Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
A Tale of Two Critics
112 views
Skip to first unread message
MarkE
Jan 30, 2022, 10:15:37 AM1/30/22
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
------------------------------------------------------------------
Critic #1: James Tour, PhD (chemist and nanotechnologist; ID advocate)
Below is a word-for-word excerpt starting from the 8th page of this reference: https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/2021/02/Tour-MeyerMOLO.pdf (pp326-327 of the book “The Mystery of Life’s Origin”)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Critic #2: William Bains, PhD (astrobiologist)
Interleaved with Tour’s bullet points are selected quotes from this article: “Getting Beyond the Toy Domain. Meditations on David Deamer’s ‘Assembling Life’”.
It's a thoughtful, informed and sympathetic though challenging assessment, as evidenced by its tone and content, and the author’s acknowledgements: "I am grateful to Janusz Petkowski and Sukrit Ranjan, for helpful and constructive comments on earlier versions of this diatribe, to David Deamer for detailed commentary that put me right on a few points, and to Bruce Damer for similarly insightful input."
David Deamer is an elder statesman of OOL science. Although Bains gives a serious critique of the Deamer’s book and the current state of OOL research, he is nevertheless a strong advocate for both.
------------------------------------------------------------------
My point is this: here is an authoritative OOL advocate who provides a confirmation of each of Tour’s points, which are, IMO, a justifiably sarcastic summary of the grossly misleading portrayal of OOL chemical synthesis experiments and progress.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A Tale of Two Critics: James Tour / [William Bains]
Chemical synthesis experiments in origin of life can be summed up by a protocol analogous to this:
* Purchase some chemicals, generally in high purity, from a chemical company.
[Of course OOL chemists understand that 99% pure reagents were not available at OOL. The hope is that by exploring what happens in “clean” chemistry you can gain insight into messier chemistry, and so edge towards more realistic scenarios. Indeed, there is a growing body of work on “messy chemistry”—doing lab chemistry with mixtures and accepting impure products as valid outputs [45,46]. Most researchers, even some working on such chemical schemes, understand that lab chemistry is only a tiny part of the whole problem. But that is not the primary issue. It is a tiny part solved in an unrealistic way.]
* Mix those chemicals together in water in high concentrations and a specific order under some set of carefully devised conditions in a modern laboratory—sets of conditions that often would be difficult to replicate in a non-laboratory environment on early earth.
[In my view, almost all the OOL chemistry that I see is Toy Domain chemistry. It is making single types of biochemicals in a controlled laboratory setting using pure chemicals that might, just might, have been present in trace amounts in a complex mixture of thousands of other chemicals at OOL, under conditions that might have existed and might have persisted long enough, and then stopping the reaction at exactly the right time to maximize the yield of what you want (See [44], especially Chapter 5). It neglects that many of the postulated starting materials are themselves unstable. It neglects that they will react with other chemicals present. It neglects that the intermediates will all react with each other, and with the products.]
* Obtain a mixture of compounds that have a resemblance to one or more of the basic four classes of chemicals needed for life: carbohydrates, nucleotides, amino acids, or lipids. Most of the time they are synthesized in racemic (both mirror images) or near racemic form, not in homochiral form.
[And this does not even start to address chirality. And it also does not address that pernicious little word “function”.]
* Identify the desired compound in a mixture of many other isomers and products. Then buy (or make, using modern non-abiotic methods) a purified version of that desired compound and proceed to the next step.
[To illustrate, let us accept that organic chemicals accumulate in subaerial ponds and that lamellae would form and that cycles of dehydration would happen and that they would drive dehydration chemistry. What actually would you form if you did not start from pure chemicals?]
* Publish a paper making bold extrapolations about origin of life from these functionless crude mixtures of stereochemically scrambled intermediates.
[The research does tell us something about chemistry. But it is not something that has much relevance to OOL, because if you carry out lab organic chemistry on anything approaching a plausible pre-biotic aqueous organic soup you never get life. You get tar. Even if you do it in vesicles.]
* Engage with the often over-zealous press to dial up the knob of unjustified origin-of-life projections.
[And indeed there has been a major advance in the use of the term “major advance” in the OOL literature; 75% of all papers using the phrase “major advance” in the context of origin of life listed in Google Scholar were published after 2011. But what many such advances are is a new scenario—new location, new suggested set of pure reagents to react, a new chain of specific reactions that have be demonstrated, one at a time, in the lab. They are all new Toy Domains. Deamer admits a lot of this.]
* Watch the misled and mesmerized layperson exclaim, “You see, scientists understand how life formed!”
[There is also a lot of excitement about “systems chemistry” and “autocatalytic” systems, catalysed mainly by Stuart Kauffman [58]… Even within the biochemical networks of established life, random chemistry occurs and degrades the components of metabolism (e.g., the reaction of amines with sugars, amino acid side-chains with each other etc. [61]). Any sufficiently complex set of reactive and catalytic molecules is, in fact, Benner’s tar [44]. We need something more.]
* Accept a generation of science textbooks yielding colorful, deceptive cartoons of raw chemicals assembling into cells, which then emerge as slithering creatures from a prehistoric pond.
[Again, the term ‘Protocell’ is used to mean any liposome-like membrane encapsulating other molecules. In my opinion, a vesicle encapsulating random organic molecules is almost as far from life as the bulk “prebiotic soup” from which it was made. To draw “Protocells → Progenote” in a diagram [11] skips over everything about how that transition happens, i.e., how life originates!]
------------------------------------------------------------------
Critic #1: James Tour, PhD (chemist and nanotechnologist; ID advocate)
Below is a word-for-word excerpt starting from the 8th page of this reference: https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/2021/02/Tour-MeyerMOLO.pdf (pp326-327 of the book “The Mystery of Life’s Origin”)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Critic #2: William Bains, PhD (astrobiologist)
Interleaved with Tour’s bullet points are selected quotes from this article: “Getting Beyond the Toy Domain. Meditations on David Deamer’s ‘Assembling Life’”.
It's a thoughtful, informed and sympathetic though challenging assessment, as evidenced by its tone and content, and the author’s acknowledgements: "I am grateful to Janusz Petkowski and Sukrit Ranjan, for helpful and constructive comments on earlier versions of this diatribe, to David Deamer for detailed commentary that put me right on a few points, and to Bruce Damer for similarly insightful input."
David Deamer is an elder statesman of OOL science. Although Bains gives a serious critique of the Deamer’s book and the current state of OOL research, he is nevertheless a strong advocate for both.
------------------------------------------------------------------
My point is this: here is an authoritative OOL advocate who provides a confirmation of each of Tour’s points, which are, IMO, a justifiably sarcastic summary of the grossly misleading portrayal of OOL chemical synthesis experiments and progress.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A Tale of Two Critics: James Tour / [William Bains]
Chemical synthesis experiments in origin of life can be summed up by a protocol analogous to this:
* Purchase some chemicals, generally in high purity, from a chemical company.
[Of course OOL chemists understand that 99% pure reagents were not available at OOL. The hope is that by exploring what happens in “clean” chemistry you can gain insight into messier chemistry, and so edge towards more realistic scenarios. Indeed, there is a growing body of work on “messy chemistry”—doing lab chemistry with mixtures and accepting impure products as valid outputs [45,46]. Most researchers, even some working on such chemical schemes, understand that lab chemistry is only a tiny part of the whole problem. But that is not the primary issue. It is a tiny part solved in an unrealistic way.]
* Mix those chemicals together in water in high concentrations and a specific order under some set of carefully devised conditions in a modern laboratory—sets of conditions that often would be difficult to replicate in a non-laboratory environment on early earth.
[In my view, almost all the OOL chemistry that I see is Toy Domain chemistry. It is making single types of biochemicals in a controlled laboratory setting using pure chemicals that might, just might, have been present in trace amounts in a complex mixture of thousands of other chemicals at OOL, under conditions that might have existed and might have persisted long enough, and then stopping the reaction at exactly the right time to maximize the yield of what you want (See [44], especially Chapter 5). It neglects that many of the postulated starting materials are themselves unstable. It neglects that they will react with other chemicals present. It neglects that the intermediates will all react with each other, and with the products.]
* Obtain a mixture of compounds that have a resemblance to one or more of the basic four classes of chemicals needed for life: carbohydrates, nucleotides, amino acids, or lipids. Most of the time they are synthesized in racemic (both mirror images) or near racemic form, not in homochiral form.
[And this does not even start to address chirality. And it also does not address that pernicious little word “function”.]
* Identify the desired compound in a mixture of many other isomers and products. Then buy (or make, using modern non-abiotic methods) a purified version of that desired compound and proceed to the next step.
[To illustrate, let us accept that organic chemicals accumulate in subaerial ponds and that lamellae would form and that cycles of dehydration would happen and that they would drive dehydration chemistry. What actually would you form if you did not start from pure chemicals?]
* Publish a paper making bold extrapolations about origin of life from these functionless crude mixtures of stereochemically scrambled intermediates.
[The research does tell us something about chemistry. But it is not something that has much relevance to OOL, because if you carry out lab organic chemistry on anything approaching a plausible pre-biotic aqueous organic soup you never get life. You get tar. Even if you do it in vesicles.]
* Engage with the often over-zealous press to dial up the knob of unjustified origin-of-life projections.
[And indeed there has been a major advance in the use of the term “major advance” in the OOL literature; 75% of all papers using the phrase “major advance” in the context of origin of life listed in Google Scholar were published after 2011. But what many such advances are is a new scenario—new location, new suggested set of pure reagents to react, a new chain of specific reactions that have be demonstrated, one at a time, in the lab. They are all new Toy Domains. Deamer admits a lot of this.]
* Watch the misled and mesmerized layperson exclaim, “You see, scientists understand how life formed!”
[There is also a lot of excitement about “systems chemistry” and “autocatalytic” systems, catalysed mainly by Stuart Kauffman [58]… Even within the biochemical networks of established life, random chemistry occurs and degrades the components of metabolism (e.g., the reaction of amines with sugars, amino acid side-chains with each other etc. [61]). Any sufficiently complex set of reactive and catalytic molecules is, in fact, Benner’s tar [44]. We need something more.]
* Accept a generation of science textbooks yielding colorful, deceptive cartoons of raw chemicals assembling into cells, which then emerge as slithering creatures from a prehistoric pond.
[Again, the term ‘Protocell’ is used to mean any liposome-like membrane encapsulating other molecules. In my opinion, a vesicle encapsulating random organic molecules is almost as far from life as the bulk “prebiotic soup” from which it was made. To draw “Protocells → Progenote” in a diagram [11] skips over everything about how that transition happens, i.e., how life originates!]
------------------------------------------------------------------
MarkE
Jan 30, 2022, 10:35:37 AM1/30/22
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Link to “Getting Beyond the Toy Domain. Meditations on David Deamer’s ‘Assembling Life’”: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/10/2/18/htm
RonO
Jan 30, 2022, 10:50:37 AM1/30/22
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
not want to understand anything about the designer that might be
responsible for creating life 3.8 billion years ago under the conditions
that existed at that time?
What about the designer that created all those new genes over billions
of years during the evolution of life on earth so that there would be
thousands of new genes available to be used in the Cambrian explosion
diversification of life half a billion years ago?
Running from your own denial arguments is not anything worth doing.
The denial should have ended with the collapse of the creationist ID
scam. The switch scam is nothing but denial and it is supposed to have
nothing to do with IDiocy.
The best that you could do would be to try to build something out of all
the denial, but that doesn't seem to be an option. Why is the denial
good enough?
Do you have any excuse for not doing something that ID perps like Denton
and Behe have obviously already done. They don't write books about it
because reality doesn't sell books to the rubes, but they have obviously
taken the Top Six denial (the origin of life is #3 in order of
occurrence) and incorporated it into their idea of creation. Denton's
is the simplest. All he needs is a creator that is responsible for the
Big bang and all else unfolded. There are no other gaps that matter to
Denton. Behe thinks that there are other gaps, and that his designer
can fill them, just like you have the origin of life gap, but you don't
want to believe in the designer that fills that gap, so your gap
argument seems to be worthless to you.
Ron Okimoto
Bob Casanova
Jan 30, 2022, 11:15:36 AM1/30/22
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 09:49:52 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
>> [Again, the term ‘Protocell’ is used to mean any liposome-like membrane encapsulating other molecules. In my opinion, a vesicle encapsulating random organic molecules is almost as far from life as the bulk “prebiotic soup” from which it was made. To draw “Protocells ? Progenote” in a diagram [11] skips over everything about how that transition happens, i.e., how life originates!]
It's good to see that t.o is returning to its intended
function.
>
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
function.
>
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
MarkE
Jan 31, 2022, 12:55:36 AM1/31/22
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
As an aside, it's hard to pick a favourite from A Tale of Two Critics, but the last couplet was a satisfying ending I thought:
JAMES TOUR: Accept a generation of science textbooks yielding colorful, deceptive cartoons of raw chemicals assembling into cells, which then emerge as slithering creatures from a prehistoric pond.
WILLIAM BAINS: Again, the term ‘Protocell’ is used to mean any liposome-like membrane encapsulating other molecules. In my opinion, a vesicle encapsulating random organic molecules is almost as far from life as the bulk “prebiotic soup” from which it was made. To draw “Protocells -> Progenote” in a diagram [11] skips over everything about how that transition happens, i.e., how life originates!
It is understandably difficult to tell them apart, so a reminder for the casual reader that Tour is the OOL skeptic and Bains the OOL advocate.
Glenn
Jan 31, 2022, 1:10:37 AM1/31/22
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 9:15:36 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 09:49:52 -0600, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 09:49:52 -0600, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
"How is any of this type of denial"
> >
> >
> It's good to see that t.o is returning to its intended
> function.
> >
This has never gone away, nor has your silly pretensions of not seeing posts. But that is its intended function, as you say.
> function.
> >
Bob Casanova
Jan 31, 2022, 10:50:37 AM1/31/22
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:55:02 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by MarkE
<mark.w.e...@gmail.com>:
No.
appeared in talk.origins, posted by MarkE
<mark.w.e...@gmail.com>:
>
>As an aside, it's hard to pick a favourite from A Tale of Two Critics, but the last couplet was a satisfying ending I thought:
>
>JAMES TOUR: Accept a generation of science textbooks yielding colorful, deceptive cartoons of raw chemicals assembling into cells, which then emerge as slithering creatures from a prehistoric pond.
>
>WILLIAM BAINS: Again, the term ‘Protocell’ is used to mean any liposome-like membrane encapsulating other molecules. In my opinion, a vesicle encapsulating random organic molecules is almost as far from life as the bulk “prebiotic soup” from which it was made. To draw “Protocells -> Progenote” in a diagram [11] skips over everything about how that transition happens, i.e., how life originates!
>
>It is understandably difficult to tell them apart, so a reminder for the casual reader that Tour is the OOL skeptic and Bains the OOL advocate.
>As an aside, it's hard to pick a favourite from A Tale of Two Critics, but the last couplet was a satisfying ending I thought:
>
>JAMES TOUR: Accept a generation of science textbooks yielding colorful, deceptive cartoons of raw chemicals assembling into cells, which then emerge as slithering creatures from a prehistoric pond.
>
>WILLIAM BAINS: Again, the term ‘Protocell’ is used to mean any liposome-like membrane encapsulating other molecules. In my opinion, a vesicle encapsulating random organic molecules is almost as far from life as the bulk “prebiotic soup” from which it was made. To draw “Protocells -> Progenote” in a diagram [11] skips over everything about how that transition happens, i.e., how life originates!
>
>It is understandably difficult to tell them apart, so a reminder for the casual reader that Tour is the OOL skeptic and Bains the OOL advocate.
Bob Casanova
Jan 31, 2022, 10:50:37 AM1/31/22
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 22:05:16 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
<GlennS...@msn.com>:
>On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 9:15:36 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 09:49:52 -0600, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
>
>"How is any of this type of denial"
>> >
>> It's good to see that t.o is returning to its intended
>> function.
>> >
>This has never gone away
>
Missed all the political crap over the past couple of years,
did you?
about. Again.
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
<GlennS...@msn.com>:
>On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 9:15:36 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 09:49:52 -0600, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
>
>"How is any of this type of denial"
>> >
>> It's good to see that t.o is returning to its intended
>> function.
>> >
>This has never gone away
>
did you?
>
>, nor has your silly pretensions of not seeing posts. But that is its intended function, as you say.
>
I suspect that even you have no idea what you're talking
>, nor has your silly pretensions of not seeing posts. But that is its intended function, as you say.
>
about. Again.
Glenn
Jan 31, 2022, 11:15:37 AM1/31/22
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 8:50:37 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 22:05:16 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
> <GlennS...@msn.com>:
> >On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 9:15:36 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 09:49:52 -0600, the following appeared
> >> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
> >
> >"How is any of this type of denial"
> >> >
> >> It's good to see that t.o is returning to its intended
> >> function.
> >> >
> >This has never gone away
> >
> Missed all the political crap over the past couple of years,
> did you?
> >
> >, nor has your silly pretensions of not seeing posts. But that is its intended function, as you say.
> >
> I suspect that even you have no idea what you're talking
> about. Again.
> >
Yea, I suppose that means I'm in denial. LOL.
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 22:05:16 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
> <GlennS...@msn.com>:
> >On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 9:15:36 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 09:49:52 -0600, the following appeared
> >> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
> >
> >"How is any of this type of denial"
> >> >
> >> It's good to see that t.o is returning to its intended
> >> function.
> >> >
> >This has never gone away
> >
> Missed all the political crap over the past couple of years,
> did you?
> >
> >, nor has your silly pretensions of not seeing posts. But that is its intended function, as you say.
> >
> I suspect that even you have no idea what you're talking
> about. Again.
> >
Bob Casanova
Jan 31, 2022, 8:00:37 PM1/31/22
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 08:11:52 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
<GlennS...@msn.com>:
>On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 8:50:37 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 22:05:16 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
>> <GlennS...@msn.com>:
>> >On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 9:15:36 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 09:49:52 -0600, the following appeared
>> >> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
>> >
>> >"How is any of this type of denial"
>> >> >
>> >> It's good to see that t.o is returning to its intended
>> >> function.
>> >> >
>> >This has never gone away
>> >
>> Missed all the political crap over the past couple of years,
>> did you?
>> >
>> >, nor has your silly pretensions of not seeing posts. But that is its intended function, as you say.
>> >
>> I suspect that even you have no idea what you're talking
>> about. Again.
>> >
>Yea, I suppose that means I'm in denial. LOL.
>
Q.E.D.
<GlennS...@msn.com>:
>On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 8:50:37 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 22:05:16 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
>> <GlennS...@msn.com>:
>> >On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 9:15:36 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 09:49:52 -0600, the following appeared
>> >> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
>> >
>> >"How is any of this type of denial"
>> >> >
>> >> It's good to see that t.o is returning to its intended
>> >> function.
>> >> >
>> >This has never gone away
>> >
>> Missed all the political crap over the past couple of years,
>> did you?
>> >
>> >, nor has your silly pretensions of not seeing posts. But that is its intended function, as you say.
>> >
>> I suspect that even you have no idea what you're talking
>> about. Again.
>> >
>Yea, I suppose that means I'm in denial. LOL.
>
Glenn
Jan 31, 2022, 10:25:37 PM1/31/22
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 6:00:37 PM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 08:11:52 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
> <GlennS...@msn.com>:
>
> >On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 8:50:37 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 22:05:16 -0800 (PST), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
> >> <GlennS...@msn.com>:
> >> >On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 9:15:36 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 09:49:52 -0600, the following appeared
> >> >> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
> >> >
> >> >"How is any of this type of denial"
> >> >> >
> >> >> It's good to see that t.o is returning to its intended
> >> >> function.
> >> >> >
> >> >This has never gone away
> >> >
> >> Missed all the political crap over the past couple of years,
> >> did you?
> >> >
> >> >, nor has your silly pretensions of not seeing posts. But that is its intended function, as you say.
> >> >
> >> I suspect that even you have no idea what you're talking
> >> about. Again.
> >> >
> >Yea, I suppose that means I'm in denial. LOL.
> >
> Q.E.D.
> >
Proof by suspecting. Real scientific, Bob.
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 08:11:52 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
> <GlennS...@msn.com>:
>
> >On Monday, January 31, 2022 at 8:50:37 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 22:05:16 -0800 (PST), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
> >> <GlennS...@msn.com>:
> >> >On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 9:15:36 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 09:49:52 -0600, the following appeared
> >> >> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
> >> >
> >> >"How is any of this type of denial"
> >> >> >
> >> >> It's good to see that t.o is returning to its intended
> >> >> function.
> >> >> >
> >> >This has never gone away
> >> >
> >> Missed all the political crap over the past couple of years,
> >> did you?
> >> >
> >> >, nor has your silly pretensions of not seeing posts. But that is its intended function, as you say.
> >> >
> >> I suspect that even you have no idea what you're talking
> >> about. Again.
> >> >
> >Yea, I suppose that means I'm in denial. LOL.
> >
> Q.E.D.
> >
Bob Casanova
Jan 31, 2022, 11:20:37 PM1/31/22
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 19:20:41 -0800 (PST), the following
So we can add "quod erat demonstrandum" to the increasing
list of your ignorance.
list of your ignorance.
Glenn
Jan 31, 2022, 11:40:37 PM1/31/22
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Bob Casanova
Feb 1, 2022, 12:10:37 AM2/1/22
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 20:38:53 -0800 (PST), the following
Nope, just dumb as a box of rocks.
>
> LOL.
>
Q.E.D.
>
> LOL.
>
Q.E.D.
Glenn
Feb 1, 2022, 12:55:37 AM2/1/22
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Öö Tiib
Feb 1, 2022, 4:00:37 AM2/1/22
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Tour is one of 500 religious scientists who signed Discovery Institute's petition
about doubt in evolution. Like majority of such scientists he does not research
in field of biology. He believes that perhaps the biologists have too shallow
or simplistic handling of the complex issues.
Bains is kind of business weasel in biotechnology sector who is interested in
working out and selling more sophisticated laboratory equipment. So he also
claims that the biotechnology equipment used and experiments made are
too primitive for researching the complex issues.
Both can be correct (or wrong) but that does not indicate designers of our
nature (or lack of such). You are trying to conclude existence of designers
from alleged silliness and incompetence of researchers? How can it
possibly follow?
MarkE
Feb 1, 2022, 4:45:37 AM2/1/22
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
RonO
Feb 1, 2022, 7:05:37 AM2/1/22
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
putting up this junk when you don't want to believe any creationist
conclusions from it. Such behavior has no place in honest and fruitful
discussion. That is the type of gratuitous abuse that TO was set up to
absorb so that real science venues would not have to deal with it.
You should be trying to build something out of what you put up, but what
did Meyer admit to in the discussion of the God Hypothesis. Why is it
that he isn't interested in building any solid God Hypothesis? Why is
it that you don't want to believe in the designer responsible for the
creation of life 3.8 billion years ago, nor the designer responsible for
making all those new genes as life evolved on this planet?
What if Tour is correct? He claims that he understands that there is no
IDiotic creation science in existence. What if his designer really did
create life under the conditions that existed on earth 3.8 billion years
ago? What happened before to create those conditions? What happened
after? A real alternative isn't just the denial. It should tell you
something about the creation, but you are not interested in that part.
Very few IDiots can deal with the Top Six IDiotic denial examples (the
origin of life is #3 in order of occurrence). You don't really want to
listen to the IDiots that do deal with the Top Six, and they don't write
books about dealing with the Top Six because reality doesn't sell books
to the rubes. Meyer's God Hypothesis doesn't deal with the Top Six in
an honest and straightforward manner because he doesn't want to believe
in the God that is responsible for all of them. He just wants to wallow
in the denial of each individual example.
What are you doing?
Top Six degeneration:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/a2K79skPGXI/m/uDwx0i-_BAAJ
Ron Okimoto
Öö Tiib
Feb 1, 2022, 8:00:37 AM2/1/22
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
no observations, even no reasons why abiogenesis research has any
relevance to your world view. No, I do not see any reason to strongly disagree
with them. I thought that no one disagrees that we do not have any conclusive
knowledge about OOL.
Most funding of current biology study is in energy efficiency, food or fuel
production, environment protection, pollution cleanup, immunology and such.
OOL does not matter to those topics. Researching spontaneous replication and
spontaneous improvements in replicators or other related sub-steps is usually
combined into researching some more important topic. There will be enough
progress going on producing more papers than I can read but any breakthrough
is unlikely.
From viewpoint of information technology (that I know best) whatever algorithm
that can be designed and built manually can be also evolved, breed or learned
to mimic by other algorithm. It is purely mathematically so. That makes it hard
to imagine (for me) how there can be dichotomy in nature that any one of those
is possible but some other is not.
0 new messages