:19 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 12:30:21 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>>>> On 8/14/2022 10:02 AM, Glenn wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 7:30:21 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/14/2022 8:21 AM, Glenn wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Projection is a stupid self defense mechanism because the perpetrator
>>>>>> has to understand what he is in order to do it. You should stop doing
>>>>>> such a stupid thing to yourself.
>>>
>>> I've commented on this mindless attempt to insert a square peg
>>> ("projection") into a round hole (Glenn's words) directly. Glenn's reply below
>>> is the sort of generic reply that you do, Ron O, except that I have seen
>>> you behave exactly as Glenn describes below.
>
>> Why don't you deal with your previous stupidity before making more of a
>> mess?
>
> You are referring to nonexistent events. I'd like to see what passes
> for evidence in your sick mind, though.

Why lie about the situation?

>
>
>> Those previous posts of yours are left undefended so why even
>> mention them.
>
> I dealt with one of them today, and came down even harder
> on you than I would have if I HAD replied before you posted this.

That is no reason to lie about what you did, and you admit that you have
only tried to address one of the posts. The other is still not
addressed by you. So everything I wrote still stands.

>
>
>> It just shows that you know what you did, but can't deal
>> with what you did.
>
> You are such an egomaniac, thinking every post of yours is supposed
> to be replied to on YOUR timetable.

You know what you did, and if you look at how you responded to one of
the two posts, you know that you are just projecting your own stupidity
onto someone else. How did you deal with what you had done? How have
you not dealt with what you have already done?

>
> I've said it often enough to your kind:
>
> Be patient: the mills of justice grind slowly,
> but they grind exceeding fine.

You have bee lying about the same junk for over a decade. Persistently
doing something stupid and dishonest is not patience. You are still
running from that first post of yours where you were wrong about the
Discovery Institute's involvement in the bait and switch scam on the
Ohio rubes. Just imagine what things would be like if you had just
accepted that you had been wrong, and incorporated the truth into what
you understand about IDiocy? Over a decade of lies and stupidity would
have not been necessary.

You wouldn't have an excuse to lie about all the other junk you started
to lie about if you didn't have to cover up that first stupid mistake.
Sure you likely would have messed up later, just as you have
consistently messed up trying to keep lying about the situation, but you
would have, at least, had the chance of not doing what you still do.

>
> That's taken from a famous 19th century poem, except that the poet
> had "God" where I put justice. Reason being, you have never shown
> any sign of The Fear of the Lord, but your atheistic buddies at least
> have to pay lip service to justice.
>
>> You are the king of projection.
>
> Are you so deluded that you actually BELIEVE what you said just now?
>
>> You weren't back posting on TO for very
>> long before you started threads like the "Dirty Debating" thread, and
>> who had been the dirty debater?
>
> You and a bunch of others using dirty tactics. I described several,
> and one of them fit you.

Demonstrate that is the case. You ran from my first two posts in that
thread because nothing related to me even though you told me that I had
to address what you had started. Then you started making up junk to
other posters, and it turned out that they were lies that you couldn't
back up. You would have gotten away with it, but you had to tell me
that I had to address what you had written to other posters in that
thread. That is how sick and sad you are. Go back to the thread and
check it out.

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/H6k58771nkQ/m/dLLAwAbmQa0J

This is the thread, take the time to go through it and try to
demonstrate what you just lied about. You turned out to be the dirty
debater, and the thread turned out to be you projecting yourself onto
others.

How many times were you caught lying? What about your post manipulation
to claim that I was lying. You even stooped to quoting something of
mine out of context, would not tell me where you got the quote from, and
when I found the source and it was exactly how I defended the statement,
you ran. It is all in this thread. You should remember that after your
post manipulation had been exposed that you started the Scottish verdict
thread as one of your multiple distraction attempts.

You did all those things. Lying about it now is stupid. The posts are
still there.

>
>> What dirty debating tactics did you use
>> in that thread?
>
> None whatsoever, and you are powerless to document otherwise.

You should go through and relive the shame and stupidity of your deeds.
Admit that you just lied, or I will document what I just have
described as what you did in this thread. Just use the link and scroll
down to my first post listed in the google stack for that thread. If
you don't admit that you just lied, I will document each instance that I
described above.

You do know how embarrassing it will be because you have already lived
doing it. It would obviously take some time on my part, but if you
don't want me to do it, just admit that you have lied about it and move
on. Just remember how you started the Scottish verdict thread the day
after I described your post manipulation to make it look like I had lied
about you snipping and running. You couldn't face what you had done
then, and you don't want to face it now. Just think about how many
times that you had linked back to that manipulated post to claim that I
had lied about you snipping and running, and I could never understand
why you would link back to that post since there were examples of you
snipping and running in it and I had never had to falsely accuse you of
snipping and running. It wasn't until I found how you had manipulated
my post so that it looked like I had claimed that you had snipped and
run from an instance where you had not snipped and run that I understood
what you were doing. When I put up what I had actually written and it
said that you had not snipped and run in that instance, you ran.

You should go back to that thread and deal with all the stupidity that
you have maintained for the last decade. You are just that lame and
degenerate.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 20:37:36 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 8:30:27 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 18:31:56 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
>> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >All you are really doing below, Hemi, is showing your solidarity with jillery.
>> Since Hemidactylus responded to nothing jillery posted below, the
>> peter's comment above yet another one of his willfully stupid remarks.
>
>Is 'solidarity" not your favorite word?

Is willfully stupid obfuscating noise not your favorite compulsion?

[jillery]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 20:40:36 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

wrote:

>On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 8:35:26 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 12:41:29 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 12:00:26 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 11:18:04 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
>> >> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:23 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> >> <snip for focus>
>> >> >> Well given the SCOTUS deck is stacked religiously driven nonsense will be
>> >> >> forced into public schools soon enough.
>> >> >
>> >> >Not any more than it has been up to now. Ron O has often enough posted
>> >> >the statement that teaching "ID science" in public schools is protected by the Constitution.
>> >> >This means talking about ID using the methodology of pure science, which
>> >> >the atheist Francis Crick did in _Life Itself_.
>> >> The above stupidly misrepresents what RonO says. RonO is careful to
>> >> correctly specify that ID can be taught in U.S. public schools as part
>> >> of *comparative religious* studies, while you are careful to avoid
>> >> mentioning that qualification.
>> >> --
>> >Are politics and civil law on topic for talk.origins?
>
>> Don't ask me. I didn't start this topic or this thread.
>
>That has never stopped you in the past.

Stop me from what? You don't say.

> Are you and Ron imploding together?

Not sure what that even means.

>Hemi only appears to be off his meds.

What's apparent to you doesn't inform this discussion.

[jillery]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 21:00:43 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>"Failure to do so is good evidence you know there are none"..."alluded" fact?

Try using a dictionary, if only for the novelty of the experience.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 10:05:26 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 12:35:25 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> >> peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip for focus>

> >>> You keep badgering me to post things that are off-topic in every
> >>> sense of the word. But then, you've never shown any sign of
> >>> regretting having badgered John Harshman to stop replying on-topic
> >>> to me, because it keeps me posting to talk.origins.
> >>>
> >>> It all fits together.
> >
> > And you still aren't showing any sign of regretting it.
> >
> Nope.

Thanks for confirming that one of your fondest hopes
is that I leave talk.origins forever, the sooner the better.
For a while you had me thinking that you had gone soft on me.

I will not waste my time with anything you say
above (snipped) or below (all kept in). Save one: "Hartman" was a
careless typo for "Harshman." But I think you knew that.


Peter Nyikos

[*Hemidactylus*]

peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 10:05:26 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 12:35:25 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>> peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> <snip for focus>
>
>
>>>>> You keep badgering me to post things that are off-topic in every
>>>>> sense of the word. But then, you've never shown any sign of
>>>>> regretting having badgered John Harshman to stop replying on-topic
>>>>> to me, because it keeps me posting to talk.origins.
>>>>>
>>>>> It all fits together.
>>>
>>> And you still aren't showing any sign of regretting it.
>>>
>> Nope.
>
> Thanks for confirming that one of your fondest hopes
> is that I leave talk.origins forever, the sooner the better.
> For a while you had me thinking that you had gone soft on me.
>
> I will not waste my time with anything you say
> above (snipped) or below (all kept in). Save one: "Hartman" was a
> careless typo for "Harshman." But I think you knew that.
>

Why should I regret what’s largely made up in your head based on stuff from
so long ago. But it gives you a convenient out to evade the substance of
what I say below.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

I promised to reply, either yesterday or today, to a part that I snipped out
of the first reply to the following post. Here is my reply to that part.

On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 7:30:22 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> On 8/15/2022 12:37 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> > On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 10:30:21 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:

> >> Projection is a stupid self defense mechanism because the perpetrator
> >> has to understand what he is in order to do it.
> >

> > Unsupported bot-like accusations of projection are a staple of yours, as here.

> You of all posters should know how projection works.

Yes, a dozen years of intermittent exposure to you suggests
that in your earlier years your feelings were so badly stung by
people telling you that "Projection is a way of life for you," that you not
only decided it was a great line to use against anyone who irritated you,
but you've endlessly used the charge of projection as a talisman.

Specifically, a talisman to ward off people who accuse you of nasty traits.
I say "nasty" because there are quite a few t.o. regulars who are have such
a subjective sense of morality that they think true derogatory charges
(of cowardice, dishonesty, hypocrisy, etc.) are even more to be condemned
than when the same charges are false, AND ALSO directed against themselves
or against people in "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" relationship with them.
Are you one of them?

> Do you really need
> a reference? You've had plenty of time to figure out what you do a lot
> of the time.

You have never proven (even in the weak sense of "preponderance of evidence")
a single accusation of lying against me, even though you've made at least a
hundred of them over the years.

When I pointed this out to you several years ago, you whined, "Does the evidence
have to fit on one page?" I told you no, better to have it all rather than too sketchy.
But you couldn't do that for even a single alleged lie. And with good reason:
conscious, deliberate lies by me are not to be found anywhere on the internet;
at most, false statements by me are due to faulty or incomplete memory,
such as my overlooking the post to which I am making my second response now.

>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
>
> QUOTE:
> Psychological projection is the process of misinterpreting what is
> "inside" as coming from "outside".[1] It forms the basis of empathy by
> the projection of personal experiences to understand someone else's
> subjective world.[1] In its malignant forms, it is a defense mechanism
> in which the ego defends itself against disowned and highly negative
> parts of the self by denying their existence in themselves and
> attributing them to others, breeding misunderstanding and causing untold
> interpersonal damage.
> END QUOTE:

I took a college course in psychology, so I know about the part beginning
with "In its malignant forms...". Psychology has reinvented itself over the
years [one standard textbook of the 21st century never uses the word
"neurotic" or "neurosis"] so the first part is new to me. But it's irrelevant
for your purposes, which are to falsely accuse me of the malignant
kind. It is you who are grossly guilty of it, and in deep denial about that.

Peter Nyikos

PS to others who might be reading this far: Ron O is so obsessed with
making people do things on his timetable, that he reposted the above part of his post
after having seen my promise to reply either that day or today:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/0GJ7i2VKEbg/m/hjdlJrLbAAAJ
Excerpt:

> Here, I snipped some purely personal remarks,
> to which I will respond either this evening or tomorrow,
> to get to some on-topic themes.

Why lie about something this stupids?

This is what you snipped out and ran from:

REPOST:

++++++++++++++++++++ end of excerpt

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 11:30:27 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 18:31:56 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >All you are really doing below, Hemi, is showing your solidarity with jillery.

And jillery indulges in illogic, about Hemi playing the dog that did not bark in the night:

> Since Hemidactylus responded to nothing jillery posted below, the
> peter's comment above yet another one of his willfully stupid remarks.

Hemidactylus played "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil"
to your dishonest misrepresentation, which I exposed immediately
after he got done with his paranoid comments.

REPOST:

>> The above stupidly misrepresents what RonO says.
>
> The only stupidity above is that of Hemidactylus.
>
Bullshit. Right wing Catholic scumbag Alito is chomping at the bit.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/08/10/supreme-court-separation-of-church-and-state-00050571

Creationism (aka ID) taught as science in public schools is perhaps just
around the corner.

> "misrepresents" is your illogical polemical word for "says something Ron O said, but does
> not mention a redundant detail that Ron O talked about elsewhere".
>
> Are you hoping to outshine Lawyer Daggett with cheap courtroom tricks?

END OF REPOST OF HEMI'S SHOW OF SOLIDARITY


<snip to get to the full context of the above>

This ended the relevant part of the context. Ron O's "correct specification"
was his attempt to obscure the full meaning of the Constitutional right involved.
With her shyster lawyer style tactics, jillery was demonstrating her solidarity with Ron O.


Peter Nyikos

[Zen Cycle]

On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 6:45:26 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 3:00:26 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> >> On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 11:18:04 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> >> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 8:45:23 PM UTC-4, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> >> <snip for focus>
> >
> >>>> Well given the SCOTUS deck is stacked religiously driven nonsense will be
> >>>> forced into public schools soon enough.
> >>>
> >>> Not any more than it has been up to now. Ron O has often enough posted
> >>> the statement that teaching "ID science" in public schools is protected
> >>> by the Constitution.
> >
> > The statement was made by the Discovery Institute. Ron O never dared to
> > deny it was true, but instead he indulged in complete illogic about it. See my PS below.
> >
> > The following is an explanation by myself, which is not in the statement Ron O quoted
> > dozens of times.
> >
> >>> This means talking about ID using the methodology of pure science, which
> >>> the atheist Francis Crick did in _Life Itself_.
> >
> >
> >> The above stupidly misrepresents what RonO says.
> >
> > The only stupidity above is that of Hemidactylus.
> >
> Bullshit. Right wing Catholic scumbag Alito is chomping at the bit.
>
> https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/08/10/supreme-court-separation-of-church-and-state-00050571

In full allegiance with Thomas:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2020/10/05/thomas-alito-urge-supreme-court-to-fix-decision-legalizing-marriage-equality/?sh=129844e2342a

We've already seen that Barrett and Kavanaugh lied when they claimed Roe was "established law" during their hearings. It's not hard to imagine they would be far behind Thomas and Alito (despite Barretts claims that "I would never discriminate based on sexual preference" - Not sure we should expect any less from someone who drew kitty doodles on her notepad during the hearings)

>
> Creationism (aka ID) taught as science in public schools is perhaps just
> around the corner.
> > "misrepresents" is your illogical polemical word for "says something Ron O said, but does
> > not mention a redundant detail that Ron O talked about elsewhere".
> >
> > Are you hoping to outshine Lawyer Daggett with cheap courtroom tricks?
> >
> >
> >> RonO is careful to
> >> correctly specify that ID can be taught in U.S. public schools as part
> >> of *comparative religious* studies, while you are careful to avoid
> >> mentioning that qualification.
> >
> > Because it omits the freedom-of-speech issue of which I wrote,
> > and serves the falsehood that ID is an exclusively religious issue.
> > It is not, and it is NOT a religious issue at all when Behe talks about it.
> >

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 9:55:26 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> On 8/18/2022 2:54 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Oops, I overlooked this one until today, when I saw Ron O's response
> > to what I had written about him to Glenn yesterday evening.
> >
> > On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 7:30:22 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> >> On 8/15/2022 12:37 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 10:30:21 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> >>>> On 8/14/2022 8:21 AM, Glenn wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 5:10:21 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >>>>>> On 8/13/2022 6:49 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 21:00:20 UTC+1, Ron O wrote:
> >>>>>>>> https://www.science.org/content/article/your-simple-throat-reason-you-don-t-sound-chimp
> >>>
> >>>>>>> Dame Jane Goodall's "party piece" is her chimpanzee
> >>>>>>> impression IIRC. But I don't know if it impresses chimpanzees.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> I've seen video of Goodall imitating the vocalization of a chimp.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I've seen posts of yours that imitate behaviors typical of chimps.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I doubt whether they would impress chimps.
> >
> > Here, I snipped some purely personal remarks,
> > to which I will respond either this evening or tomorrow,
> > to get to some on-topic themes.

I made good on this promise in my earlier reply to you today,

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/0GJ7i2VKEbg/m/2IUMARQEAQAJ

> Why lie about something this stupids?

It was not a lie, and there is nothing stupid about focusing on on-topic matters.

You chose the topic in the OP, and I addressed it below.

> This is what you snipped out and ran from:
>
> REPOST:

<snip completely unnecessary repost>

> END REPOST:
>
> Nyikos relies on projection routinely. So his stupid comments about it
> are things that he doesn't want to deal with. It is a major self
> defense mechanism for Nyikos. That is why he can't defend his
> statements about it, and had to snip and run from the stupid comments
> that he made.
> >
> >>> Fortunately for you, your idiotic undocumented comments about
> >>> Glenn and Behe on the OP show a modicum of originality
> >>> compared to your mindless bot-like ramblings in so many posts,
> >>> including other OP's. Hence Glenn's comments are not so obviously
> >>> clever as they would be if you hadn't exhibited any nontrivial originality.
> >
> >> Glenn knows that they aren't undocumented comments about Behe because he
> >> lived them and wrote those posts.
> >
> > The ones about Behe conisisted of falsehoods. Here is documentation

> > of one of them that you wrote in the OP, followed by my response:

> >
> > QUOTE:
> >> This weird argument has IDiots like Glenn perplexed because Behe is
> >> claiming that "Darwinian" evolution can account for things like the
> >> evolution of whales from terrestrial mammals.
> >
> > Behe is claiming no such thing, only that certain key characters of
> > cetaceans are due to neo-Darwinian gradualism in the form of
> > gene breakage.
> > END OF QUOTE

> What do you think has Glenn so messed up about the devolution stupidity.

You are babbling about things not in evidence. Since you are afraid to
document them, I will assume Glenn was not messed up about
what you call "the devolution stupidity," of which the only example
I can see is the one I called you on in the quote.

> Didn't I claim that Behe was claiming that the devolution was
> Darwinian evolution?

You are changing the subject to something whose truth
I immediately acknowledged while being completely
irresponsible about the lie you told about Behe (see above QUOTE).

Doesn't your branch of the Methodist Church say anything
against bearing false witness?

I expect you to duck this question while falsely insinuating that I am bearing false witness
by asking me a misleading question about the Catholic Church.

> You don't even seem to understand that I said
> exactly what you are claiming about what Behe meant.

Only about Darwinian evolution, NOT the thing you actually lied about.
Below, you are deceitfully ignoring this fundamental fact.

> You are lying
> about any falsehoods because even you claim that is what Behe claimed.
> Why do you have to lie about what I posted? Behe is telling IDiot rubes
> that whales evolved by Darwinian evolution,

You are ignoring the refutation of that lie that I had already written below.

[reposted from below]

> > I know you are not stupid enough to claim that whales descended from purely terrestrial animals
> > due to breakage of a mere 85 genes, which is the most Behe ever talked about.

[end of repost]

In YOUR reply to my reply to the OP, you actually DOCUMENTED Behe talking
about those 85 genes, but never a word that would justify your lie,

"Behe is telling IDiot rubes that whales evolved by Darwinian evolution,"

The following spiel amounts to a filibuster by you. Were you doing it
to ensure that you would no longer remember what the refutation was about?

> but he wants to allow them
> to lie to themselves about the fact of biological evolution by
> denigrating it as devolution and evolution by breaking things. He wants
> to sell books to the rubes even when his stupid argument destroys their
> anti-evolution beliefs. Glenn couldn't understand how Behe was fooling
> him using this stupid argument.
>
> Your stupid lie about falsehoods is countered by what you have admitted
> that Behe claimed. It is obviously just what I claimed. The only way
> that your statement about falsehoods could be true is if you just lied
> about what Behe claims. How sad is that? One of your statements is a
> lie. Which one is it? We can check your conclusion of what Behe
> claimed, and it is just what I claimed, so your first lie about what I
> posted is the obvious lie.

The filibuster is interrupted by my refutation:

> > I know you are not stupid enough to claim that whales descended from purely terrestrial animals
> > due to breakage of a mere 85 genes, which is the most Behe ever talked about.
> >
> > In reply to the above, you made an even more preposterous claim:
> >
> > "You are wrong about your interpretation of what Behe claims. He clearly
> > states that the evolution is devolution and not evolution of building
> > things that his designer is responsible for."
> >
> > He never makes any statement like that; what he says is that
> > evolution by devolution is vastly EASIER than producing evolution
> > by adding new genes or parts to existing genes.

Not only that, but Glenn posted something which shows you told a new lie just now:

"Not only is devolution the dominant mode in microevolution we observe in real time in lab experiments today, but also in the macroevolutionary change that we infer from genome sequences over geological ages — punctuated by bursts of new information."

https://evolutionnews.org/2019/10/darwin-devolves-evidence-keeps-rolling-in/

Note that last clause set off by a dash, liar.

> >
> > >Read what Behe writes.
> >
> > Would you like me to email Behe and show him this idiotic claim of yours?

> Since you are posting part of a post that you are obviously running from
> and had to snip and run from what Behe actually wrote to lie about the
> situation.

The post which you allege I am running from does nothing to change the fact
that you have lied about Behe.

If you could prove that it does change that fact, you would do so in a heartbeat.


Peter Nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 5:25:25 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> On 8/17/2022 8:45 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 9:15:25 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 5:55:25 PM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >>> On 8/16/2022 5:19 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 12:30:21 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> >>>>> On 8/14/2022 10:02 AM, Glenn wrote:

> >>>>>> On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 7:30:21 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 8/14/2022 8:21 AM, Glenn wrote:
> >>>>

> >>>>>>> Projection is a stupid self defense mechanism because the perpetrator

> >>>>>>> has to understand what he is in order to do it. You should stop doing

> >>>>>>> such a stupid thing to yourself.
> >>>>

> >>>> I've commented on this mindless attempt to insert a square peg
> >>>> ("projection") into a round hole (Glenn's words) directly. Glenn's reply below
> >>>> is the sort of generic reply that you do, Ron O, except that I have seen
> >>>> you behave exactly as Glenn describes below.
> >>> Why don't you deal with your previous stupidity before making more of a

> >>> mess? Those previous posts of yours are left undefended so why even
> >>> mention them. It just shows that you know what you did, but can't deal
> >>> with what you did.
> >>>
> >>> You are the king of projection. You weren't back posting on TO for very

> >>> long before you started threads like the "Dirty Debating" thread, and

> >>> who had been the dirty debater? What dirty debating tactics did you use
> >>> in that thread? It was obvious projection of what you were.

> >>>
> >>> You could try to get Glenn to deal honestly with the Top Six, but it is
> >>> a lost cause. When Glenn puts one of them up because he doesn't
> >>> understand what he is posting, Glenn runs instead of trying to defend

> >>> what he did. Really, he doesn't even make an excuse for doing something

> >>> as stupid as putting up something that he has been running from for years.
> >>>

> >>> Go for it, or stop lying about things that you shouldn't be lying about.
> >>>

> >>> Deal with the stupidity that you have already posted before making up
> >>> new junk to lie to yourself about.
> >>>

> >>> When are you going to start lying about some made up posting limit in
> >>> order to run from what you have done?
> >>>

> >>> You are just a sad and dishonest loser. Projecting that onto someone
> >>> else is your issue.
> >>>

> >>> Ron Okimoto

> >>>>
> >>>>>> You should realize that you soil yourself as a result of your wet dreams about me.
> >>>>>> It is a sign of mental illness. And when you refuse to accept even the possibility that
> >>>>>> you are wrong about insisting on what and how I believe, your mental illness becomes
> >>>>>> more obvious. When you refuse to accept my past attempts to deter you from your path,
> >>>>>> little doubt remains that your impaired mental state and capacity to reason is not restricted to the subject of ID.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Over the years, Ron O, you have repeatedly alleged that Glenn is afraid to deal with
> >>>> what you ignorantly call "the top six ID arguments" because it would undermine his concept of what God is.
> >>>> But you lack the minimal backbone to even HINT at what you think Glenn's concept is,
> >>>> while simultaneously saying nothing about what YOUR concept is. So don't be too surprised
> >>>> by what Glenn wrote about you above.
> >>>>

> >>>> You were already notorious for this tight-lipped behavior about your concept
> >>>> when I returned to talk.origins in December 2010.
> >>>> You claimed for a long time to "believe in a creator" but resisted all attempts to
> >>>> elicit a description of what sort of creator you believe in. Membership in
> >>>> a Methodist congregation, which you kept talking about, says NOTHING about that. >

> >>>> It's been a few years since I've seen you make this claim, and I asked
> >>>> you whether you are now upfront about being an atheist. So far, you
> >>>> have avoided talking about this. Will you continue to avoid talking about it?
> >>>>
> >>>>

> >>>>> What type of posts did you just project onto me?
> >>>>
> >>>> That you are forced to ASK this question instead of documenting
> >>>> or even hinting at what sorts of posts by Glenn exhibit that kind of projection,
> >>>> only illustrates how mindlessly you use "projection" as a stick
> >>>> to hit people over the head with.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Glenn may have been on target with the following parting shot:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> You're much worse, and more dangerous to society and science, than the most religious fundamentalists.
> >>>>
> >>>> You are certainly dangerous to talk.origins, the way you went like a crybaby to DIG
> >>>> and got him to ban Dr. Dr. Kleinman. Worse yet, you have dropped hints that
> >>>> if I were to keep persisting too long in setting the record straight about the things
> >>>> in dispute between us, I would get the same treatment.
> >>>>
> >>>>

> >>>>> More projection doesn't do much. It is just kicking yourself in the butt and placing a
> >>>>> sticker on your forehead. Aren't you talking about your own mental
> >>>>> illness that you present when you post what you do?
> >>>>
> >>>> No. Glenn has been posting quite sanely in sci.bio.paleontology these last three months,
> >>>> often on topic. But Harshman is so paranoid about Glenn's often helpful on-topic
> >>>> references, he is obsessed by the thought that Glenn's real reason for posting
> >>>> them is that Glenn is anti-science.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Just pointing out
> >>>>> that you are doing those mentally ill things doesn't make a person
> >>>>> mentally ill. What have you posted recently that isn't described by you
> >>>>> above?
> >>>>
> >>>> I can post ample documentation for what I wrote above about s.b.p.
> >>>> Would you like to see it?
> >>>>
> >>>>

> >>>>> When rational posts with some honest intent are a minority, you
> >>>>> should consider what your projection onto others means.
> >>>>
> >>>> You have perfectly described your own behavior in the first clause.
> >>>> I have ample documentation for that, and the things I mention above
> >>>> are just the tip of the iceberg.
> >>>>
> >>>> And so, your allegation of projection is itself an act of projection.
> >>>>
> >

> >> I don't believe the gasket that Ron blew out is even available on the market anymore.
> >
> > He sure did blow one. He yammered about some "stupidity" which he doesn't
> > even bother to identify, and talked about "previous posts that [I] left undefended"
> > even though he only attacked one of them on this thread before he composed this rant.
> Why lie about something so stupid? I addressed both of your posts to me
> in this thread the day before you made the post under discussion to
> another of my posts instead of deal with the stupidity that you had
> already established in this thread.
>
> Stop lying and try to defend the lies that you have already produced.
> >
> > To demonstrate what a hypocrite he is, he compulsively left in a lot of searing indictments
> > I did where I very specifically singled out and clearly identified a number of despicable
> > things he has done over the years.
> Your searing indictments are just more lies about the past. Just take
> your claims about my religious beliefs. I am the one that told you that
> Methodists did not have a set doctrine about the creation. You kept
> lying about that statement as you do above. It was an example of you
> manipulating my post to make it look like I had not addressed the issue,
> but I obviously had. It is one of the incidences that I had to link
> back to and you had to run from (how many times?). Now you project your
> own stupidity onto me when it was you that could not accept what the
> Methodists believed. I even save the link from back then because it was
> always something that you keep lying about.
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/avf9ye9cUE0/m/TjfWT5GhoIMJ
>
> QUOTE:
> I probably have the standard Methodist view on creation. It just
> isn't important and we don't care how it happened just that it did.
> I'm willing to go with whereever the evidence leads and see where that
> gets me. Just check it out. We don't have an official stance on the
> subject except to say that we are for separation of church and state
> so that it never becomes an issue that we have to worry about.
> END QUOTE
>
> Read the quote in context. As usual you had to manipulate the post and
> snipped out all but one line in order to keep lying about the issue.
>
> This is your bogus and dishonest response, and you have run from this
> and lied about the episode for years. Your post is from 2012. That is
> how sad you are.
>
>
> I am the one that told you that Methodists do not have an official
> stance on the issue, but for your own Nykosian reasons you have to
> project your senseless denial onto me.
>
> Ron Okimoto

That was then, this is now. Well over a year ago, I had told you that you
had not seen you claiming that you believe in a creator for quite a while,
and you are not claiming that you believe it now.

I do have one question, though. Does your Methodist denomination [did you ever say which one it was?]
say anything about what John says in the first chapter about Jesus,
and the first few verses of Hebrews 1, about his role in creation? Specifically,
they say that everything that was made was made through him long before
"the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us" [John 1: 14]?


Peter Nyikos

PS The second post you linked was about you defining "creationist"
as one who believes in a creator, rather than using the definition that almost everyone else
here (including me) uses, summarized by "goddidit."



> > I say "compulsively" because one of his favorite weapons is accusing people
> > of "running away." In his sick mind, he is under the impression that leaving
> > indictments of him unsnipped, he isn't guilty of "running away" from them.
> >
> > I do believe he NEVER intends to deal with any of them. Even if I keep
> > reposting individual ones, he'll just continue leaving them in while acting as though
> > he were oblivious of them, and telling himself he isn't really running away...
> >
> > To use a formula truthfully that I've never seen Ron O use truthfully,
> > even though I have seen him use it maybe a hundred times over the years:
> >
> > You can't make this stuff up.
> >
> >
> > Another example of exactly the same sort is:
> >
> > How sad is that?
> >
> >
> > Peter Nyikos
> >
> > PS All of the above is part of the history of talk.origins that might fascinate historians of the future.
> > I said a few things about that to jillery today on the thread, "Antedating Sagan."
> >

[RonO]

Why keep lying about the issue. You are just lame and sad. Really, I
am the one that told you that the Methodists had no set doctrine on the
issue, and you manipulated my post and lied about what I had written.
That was as true then as it is now. The issue was over and done, a
decade ago when you ran from what you did. Lying about it today is just
sad and stupid.

>
> I do have one question, though. Does your Methodist denomination [did you ever say which one it was?]
> say anything about what John says in the first chapter about Jesus,
> and the first few verses of Hebrews 1, about his role in creation? Specifically,
> they say that everything that was made was made through him long before
> "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us" [John 1: 14]?

You are only lying to yourself about this junk because you are such a
poor example of a Christian. You should understand projection in
yourself by now. Beats me what difference it makes, but I was baptized
into the United Methodist Church. Some of the churches that I have
attended over the years called it the First United Methodist Church.
Like I said we have a wide distribution of creationist beliefs. We have
a YEC faction and it runs up through old earth to theistic evolution in
terms of creationist beliefs. Trying to denigrate my religious beliefs
in this way is pretty sad when you are the lying asshole in the entire
episode of Nykosian stupidity that you have generated in the last
decade, and like I said before Methodists are creationists, they just
don't care about the particulars of the creation. It is why we can have
such diverse beliefs about it, and one of the main reasons why we have
been against teaching the junk in the public schools. It is a personal
belief, and not something that should be imposed by religious bigots and
liars.

There is no way that the church would support something as bogus and
dishonest as the ID creationist scam.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

That's so much bullshit I would be flabbergasted to hear you could still stand on your own feet without crutches.

But there's some good news:

""The Court finds Section 208 of Executive Order 14008 is ultra vires, beyond the authority of the President of the United States, and in violation of the OCSLA and the MLA," he wrote in the opinion. "Even the President cannot make significant changes to the OCSLA and/or the MLA that Congress did not delegate."

Biden issued Executive Order 14008 — titled the "Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad" — on Jan. 27, 2021, days after taking office. The action ordered the Department of the Interior (DOI) to pause new oil and natural gas leases, a policy Biden pledged to pursue during his 2020 campaign, while it conducts a review of the federal leasing program."

""President Biden’s executive order to choke off energy development didn’t just increase prices and hurt American families — it was flatly illegal," Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen said in a statement after Doughty issued his ruling Thursday. "This decision is a victory for the rule of law and the workers and the rural communities who depend on the energy industry."

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/bidens-oil-gas-moratorium-dealt-potentially-fatal-blow-federal-court

All told though, the future of the US is in serious jeopardy.
But contrary to what some may think, the people responsible are not the ones who think Trump is a one man cabal, a Russian spy, selling nuclear secrets to China, a racist, a cheater at the poker table, who also pees on himself and others for sexual pleasure.

The ones, or some of the ones responsible are those that don't believe that.
The swamp needs not only to be drained, but infilled, and that is likely not possible.

"Senator Amy Klobuchar and other federal legislators reminded us that we have “a republic,” but only “if you can keep it.”"

https://blogs.loc.gov/manuscripts/2022/01/a-republic-if-you-can-keep-it-elizabeth-willing-powel-benjamin-franklin-and-the-james-mchenry-journal/

I wonder why Amy thinks we "have" a republic, in light of the all the unsuccessful, illegal, illegitimate attacks on an individual running for President, that same person as President, and on that person as a former President, now recently having his private residence raided and approved by the same people, with automatic firearms and ignoring the law.

[Glenn]

Ick. I actually read this through for some reason. Perhaps "we" as you refer to the Methodist Church, condone and support such insults, and claim that ID advocates as liars and bigots. It appears that those 'diverse beliefs" don't allow for other's beliefs that they think contradict their own and do care about the "particulars of creation', whatever the hell that means to you. Let me ask one question. Can a Methodist preach in the church that the there is no "Trinity"? Are you or can you be considered a "Methodist" or "Christian" and not believe in the Trinity? How about Jesus? Can you believe he is not God or the son of God?
Can you believe that Jesus didn't die for some or all people's salvation? Do you believe that Methodists are free from such beliefs since they don't care about the particulars of 'creation"?
Why should I not regard Methodists and the Methodist Church as being bogus and dishonest? I have you as an example of a Methodist, since you identify as one, ie "we".

It appears reasonable to suspect that there are other reasons why the Methodist Church is against Intelligent Design, for reasons other than "science".

[Glenn]

This should be more good news:

"this was a parole violation'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gEUa_7irHU

No, "this" was attempted murder.New York voters have an opportunity to see who their governor is, and to consider who to vote for.

It should be good news, but you'll still root for Democrats, as likely will the majority of the loons that live in New York.