JAMES TOUR VICTORIOUS?!

[peter2...@gmail.com]

The thread which MarkE began with the title, "Origin of Life Challenge," had
as its original focus a 60-day challenge by James Tour which has now expired,
with no takers. I have not heard tell of a single response from any
of the OOL researchers to whom Tour directly addressed his challenge:

Steve Benner, Jack Szostak, Clemens Reichert, Lee Cronin, Bruce Lipschitz, John Sutherland, Nicholas Hud, Ramana Naran Krishnamurthy, Neil Devaraj, and Matthew Pounder.

_Evolution News_ has been playing up this "victory" since October 31:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/10/on-origin-of-life-chemist-james-tour-has-successfully-called-these-researchers-bluff/

If the response of the people here in talk.origins is anything to go by, the
crowing in the url is justified. And I'm not talking about the "deafening silence" since October 31.

I'm talking about the response on the original thread after MarkE did his OP
back on August 25. Tour had made 5 specific challenges, the first three
of which are specific enough and concrete enough that several knowledgeable
t.o. regulars could have said that they were unrealistically
demanding, or that they were strawmen that could be easily circumvented,
were that the case. Nothing remotely like that happened here in t.o.

In particular, the second challenge seems to be central to the current
hypotheses about OOL:

"For the second problem, proposed solutions needed to describe how nucleotides could have linked into chains with less than 2 percent of the wrong linkages." [quoted from the linked article]

Clicking on the words "second problem" takes one directly to a YouTube
presentation that MarkE had linked,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmykRoelTzU&t=679s
to the 11:22 minute point where the precise statement of the second problem is shown on a slide.

Similar clicks take the reader to precise statements of the other four problems.

The descriptions of all except the fourth problem are readily intelligible to Athel Cornish-Bowden,
who has written a whole book on the biochemistry of life.
[Not to be confused with the biochemistry of OOL, of which Athel has admitted
to be no more qualified to write than he claims Tour is.]

Perhaps two or three other t.o. regulars could understand them with equal ease.

Instead, Athel confined himself to blatant *ad hominem* credentialism,
pointing out that of over 200 papers Tour had published in organic chemistry,
none was on the origin of life. No other t.o. critic of Tour did any better.

If this is the caliber of response by researchers like those I listed,
then it would seem that Tour has successfully shown that the "Emperors
of OOL research" have no "clothes" suitable for addressing any of Tour's
five challenges.


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

[John Harshman]

You may be aware of the common evaluation (I paraphrase, but you could
probably look it up), "Debates with creationists look good on their CVs;
mine, not so much."

[peter2...@gmail.com]

I haven't been thinking in terms of showbiz, John. YouTube debates are the wrong venue
for dealing with such specialized issues as Tour's first three challenges.

I think a scholarly article in a lower-echelon, but still respectable scientific
journal, by someone with a good reputation but not a "star" of OOL like the
researchers Tour named, would do the non-creationist public a real service.

That is, IF it is possible to explain how relevant or irrelevant Tour's first three
challenges are to OOL, and why.

If NOBODY can explain these things in humanly intelligible terms at this
point in time, then OOL science is in a really bad way. It would be better
to call it a "proto-science" like the alchemy of the Middle Ages.

Back then, researchers did discover a number of important things, like sulfuric acid.
But no one had a scientific theory worthy of the term. Researchers were stumbling
blindly in the dark, trying this and that experiment. Maybe that's all that
can be said about the present state of OOL research.

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

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

[John Harshman]

Wouldn't know, as it's not my field. It's not Tour's either. But do you
think that paleontologists should publish journal articles responding to
Ken Ham's "Were you there?" challenge? I don't. Creationists, and Tour
most definitely is one, do not deserve serious attention.

You will probably challenge the idea that Tour is a creationist, so here
in advance is the horse's mouth:

https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/#:~:text=Based%20upon%20my%20faith%20in,and%20a%20woman%20named%20Eve.

A couple of quotes:

"Recall, evolution is both about the mechanism by which change occurs
over time, and the theory of universal common descent. But the
mechanisms are unknown and the theory of universal common descent is
confronted by issues of uncommonness through ENCODE and orphan gene
research. And each year the evidence for uncommonness is escalating."

"Based upon my faith in the biblical text, I do believe (yes, faith and
belief go beyond scientific evidence for this scientist) that God
created the heavens and the earth and all that dwell therein, including
a man named Adam and a woman named Eve."

[peter2...@gmail.com]

I don't ordinarily look at *Evolution News*, but I got tipped off yesterday
to a "victory" of James Tour that took place then. But by the time I got it,
I was up to my eyeballs in preparing today's reviews for tests I give my two
classes on Friday.

Tour was at an invitation-only panel at Harvard, led by Lee Cronin, to discuss OOL.
The announcement in Evolution News has been there since November 15.
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/11/james-tour-and-lee-cronin-to-discuss-origin-of-life-at-harvard-roundtable/

It is so short, I am copying the whole announcement below.

[BEGIN QUOTE]
Props to Professor Lee Cronin. In the wake of chemist James Tour’s 60-day challenge regarding ungrounded origin-of-life claims, the Cambridge Faculty Roundtable on Science and Religion will host a discussion on OOL. Dr. Cronin, a leading OOL researcher, has agreed to participate in the roundtable discussion with Dr. Tour in front of one hundred faculty members from Harvard and MIT.

“Almost everyone in that room is going to be favoring the side of Lee Cronin, and that’s fine,” says Tour. “I said I don’t need a panel — I’ll just talk to them myself.”

Just so you know, this is an invitation-only event to be held on November 28 at Harvard. Wish you could be a fly on the wall? Good news. The conversation will be recorded and posted sometime after the event.
[END OF QUOTE]

There may still be time, before the conversation is posted, for the biochemistry-savvy
folks here to redeem themselves by finding some *scientific* flaw in Tour's first
three challenges. Their disgraceful performances up to now were described in
the OP, which I've left in below. Besides Athel, "Lawyer Daggett" has made noises
from time to time about being a biochemistry hotshot, and Bill Rogers seems
to think of himself as one, too.

The first two at least would look bad if the panel had uncovered some flaw as
mentioned above, and it turned out to be so simple that they could easily have
picked up on it themselves.

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

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

[copy of OP follows:]

[erik simpson]

I don't believe you're a closet creationist, but this kind of message doesn't help.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

To be consistent, shouldn't you also say, "I don't believe Professor Lee Cronin is
a closet creationist, but giving James Tour a bully pulpit like that Harvard roundtable doesn't help." ?


Peter Nyikos

[erik simpson]

I don't see why anyone would need to respond to Tour.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

You are indulging in insulting innuendo, without trying to identify what
you mean by "this kind of message." Contrast that with my specific, concrete reply:

> > To be consistent, shouldn't you also say, "I don't believe Professor Lee Cronin is
> > a closet creationist, but giving James Tour a bully pulpit like that Harvard roundtable doesn't help." ?
> >
> >
> > Peter Nyikos

> I don't see why anyone would need to respond to Tour.

Are you disappointed that Professor Lee Cronin does not share your anti-creationist bigotry?


Do NOT confuse "anti-creationist" with "anti-creationism." I'm at least as against
creationism as you are, but I follow the Christian way of "hate the sin but
love the sinner." And in the case of Tour, there is no sin at all in trying to gauge
just how far the proto-science [1] of OOL has developed. That is what the
clallenges are designed to do.

Tour isn't even asking for the big bottleneck of OOL in any of his challenges.
This bottleneck is the production of a ribozyme RNA replicase [2] .
For that, a 60 day deadline would have to be replaced by
at least a 6-year deadline. Even that would be well-nigh hopeless,
if the OOL researchers had to produce it under simulated early earth
conditions. To make it fair, they would have to have leave to use
any method they want to use.

[1] See my reply to Harshman for a rough idea of what this means.

[2] There are RNA replicases , but they are proteins, not strings of nucleotides.

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

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

[erik simpson]

I did not insult you although you are a prolific generator of insults. Neither
am I bigoted with respect to people's religious beliefs, creationists or not. Many
of my family are of that category, as am I. I just don't discuss creationism with
them. Neither would I discuss creationism with people like Tour.

[Mark Isaak]

I think the label "creationism supporter" is appropriate.

>> To be consistent, shouldn't you also say, "I don't believe Professor Lee Cronin is
>> a closet creationist, but giving James Tour a bully pulpit like that Harvard roundtable doesn't help." ?
>>

> I don't see why anyone would need to respond to Tour.

I hope some of the scientists there will raise the question, What does
the origin of life have to do with religion? And then spend the rest of
the time discussing whether the answers given to that question have any
value.

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

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Looks like nobody but you and me looked at the post to which you are replying, John.
Maybe this post will be more to the liking of the two others who have responded on this thread,
and the liking of other t.o. regulars.

> Wouldn't know, as it's not my field. It's not Tour's either.

After what I wrote in the post to which you are responding, I wonder whether
there is such a thing as an expert on OOL, or just researchers who are far more
aware of what is going on in research than the average amateur.

> But do you
> think that paleontologists should publish journal articles responding to
> Ken Ham's "Were you there?" challenge?

I first saw Ham's pseudo-challenge around half a decade ago. I immediately saw
what an asinine attack on evolution and the age of the earth it is.
IOW, it is not worthy of any paleontologist's attention (or geologist's, or astronomer's...).
And Ham is a jerk for the way he brags about it in that godforsaken essay.

> I don't.

I'd be worried if you did.



After a fine beginning, you go astray:

> Creationists, and Tour
> most definitely is one, do not deserve serious attention.
>
> You will probably challenge the idea that Tour is a creationist,

How could you be so clueless after seeing how I complained in the OP
of the *ad hominem* fallacies that went on -- and they are still going on --
in the long-running thread, "Origin of Life Challenge"? [I even left the text
of the OP up there, uncut.]

Your spiel in your last three lines is more of the same old same old.

The first three parts of Tour's challenge -- the parts I am really interested in --
have NOTHING to do with creationism, and everything to
do with sussing out the current level of progress in OOL.

Progress in any area of science would be badly stifled if the public thought
all the interesting questions had been settled. Mathematics suffers from
that misconception in the minds of untold numbers of people,
and I know from personal experience -- and my own voluminous research --
how utterly false that misconception is.

> so here
> in advance is the horse's mouth:

I wasn't the least bit interested, but as long as you've broached
the subject, we might as well talk about it.

However, I still have to put the finishing touches on one of the tests I am giving
tomorrow. So it will have to wait until tomorrow. But don't worry, it will be the
first post I do to t.o. tomorrow, barring some sensational news about how the roundtable
went two days ago.

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

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

[John Harshman]

There may not be such a thing, but Tour is significantly less of one
than those who actually work in the field.

You have avoided the analogy and you have avoided any response to Tour's
creationism. I don't see what you say here as responsive in any way.

Of course Tour's challenge is related to his creationism. Nobody thinks
that origin of life research lacks interesting questions. Why bring up
this strawman at all?

>> so here
>> in advance is the horse's mouth:
>
> I wasn't the least bit interested, but as long as you've broached
> the subject, we might as well talk about it.

You're not interested in whether a person questioning origin of life
research is a creationist? Why not?

[Mark Isaak]

On 11/30/23 6:46 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 9:16:53 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>>

>> ... Tour is a creationist.

>
> The first three parts of Tour's challenge -- the parts I am really interested in --
> have NOTHING to do with creationism, and everything to
> do with sussing out the current level of progress in OOL.

When someone who believes that creation was responsible for the origin
of life starts talking about the origin of life, that person is talking
creationism.

You forget that creationism has nothing to do with supporting
creationism and everything to do with denying alternatives.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 9:16:53 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:

We'll see what you had written below, John, but first I have some VERY timely news.
I was even thinking of making a separate post of it, but it's mercifully short.

> On 11/28/23 4:22 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 8:46:52 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 11/27/23 4:50 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> >>> The thread which MarkE began with the title, "Origin of Life Challenge," had
> >>> as its original focus a 60-day challenge by James Tour which has now expired,
> >>> with no takers. I have not heard tell of a single response from any
> >>> of the OOL researchers to whom Tour directly addressed his challenge:

When I wrote the above, I had no inkling that *Evolution News* had reported,
back on November 15, about Lee Cronin's extraordinary act of hospitality towards Tour:

https://evolutionnews.org/2023/11/james-tour-and-lee-cronin-to-discuss-origin-of-life-at-harvard-roundtable/

And when I did see it on Monday, I had totally forgotten that Cronin WAS
one of the OOL researchers whom Tour had directly challenged:

> >>> Steve Benner, Jack Szostak, Clemens Reichert, Lee Cronin, Bruce Lipschitz, John Sutherland, Nicholas Hud, Ramana Naran Krishnamurthy, Neil Devaraj, and Matthew Pounder.

And today, no thanks to anyone else posting to this thread, I stumbled upon what looks like
the recording to which I have been eagerly looking forward:

"Dr. Lee Cronin & Dr. James Tour on Science and the Origin of Life, Cambridge Faculty Roundtable"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GDv4f2zUus

It's over 3 hours long, and even if I skip the preliminaries prior to the introduction, it's about two
and three quarter hours long. And I have a test, taken by some 25 students, to grade, so I may
only be able to report on the recording on Monday.

Enjoy the reprieve. :) :)


Now, on to where I left off in my first reply to John, preceded by a bit of context:

[Harshman:]

> You will probably challenge the idea that Tour is a creationist, so here
> in advance is the horse's mouth:

I will not repeat my criticism of the above from the first reply,
but proceed directly to the documentation:

> https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/#:~:text=Based%20upon%20my%20faith%20in,and%20a%20woman%20named%20Eve.

A sophisticated science-based exposition, for the most part; as different from Ken Ham's "Were You There?"
as a Boeing 747 is from a junkyard.

> A couple of quotes:

Even they show a sophisticated understanding:

> "Recall, evolution is both about the mechanism by which change occurs
> over time, and the theory of universal common descent.

This is a distinction even professional biologists occasionally slip up on.
The so-called "theory of evolution," the Modern Synthesis (a.k.a. neo-Darwinism)
is really a theory of microevolution that ends in speciation, and has nothing
whatsoever to say about common descent.

Before Amazon totally reinvented its review sections, I participated
in a single book "review" that ran for something like a thousand posts,
and the "paleontological guru" there was none other than
"Our Lady of the Ungulates," Christine Janis. Yet, at one point,
she carelessly referred to common descent as "the theory of evolution."
Needless to say, she quickly corrected herself as I pointed out this mistake.

>But the mechanisms are unknown

See about microevolution above. Back in early 1979, I began a thread
in talk.origins,

TOWARDS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF MACROEVOLUTION
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/MAgP4bAfV40/m/XDh3HKRhBgAJ
in which I emphasized that there was some raw material for a true theory,
but nobody had tried to organize it into a coherent whole.
The "Extended Evolutionary Theory" hasn't seemed to be successful at doing that,
thanks in part to it being attacked by devotees of neo-Darwinism who claim
that it can all be done within that theory.


Unfortunately, I do not know enough about the following bit to comment on it.
Suffice it to say that it is an example of quote-mining: Tour
devotes a lot of space elsewhere to criticisms of the very thing
of which he speaks below:

> and the theory of universal common descent is
> confronted by issues of uncommonness through ENCODE and orphan gene
> research. And each year the evidence for uncommonness is escalating."

I don't know what connection any of this is supposed to have with creationism.
If you do, John, please try to articulate it.


The last paragraph you quoted is on a different theme altogether.

>
> "Based upon my faith in the biblical text, I do believe (yes, faith and
> belief go beyond scientific evidence for this scientist) that God
> created the heavens and the earth and all that dwell therein, including
> a man named Adam and a woman named Eve."

It's a childlike faith, and if Tour devoted as little time in those almost
three hours as he did in the long essay from which you took these paragraphs,
he had plenty of time to express thoughts like the following,
coming in between your first and second quotes:

"In a secular classroom, one need not include an intelligent designer in order to provide the students with an appreciation for the science or an overview of the theories’ shortcomings. I think that, upon this approach, diverse camps could respectfully agree and lawsuits would be unnecessary."

Alas, agreeing to disagree is something that seems to be far out of reach
on this thread, or indeed anywhere in talk.origins.

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

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

[John Harshman]

I hope to enjoy it indefinitely. Perhaps you could talk to comeone else
about it instead.

> Now, on to where I left off in my first reply to John, preceded by a bit of context:
>
> [Harshman:]
>> You will probably challenge the idea that Tour is a creationist, so here
>> in advance is the horse's mouth:
>
> I will not repeat my criticism of the above from the first reply,
> but proceed directly to the documentation:
>
>> https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/#:~:text=Based%20upon%20my%20faith%20in,and%20a%20woman%20named%20Eve.
>
> A sophisticated science-based exposition, for the most part; as different from Ken Ham's "Were You There?"
> as a Boeing 747 is from a junkyard.

I don't recognize your characterization. Not much science there.

>> A couple of quotes:
>
> Even they show a sophisticated understanding:

Sophistication, apparently, is in the eye of the beholder.

>> "Recall, evolution is both about the mechanism by which change occurs
>> over time, and the theory of universal common descent.
>
> This is a distinction even professional biologists occasionally slip up on.
> The so-called "theory of evolution," the Modern Synthesis (a.k.a. neo-Darwinism)
> is really a theory of microevolution that ends in speciation, and has nothing
> whatsoever to say about common descent.

Not true at all. Way back in the Origin, Darwin had two theories:
natural selection and branching descent. Both are theories of evolution.
"The theory of evolution" is perhaps a misnomer. And there are in fact
theories of evolution that go beyond speciation, though they are not
part of the "modern synthesis". I have mentioned species selection
frequently, though you haven't seemd interested in exploring that.

> Before Amazon totally reinvented its review sections, I participated
> in a single book "review" that ran for something like a thousand posts,
> and the "paleontological guru" there was none other than
> "Our Lady of the Ungulates," Christine Janis. Yet, at one point,
> she carelessly referred to common descent as "the theory of evolution."
> Needless to say, she quickly corrected herself as I pointed out this mistake.

One may suspect that Christine may remember this somewhat differently.

>> But the mechanisms are unknown
>
> See about microevolution above. Back in early 1979, I began a thread
> in talk.origins,
>
> TOWARDS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF MACROEVOLUTION
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/MAgP4bAfV40/m/XDh3HKRhBgAJ
> in which I emphasized that there was some raw material for a true theory,
> but nobody had tried to organize it into a coherent whole.
> The "Extended Evolutionary Theory" hasn't seemed to be successful at doing that,
> thanks in part to it being attacked by devotees of neo-Darwinism who claim
> that it can all be done within that theory.
>
> Unfortunately, I do not know enough about the following bit to comment on it.
> Suffice it to say that it is an example of quote-mining: Tour
> devotes a lot of space elsewhere to criticisms of the very thing
> of which he speaks below:
>
>> and the theory of universal common descent is
>> confronted by issues of uncommonness through ENCODE and orphan gene
>> research. And each year the evidence for uncommonness is escalating."

Where does he defend the theory of universal common descent, on which
this is an attack. If you think it's a quote-mine, you should be able to
find where he expresses a contrary opinion.

> I don't know what connection any of this is supposed to have with creationism.
> If you do, John, please try to articulate it.

Should be simple enough: this is skepticism (to put it mildly) of common
descent. The altnerative would be separate origins of taxa at some
level. Now, it's true that there are a couple of non-creationist notions
of separate origins (See, for example, Periannan Senapathy), but it
seems clear that's not what Tour is going for. To him, rejection of
common descent is support for creation of taxa.

> The last paragraph you quoted is on a different theme altogether.

Not altogether. True that he doesn't describe the nature of creation of
"all that dwell therein", but he does provide one explicit example, Adam
and Eve. You don't think that relates to creationism?

>> "Based upon my faith in the biblical text, I do believe (yes, faith and
>> belief go beyond scientific evidence for this scientist) that God
>> created the heavens and the earth and all that dwell therein, including
>> a man named Adam and a woman named Eve."
>
> It's a childlike faith, and if Tour devoted as little time in those almost
> three hours as he did in the long essay from which you took these paragraphs,
> he had plenty of time to express thoughts like the following,
> coming in between your first and second quotes:
>
> "In a secular classroom, one need not include an intelligent designer
> in order to provide the students with an appreciation for the science
> or an overview of the theories’ shortcomings. I think that, upon this
> approach, diverse camps could respectfully agree and lawsuits would
> be unnecessary."
> Alas, agreeing to disagree is something that seems to be far out of reach
> on this thread, or indeed anywhere in talk.origins.

So you think that science classes should spend significant time
exploring the evidence against common descent? What should that evidence
consist of, would you say?

[erik simpson]

Your "Macroevolution" is not a term used by modern paleontologists. It meant something when used
in the past by those still using Linnaean taxonomy. Dobzhansky referred to it as the changes seen over
geologic time periods. Large changes are made up by a sequence of minor changes, excluding saltation.

[John Harshman]

Are you quite sure? I haven't been keeping up with the literature as
much recently as I once did, but last I heard "macroevolution" was a
term in common use, and there was considerable argument about whether it
can be reduced to accumulated microevolution.

[erik simpson]

According to my son (paleobotany), he hasn't heard the term used for years. I'm
sure there are exceptions, but I wouldn't know where to find them. Context of use
is probably important.

[Burkhard]

I came recently by chance to this paper (was looking for something entirely
different tbh, so no time yet to read it, if I ever will)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-023-02116-7

[John Harshman]

Once again I appeal to a couple of macroevolutionary processes, chiefly
species selection, but also "coordinated stasis", which is commonly
argued to be a thing. Try searching for those terms rather than
macroevolution and see what you find. Erwin & Valentine mention some
other stuff that might be considered macroevolutionary.

[erik simpson]

Thanks for the contribution. Still, there's a lot of waffling in this paper. (I gave up after reading
a few pages.) I still like Dobzhansky's suggestion that time scales are the main driver. Sure,
evolution proceeds in fits and starts in response to environmental fluctuations , but a million years
is still plenty of time to produce noticeable changes.

[erik simpson]

Thanks, I'll check them out.

[John Harshman]

It might also be argued that allopolyploidy is a distinctively
macroevolutionary event.

[erik simpson]

I'll concede that! Instant speciation.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 12:36:56 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 11/30/23 6:46 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 9:16:53 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> >>
> >> ... Tour is a creationist.
> >
> > The first three parts of Tour's challenge -- the parts I am really interested in --
> > have NOTHING to do with creationism, and everything to
> > do with sussing out the current level of progress in OOL.

Looks like you were never taught the full meaning of "*ad hominem* fallacy,"
Mark.

> When someone who believes that creation was responsible for the origin
> of life starts talking about the origin of life, that person is talking
> creationism.

See if this will help: suppose someone with impeccable anti-ID
credentials, like Kenneth Miller, were to say the SAME IDENTICAL
words that Tour spoke in his opening statement at the recent roundtable.
It runs from 34 minutes to 55 minutes of the following video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GDv4f2zUus

Would you be saying Miller is talking creationism in that statement?

If you don't feel you know enough about the contents of the statement
to judge, I recommend that you turn to Athel, who is an expert on the
biochemistry that Tour is talking about.

I would not recommend that you turn to "Lawyer Daggett": in his last
reply to me, he was behaving like the dignitaries who refused to
look through Galileo's telescope at the moons of Jupiter.

> You forget that creationism has nothing to do with supporting
> creationism and everything to do with denying alternatives.

You have a bad habit of writing "creationism" where "creationists"
is more appropriate. See how much better the following sounds:

"You forget that creationists have nothing to do with supporting creationism

and everything to do with denying alternatives."

See how subtle the concept of *ad hominem* is?

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

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

[erik simpson]

What points to you think Tour is qualified to make wrt the origin of life? His own
words support [creationism - creationist, take your pick]. Where does Miller say
anything like that? Do Adam and Eve have relevant impact on OOL? I don't think
I understand what you're getting at.

[Mark Isaak]

On 12/5/23 12:45 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 12:36:56 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 11/30/23 6:46 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 9:16:53 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ... Tour is a creationist.
>>>
>>> The first three parts of Tour's challenge -- the parts I am really interested in --
>>> have NOTHING to do with creationism, and everything to
>>> do with sussing out the current level of progress in OOL.
>
> Looks like you were never taught the full meaning of "*ad hominem* fallacy,"
> Mark.

Ad hominem is often not a fallacy.

>> When someone who believes that creation was responsible for the origin
>> of life starts talking about the origin of life, that person is talking
>> creationism.
>
> See if this will help: suppose someone with impeccable anti-ID
> credentials, like Kenneth Miller, were to say the SAME IDENTICAL
> words that Tour spoke in his opening statement at the recent roundtable.
> It runs from 34 minutes to 55 minutes of the following video:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GDv4f2zUus
>
> Would you be saying Miller is talking creationism in that statement?

Since I do not and will not watch youtube, I have no idea what you're
talking about.

[Öö Tiib]

On Tuesday 5 December 2023 at 22:47:00 UTC+2, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 12:36:56 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
> > On 11/30/23 6:46 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 9:16:53 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> > >>
> > >> ... Tour is a creationist.
> > >
> > > The first three parts of Tour's challenge -- the parts I am really interested in --
> > > have NOTHING to do with creationism, and everything to
> > > do with sussing out the current level of progress in OOL.
>
> Looks like you were never taught the full meaning of "*ad hominem* fallacy,"
> Mark.
>
> > When someone who believes that creation was responsible for the origin
> > of life starts talking about the origin of life, that person is talking
> > creationism.
>
> See if this will help: suppose someone with impeccable anti-ID
> credentials, like Kenneth Miller, were to say the SAME IDENTICAL
> words that Tour spoke in his opening statement at the recent roundtable.
> It runs from 34 minutes to 55 minutes of the following video:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GDv4f2zUus
>
> Would you be saying Miller is talking creationism in that statement?
>

For me the issue is not what words Tour says but what he has done.
Tour has record of challenges. With Tour there will be conditions and
inconveniences with such challenges. "Challenges" themselves are for
show, but whoever accepts those just gets nothing, even no right to
record:
“It shall not be recorded or extend beyond the three of us as this is
not for show but for my edification.”
<https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/professor-james-tour-accepts-nick-matzkes-offer-to-explain-macroevolution/>

Why should they then do it if they get nothing? Or what "reward" is that
Tour erases his youtube channel? YouTube is not getting less full of
BS. It is nothing like million of dollars that late James Randi offered
for any paranormal or supernatural evidence whatsoever in his challenge.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 22:10:29 -0800, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net>:

>On 12/5/23 12:45 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

>> On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 12:36:56?PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>> On 11/30/23 6:46 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

>>>> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 9:16:53?AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> ... Tour is a creationist.
>>>>
>>>> The first three parts of Tour's challenge -- the parts I am really interested in --
>>>> have NOTHING to do with creationism, and everything to
>>>> do with sussing out the current level of progress in OOL.
>>
>> Looks like you were never taught the full meaning of "*ad hominem* fallacy,"
>> Mark.
>
>Ad hominem is often not a fallacy.
>

I have to disagree. Wiki discusses it quite well:

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

While the final paragraph in the "History" section mentions
some arguments to the contrary, it also notes that these
arguments are not widely accepted. So "often" is a
significant overstatement; very occasionally" might be
better.

Bottom line: Ad hominem is almost universally considered to
be a fallacy.

>
>>> When someone who believes that creation was responsible for the origin
>>> of life starts talking about the origin of life, that person is talking
>>> creationism.
>>
>> See if this will help: suppose someone with impeccable anti-ID
>> credentials, like Kenneth Miller, were to say the SAME IDENTICAL
>> words that Tour spoke in his opening statement at the recent roundtable.
>> It runs from 34 minutes to 55 minutes of the following video:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GDv4f2zUus
>>
>> Would you be saying Miller is talking creationism in that statement?
>
>Since I do not and will not watch youtube, I have no idea what you're
>talking about.
--

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

[John Harshman]

On 12/6/23 7:31 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 22:10:29 -0800, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
> <specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
>
>> On 12/5/23 12:45 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 12:36:56?PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 11/30/23 6:46 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 9:16:53?AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ... Tour is a creationist.
>>>>>
>>>>> The first three parts of Tour's challenge -- the parts I am really interested in --
>>>>> have NOTHING to do with creationism, and everything to
>>>>> do with sussing out the current level of progress in OOL.
>>>
>>> Looks like you were never taught the full meaning of "*ad hominem* fallacy,"
>>> Mark.
>>
>> Ad hominem is often not a fallacy.
>>
> I have to disagree. Wiki discusses it quite well:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
>
> While the final paragraph in the "History" section mentions
> some arguments to the contrary, it also notes that these
> arguments are not widely accepted. So "often" is a
> significant overstatement; very occasionally" might be
> better.
>
> Bottom line: Ad hominem is almost universally considered to
> be a fallacy.

It's a logical fallacy, but in practice, in the real world, it's not
necessarily poor evidence of a person's general competence or
reliability. "Because you're a creationist, your claims are wrong" is a
fallacy. But "Because you're a creationist, your claims about evolution
are very likely to be wrong" is a pretty good bet.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 4:47:00 AM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Tuesday 5 December 2023 at 22:47:00 UTC+2, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 12:36:56 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
> > > On 11/30/23 6:46 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 9:16:53 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> ... Tour is a creationist.
> > > >
> > > > The first three parts of Tour's challenge -- the parts I am really interested in --
> > > > have NOTHING to do with creationism, and everything to
> > > > do with sussing out the current level of progress in OOL.
> >
> > Looks like you were never taught the full meaning of "*ad hominem* fallacy,"
> > Mark.
> >
> > > When someone who believes that creation was responsible for the origin
> > > of life starts talking about the origin of life, that person is talking
> > > creationism.
> >
> > See if this will help: suppose someone with impeccable anti-ID
> > credentials, like Kenneth Miller, were to say the SAME IDENTICAL
> > words that Tour spoke in his opening statement at the recent roundtable.
> > It runs from 34 minutes to 55 minutes of the following video:

I'll be referring to this amazing video below:

> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GDv4f2zUus
> >
> > Would you be saying Miller is talking creationism in that statement?
> >
> For me the issue is not what words Tour says but what he has done.

So, aren't you interested in what we know and do not know about
the origins of life? Specifically, life as we know it, based on protein enzymes.

This is what makes OOL so fascinating for me: the Central Doctrine
of the biochemistry of life as we know it is that information passes from nucleotides
to polypeptides (which are either proteins or the main ingredients of proteins)
but almost no information passes in the opposite direction.

To make a long story short, all paths from simple chemicals to life as we know it
seem to have to pass through the bottleneck of a ribozyme RNA replicase.
I described this concept to Erik Simpson earlier on this thread, but
no one here seems to be interested in trying to find another kind of path.

And now comes the punch line: nobody, not even Lee Cronin, the "opponent" of Tour in the
debate, has the foggiest idea what ribozyme replicase (either for RNA or DNA, by the way
might look like. By this I mean: what on earth might the sequence of nucleotides making it up be?

> Tour has record of challenges. With Tour there will be conditions and
> inconveniences with such challenges.

Why don't you confine yourself to this latest one? This is the
one that a mainstream OOL researcher took seriously enough
to result in an amazing debate.

Who cares about the ones where Tour's opponents were incompetent and/or clowns?

> "Challenges" themselves are for
> show, but whoever accepts those just gets nothing, even no right to
> record:
> “It shall not be recorded or extend beyond the three of us as this is
> not for show but for my edification.”

This one was not only recorded, the YouTube recording lasts for over
three hours, and I haven't had the time yet to go over the final hour.

> <https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/professor-james-tour-accepts-nick-matzkes-offer-to-explain-macroevolution/>
>
> Why should they then do it if they get nothing? Or what "reward" is that
> Tour erases his youtube channel?

He won't have the power to erase this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GDv4f2zUus

It's part of a prestigious series, with Harvard University hosting.

> YouTube is not getting less full of
> BS. It is nothing like million of dollars that late James Randi offered
> for any paranormal or supernatural evidence whatsoever in his challenge.

The origin of life is arguably the most difficult unsolved problem in all the
physical sciences. The origin of the cell is far more complicated than the evolution
of stars. Astrophysicists have been able to deduce what goes on in stars, depending
on where they started on the Herzprung-Russel main sequence.
Our sun will leave it before getting any further than carbon in producing heavier elements,
and will quickly become a white dwarf after that.

The biggest stars can go all the way to iron, then suffer core collapse,
then become supernovas, producing all the remaining naturally occurring elements
in an unimaginably spectacular chain of reactions, then collapse either into a neutron star or a black hole.

Along the way, they will first undergo a "hydrogen flash" while burning helium in earnest, then when
the helium is badly depleted, they will undergo a "helium flash". Both happen deep
inside, and no one has observed these and many other things
which they have deduced simply on well established theoretical grounds.


But life is far too complicated for biologists to be good at the theory of its origins to the
same spectacular extent -- or even to a much less spectacular extent.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics

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

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 4:57:01 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 12:47:00 PM UTC-8, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 12:36:56 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
> > > On 11/30/23 6:46 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 9:16:53 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> ... Tour is a creationist.
> > > >
> > > > The first three parts of Tour's challenge -- the parts I am really interested in --
> > > > have NOTHING to do with creationism, and everything to
> > > > do with sussing out the current level of progress in OOL.

> > Looks like you were never taught the full meaning of "*ad hominem* fallacy,"
> > Mark.

> > > When someone who believes that creation was responsible for the origin
> > > of life starts talking about the origin of life, that person is talking
> > > creationism.

> > See if this will help: suppose someone with impeccable anti-ID
> > credentials, like Kenneth Miller, were to say the SAME IDENTICAL
> > words that Tour spoke in his opening statement at the recent roundtable.
> > It runs from 34 minutes to 55 minutes of the following video:
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GDv4f2zUus
> >
> > Would you be saying Miller is talking creationism in that statement?
> >
> > If you don't feel you know enough about the contents of the statement
> > to judge, I recommend that you turn to Athel, who is an expert on the
> > biochemistry that Tour is talking about.

Looks like Mark is following the same example Daggett did:

> > I would not recommend that you turn to "Lawyer Daggett": in his last
> > reply to me, he was behaving like the dignitaries who refused to
> > look through Galileo's telescope at the moons of Jupiter.

In his reply to my criticism of his *ad hominem* fallacies, Mark served
notice that he will not view any of the debate between Tour and Cronin.
His post comes right after yours in these New New Google Groups.

> > > You forget that creationism has nothing to do with supporting
> > > creationism and everything to do with denying alternatives.

If creationists are this stupid, then that is one more difference between
them and ID theorists and scientists: the better ones do give evidence for intelligent design
while trying to show that it is superior to the evidence for the alternatives.


I went easy on Mark by confining myself to the following comment in reply:

> > You have a bad habit of writing "creationism" where "creationists"
> > is more appropriate. See how much better the following sounds:

> > "You forget that creationists have nothing to do with supporting creationism
> > and everything to do with denying alternatives."

> > See how subtle the concept of *ad hominem* is?

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

> What points to you think Tour is qualified to make wrt the origin of life?

Every point he made during that opening statement that I told Mark about.

[repeated from above:]

> > suppose someone with impeccable anti-ID
> > credentials, like Kenneth Miller, were to say the SAME IDENTICAL
> > words that Tour spoke in his opening statement at the recent roundtable.
> > It runs from 34 minutes to 55 minutes of the following video:
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GDv4f2zUus
> >
> > Would you be saying Miller is talking creationism in that statement?

[end of repetition]

> His own
> words support [creationism - creationist, take your pick].

Without having seen/heard them, how could you know?

> Where does Miller say
> anything like that? Do Adam and Eve have relevant impact on OOL?

You are referring to something your role model Harshman cherry-picked from an earlier
essay by Tour. In the debate, Tour stuck to pure science relevant to OOL
in his opening statement -- he didn't even stray into biological evolution.

> I don't think
> I understand what you're getting at.

Does what I wrote to Mr. Tiib, and now to you, help?

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

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

[erik simpson]

No, nothing you've said clarifies anything. Tour, by his own words, professes his
lack of authority wrt to the origin of life. With his credo of Adam and Eve, he denies
common descent. Just why should we be paying any attention to "challenges" from
such a source? I'm amazed you're still kicking this can around. You seem to be
championing creationism or creationists as well as questionable ID "theorists". I
still don't get it.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 11:45:08 -0800, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com>:

No disagreement here; I was specifically addressing the
assertion that "Ad hominem is often not a fallacy".

[Öö Tiib]

In current context it is more like "Because you are demonstrably biased
to be non-productive in that research niche it is worthless to cooperate
with you in it." and "I can not watch your channels just fine, no need
to erase those, thanks for proposal."

[Mark Isaak]

On 12/6/23 7:31 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:

> On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 22:10:29 -0800, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
> <specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
>
>> On 12/5/23 12:45 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 12:36:56?PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 11/30/23 6:46 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 9:16:53?AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ... Tour is a creationist.
>>>>>
>>>>> The first three parts of Tour's challenge -- the parts I am really interested in --
>>>>> have NOTHING to do with creationism, and everything to
>>>>> do with sussing out the current level of progress in OOL.
>>>
>>> Looks like you were never taught the full meaning of "*ad hominem* fallacy,"
>>> Mark.
>>
>> Ad hominem is often not a fallacy.
>>
> I have to disagree. Wiki discusses it quite well:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
>
> While the final paragraph in the "History" section mentions
> some arguments to the contrary, it also notes that these
> arguments are not widely accepted. So "often" is a
> significant overstatement; very occasionally" might be
> better.
>
> Bottom line: Ad hominem is almost universally considered to
> be a fallacy.

I emphatically disagree. It is impossible for any person to directly
check the accuracy of any but I tiny fraction of claims that they are
exposed to. Thus people must consider other ways to evaluate
credibility. One way which is both fairly easy and usually accurate is
to consider the credibility and motivations of the source. For example,
a claim made on Fox News carries less weight than a claim made in the
New York Times, because Fox News is known to lie to its listeners as a
matter of policy, while such occurrences in the NYT are rare and not
sanctioned by the newspaper's management.

To say that Joe's assertion can't be trusted because Joe has halitosis
would, of course, be a fallacy. But to say that Joe's assertion can't
be trusted because Joe has a long history of lying on this subject is
important information which it would be a disservice to the audience to
withhold.

[Öö Tiib]

Yes, and so all peptides used in life are of rather limited set of possible
peptide space. That highly likely makes the choices taken (and solutions
built from such choices) suboptimal. Proteins are still remarkably better
than ribozymes even as only rather narrow subset of the full potential is
used.

> To make a long story short, all paths from simple chemicals to life as we know it
> seem to have to pass through the bottleneck of a ribozyme RNA replicase.
> I described this concept to Erik Simpson earlier on this thread, but
> no one here seems to be interested in trying to find another kind of path.
>

RdRp and DdRp are available in protein form. I agree that ribozyme RdRp feels
most logical to have for to go from RNA world to RNA + protein world.
Protein RdRp we have and it is likely more efficient and robust than ribozyme
RdRp but obviously could not be there before proteins themselves.

> And now comes the punch line: nobody, not even Lee Cronin, the "opponent" of Tour in the
> debate, has the foggiest idea what ribozyme replicase (either for RNA or DNA, by the way
> might look like. By this I mean: what on earth might the sequence of nucleotides making it up be?
>

OK I see the only issue is we now do not have any ribozyme RdRp. But that is
logical as even "more modern" protein RdRp is only yet there in some viruses.
So what is the anticipated barrier to existence of ribozyme RdRp before its
protein competitor emerged? Peptides could evolve with ribozyme RdRp until
forming protein RdRp that competed ribozyme RdRp out. There must be some
issue on that trajectory I don't see?

> > Tour has record of challenges. With Tour there will be conditions and
> > inconveniences with such challenges.
> Why don't you confine yourself to this latest one? This is the
> one that a mainstream OOL researcher took seriously enough
> to result in an amazing debate.
>
> Who cares about the ones where Tour's opponents were incompetent and/or clowns?
>

I did totally disappoint in him when he washed floor with "professor" Dave.
That proved to me that it is political show only, and that is what is Tour's
goal.

> > "Challenges" themselves are for
> > show, but whoever accepts those just gets nothing, even no right to
> > record:
> > “It shall not be recorded or extend beyond the three of us as this is
> > not for show but for my edification.”
> This one was not only recorded, the YouTube recording lasts for over
> three hours, and I haven't had the time yet to go over the final hour.
> > <https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/professor-james-tour-accepts-nick-matzkes-offer-to-explain-macroevolution/>
> >
> > Why should they then do it if they get nothing? Or what "reward" is that
> > Tour erases his youtube channel?
> He won't have the power to erase this one:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GDv4f2zUus
>
> It's part of a prestigious series, with Harvard University hosting.
>

I try to find time to listen it at weekend (or to read the subtitles). Thanks.

> > YouTube is not getting less full of
> > BS. It is nothing like million of dollars that late James Randi offered
> > for any paranormal or supernatural evidence whatsoever in his challenge.
>
> The origin of life is arguably the most difficult unsolved problem in all the
> physical sciences. The origin of the cell is far more complicated than the evolution
> of stars. Astrophysicists have been able to deduce what goes on in stars, depending
> on where they started on the Herzprung-Russel main sequence.
> Our sun will leave it before getting any further than carbon in producing heavier elements,
> and will quickly become a white dwarf after that.
>

Oh who knows, we can not even figure out origin of petroleum. It is often located
twice deeper than any organic sediment is (and so any fossil can be). Or may be
there was (still is?) some kind of deep underground life? But I am rather
convinced that manufacturing more potent than our own life-like technologies is
coming soon anyway or already undergoing. With advance of nanotechnology and
billions pumped into it each year it is highly likely that we have superior
to our own biochemistry nanotechnology available soon.

> The biggest stars can go all the way to iron, then suffer core collapse,
> then become supernovas, producing all the remaining naturally occurring elements
> in an unimaginably spectacular chain of reactions, then collapse either into a neutron star or a black hole.
>
> Along the way, they will first undergo a "hydrogen flash" while burning helium in earnest, then when
> the helium is badly depleted, they will undergo a "helium flash". Both happen deep
> inside, and no one has observed these and many other things
> which they have deduced simply on well established theoretical grounds.
>
> But life is far too complicated for biologists to be good at the theory of its origins to the
> same spectacular extent -- or even to a much less spectacular extent.
>

Issue is that whatever was OOL the result of it advanced in so pitifully sluggish
pace that the study figuring it out is doomed to bring no economic benefits.
At same time we have clearly done quite a step ahead in manufacturing
mental singularities and not even hiding that. We can't yet figure what is economic
effect of those (besides that it will be extensive).

On worst cases ... within few decades there will be (A) large-scale battle between
various grey goos controlled by various SkyNets by what current biochemistry including
ourselves is either (A.1) already thrown aside as worthless or (A.2) kept still in role
of curiously inferior pets or (B) whatever gods there supposedly exist and sometimes
intervene stop hiding and (B.1) erase and forbid making SkyNets, (B.2) welcome
SkyNets and teach them what are the next rules of game.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 08:55:31 -0800, the following appeared in

Fine; you can argue about it with the sources referenced in
the Wiki entry. You might also want to note Harshman's take
i=on it, and my reply.

>
>I emphatically disagree.
> It is impossible for any person to directly
>check the accuracy of any but I tiny fraction of claims that they are
>exposed to. Thus people must consider other ways to evaluate
>credibility. One way which is both fairly easy and usually accurate is
>to consider the credibility and motivations of the source. For example,
>a claim made on Fox News carries less weight than a claim made in the
>New York Times, because Fox News is known to lie to its listeners as a
>matter of policy, while such occurrences in the NYT are rare and not
>sanctioned by the newspaper's management.
>
>To say that Joe's assertion can't be trusted because Joe has halitosis
>would, of course, be a fallacy. But to say that Joe's assertion can't
>be trusted because Joe has a long history of lying on this subject is
>important information which it would be a disservice to the audience to
>withhold.
>

The fact remains that unless you can refute Joe's argument,
saying it's wrong it because Joe is an [X] is ad hominem.

[DB Cates]

I would think that if [X] is germane to the subject of Joe's argument
then it may not be a fallacy even if it is ad hominem.
--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)

[Mark Isaak]

Saying it is wrong because Joe is an [X] is ad hominem. Saying it is
untrustworthy because Joe is an [X] is rational and prudent.

[Burkhard]

Yes, that's how it is normally classified in argumentation theory -
though the term has undergone a shift in meaning from its inception
in Greek rhetoric to its modern usage. "Arguments from a position to know"
(in Doug Walton's terminology) for instance are potentially non-fallacious
ad-hominems, one example is expert evidence. Or if you
remember "12 angry men", pointing out that the other side's eyewitness is
as blind as a bat is a perfectly legitimate strategy to cast doubt on their assertion
IF it requires good eyes to have made that observation.

Fallacious ad-hominems as you say are ultimately instantiations of the relevance
fallacy (and some folks argue that ultimately, that's true for all fallacies anyway),that is
the problem is not that the speaker is attacked, but the speaker is attacked for having
a property that is irrelevant to the veracity of their claim. The standard textbook on this
is Doug Walton's 1998 book "Ad Hominem Arguments." where he also discusses the
(in his view regrettable) meaning shift that the term has undergone in public discussions,
where ad-hominems are often treated as fallacious by defiition.

[Lawyer Daggett]

I hesitated to opine but I guess I'm feeling foolish.

There's significant confusion surrounding ad hominen fallacies and attacks.
Most of course understand the issue fairly well but perhaps it's worth being
somewhat more formal.

An ad hominen attack is not an explicit argument. It's just an accusation that
some person has a negative quality. It's probably worthwhile to distinguish
where it is a naked assertion and when it is in some sense the conclusion of
some argument. And there one has to also be mindful that said argument might
precede the conclusion/accusation with support to follow or it might be at the
end of some attempt to support the accusation. How well the reasons actually
support the accusation are yet another matter.

Some assert that any attack qualifies as an ad hominen fallacy from a broad
connotative sense that poisoning a person's reputation can influence people.
There's some potential merit to that line of thinking but it's perhaps limited.
It doesn't fit well to the stricter sense of logical fallacies as there such is simply
considered something tangential and irrelevant to any actual argument.

And this transitions us to ad hominen fallacies. Rendered to the most simple
analysis, an ad hominen fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance.

To establish the irrelevance, one must examine the argument at hand.
Essentially, we need two parts, one part addresses a principal and makes a
negative claim about that principal (note, principal, not principle).
The second part is some brand of argument or conclusion.

If this second part is not rationally related to the negative characterization,
AND if the negative characterization is being used to support the second part,
THEN we have an ad hominen fallacy. X is a habitual thief so X should not be
trusted with the payroll is a test case. This is not an ad hominen fallacy as the
particular accusation is not irrelevant.

Change it to X is a habitual thief so X should not be trusted to repair lawnmowers
is a bit different. It isn't clear that repairing lawnmowers is necessarily related
to habitual thievery.

Without belaboring things, the point is that the mere existence of a negative
characterization of a principal isn't sufficient to establish an ad hominen fallacy
as the fallacy is at heart one of irrelevance. And as always, just because the
argument attempting to support a particular conclusion may be flawed does
not mean the actual stated conclusion is true or false. It's truth value is
simply not established by that particular argument.

[Lawyer Daggett]

I should have know I would be usurped by someone who would make me sound like a child.

[Burkhard]

mhh, i very much felt this about your post :o) Not just because of the fewer spelling mistakes,
but also b/c of the distinction between a "bare ad hom" and an "ad hom argument"

[DB Cates]

I'm just going to stand aside and let the people who know what they are
talking about have at it.

[Lawyer Daggett]

That's no fun, so riddle me this Batman ...

A). X is a confessed sinner and so should not be trusted.

Where does that score respective to being an ad hominen fallacy?

This is filler text while your brain does some background processing to give you time to have
a first impression and perhaps even run through an alternative or three depending on how fast
you process such things.

Let's also register a variant,
B). X is a confessed sinner and so should be trusted.

Continuing somewhat, if the point of an ad hominen fallacy is that it is a fallacy of irrelevance,
what would be the relevance of someone being a confessed sinner? Most superficially, being a
sinner can broadly be seen as indicative of being someone who betrays trusts, and so it seems
relevant and indeed a valid argument.

Then again, there's an alternative. Given a premise that none of us are without sin, that we have
all stumbled and deviated from our better angel at some point, then being a 'confessed sinner'
indicates an aspect of self-awareness and honesty that many would associate with trustworthiness.

Removing the fixation on the ad hominen aspect, is A). or B). a fallacy?

How does one score the relevance of the bit about being a confessed sinner?
How much is determined by the argument versus the audience?

[DB Cates]

To be quick and dierty, your hypothetical is badly defined. There are
very many independent ways to be a sinner and many subjects on which to
give or deny trust. So knowing neither the nature of the sin nor the
subject of the trust both A. and B. are fallacies.

So there! :P

[Lawyer Daggett]

Well done.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 23:26:50 -0600, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by DB Cates <cate...@hotmail.com>:

So if a known liar says that the Earth is not flat, the fact
that he's a known liar would cause you to reject his
statement? OK.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 07:27:51 -0800, the following appeared in

I agree, And the second is *not* ad hominem.

[erik simpson]

I'm beginning to think "ad hominim" doesn't mean a damn thing.

[Lawyer Daggett]

The fact that X is a known liar is not just cause to conclude that any and everything
that X says is a lie. It is a reason to remain circumspect about any claims that X
makes, but is insufficient to conclude that X is necessarily lying. It should be
obvious that the observation that X often lies is not equivalent to a conclusion that
every statement from x is a lie or falsehood.

Making determinations of the fact hood of some suite of claimants is non-trivial.
Interesting aspects of the nature of termination of myriad interactions and conceptualizations
of English vocabulary are, in many respects, fascinating. I just hope few have committed
themselves to ad hoc study that might well require significant contributions of caregiving.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 14:58:17 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com>:

>I'm beginning to think "ad hominim" doesn't mean a damn thing.
>

It does (see the Wiki reference), but there are multiple
definitions, which change constantly.

My take remains:

If an argument is made, and rejected, not on the argument,
but on the (perceived) character of the claimant, it's ad
hominem.

If an argument is made, and the (perceived) character of the
claimant is such that one is not willing to accept the
argument unexamined (something no one should do, even for
the arguments/claims of purported "experts"), it's not ad
hominem.

Others' mileages may, of course, vary. Widely. But then,
that's philosophy: Two philosophers, three (or more)
opinions.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 11:01:56 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:

> On 12/1/23 5:57 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 9:16:53 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> >

> > We'll see what you had written below, John, but first I have some VERY timely news.
> > I was even thinking of making a separate post of it, but it's mercifully short.
> >
> >> On 11/28/23 4:22 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 8:46:52 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 11/27/23 4:50 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >>>>> The thread which MarkE began with the title, "Origin of Life Challenge," had
> >>>>> as its original focus a 60-day challenge by James Tour which has now expired,
> >>>>> with no takers. I have not heard tell of a single response from any
> >>>>> of the OOL researchers to whom Tour directly addressed his challenge:
> >
> > When I wrote the above, I had no inkling that *Evolution News* had reported,
> > back on November 15, about Lee Cronin's extraordinary act of hospitality towards Tour:
> >
> > https://evolutionnews.org/2023/11/james-tour-and-lee-cronin-to-discuss-origin-of-life-at-harvard-roundtable/
> >
> > And when I did see it on Monday, I had totally forgotten that Cronin WAS
> > one of the OOL researchers whom Tour had directly challenged:
> >
> >>>>> Steve Benner, Jack Szostak, Clemens Reichert, Lee Cronin, Bruce Lipschitz, John Sutherland, Nicholas Hud, Ramana Naran Krishnamurthy, Neil Devaraj, and Matthew Pounder.
> >
> > And today, no thanks to anyone else posting to this thread, I stumbled upon what looks like
> > the recording to which I have been eagerly looking forward:
> >
> > "Dr. Lee Cronin & Dr. James Tour on Science and the Origin of Life, Cambridge Faculty Roundtable"
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GDv4f2zUus
> >
> > It's over 3 hours long, and even if I skip the preliminaries prior to the introduction, it's about two
> > and three quarter hours long. And I have a test, taken by some 25 students, to grade, so I may
> > only be able to report on the recording on Monday.
> >
> > Enjoy the reprieve. :) :)
> I hope to enjoy it indefinitely. Perhaps you could talk to comeone else
> about it instead.
> > Now, on to where I left off in my first reply to John, preceded by a bit of context:
> >
> > [Harshman:]
> >> You will probably challenge the idea that Tour is a creationist, so here
> >> in advance is the horse's mouth:
> >
> > I will not repeat my criticism of the above from the first reply,
> > but proceed directly to the documentation:
> >
> >> https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/#:~:text=Based%20upon%20my%20faith%20in,and%20a%20woman%20named%20Eve.
> >
> > A sophisticated science-based exposition, for the most part; as different from Ken Ham's "Were You There?"
> > as a Boeing 747 is from a junkyard.

> I don't recognize your characterization. Not much science there.

What's "there"? in your cherry-picked comments? Did you do the quote-mining, or did you
just copy the url from a source that had already cherry-picked from it?

Anyway, I'm sure you recognize Fred Hoyle's metaphor for the difficulty of abiogenesis.
Widely dismissed as fallacious, it has a respected modern counterpart.
Bill Rogers dotes on it, and MarkE, of all people, seems to have become
infatuated it. See the thread, "Excellent presentation by Bruce Damer and Dave Deamer"

My comments on the OP are here:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/HMw_ZoXIIOc/m/cLcxh5GNAAAJ

What emerges from the "redoubtable" Damer and Deamer is the following
picture: "Given just the right kind and placement of volcanoes, deep sea vents,
and just the right schedule of evaporation and refilling of vast pools,
life will be produced in the junkyard of oligopeptides and oligonucleides
and fatty acids and assorted minerals that were produced in the early earth."

Hey, I'm not knocking junkyards. They have tremendously useful odds and ends
if you know just where to find them and just the best place to put them.


> >> A couple of quotes:
> >
> > Even they show a sophisticated understanding:

> Sophistication, apparently, is in the eye of the beholder.

Your cherry-picking eye shows no sign of having read the whole essay.


> >> "Recall, evolution is both about the mechanism by which change occurs
> >> over time, and the theory of universal common descent.
> >
> > This is a distinction even professional biologists occasionally slip up on.
> > The so-called "theory of evolution," the Modern Synthesis (a.k.a. neo-Darwinism)
> > is really a theory of microevolution that ends in speciation, and has nothing
> > whatsoever to say about common descent.

You next indulge in false advertising:

> Not true at all.

You are moving the goalposts below, from the Modern Synthesis
to another so-called "theory" altogether:

> Way back in the Origin, Darwin had two theories:
> natural selection and branching descent. Both are theories of evolution.

The latter is not a theory, it is just another name for common descent.

> "The theory of evolution" is perhaps a misnomer. And there are in fact
> theories of evolution that go beyond speciation, though they are not
> part of the "modern synthesis". I have mentioned species selection
> frequently, though you haven't seemd interested in exploring that.

You have never described it. Back in the 2019 thread I talk about below,
you referred to Steven Stanley, but you let the matter drop.

From the fragmentary descriptions I've seen, something like the following seems
alien to the concept:

Bird species A competed with Pterosaur species A' and drove it to extinction.

Bird species B competed with Pterosaur species B' and drove it to extinction.

Bird species C competed with Pterosaur species C' and drove it to extinction.

... net result: by shortly before the end-of-Mesozoic extinction, all but one
of MANY pterosaur species known had a wingspread of at least two meters,
and many had more than double that; while the BIGGEST wingspread of
birds was 2 meters. There were oodles of small pterosaurs at the beginning
of the Cretaceous, but they were all gone before the great extinction struck.

<snip of side issue to be dealt with later>

> >> But the mechanisms are unknown
> >
> > See about microevolution above. Back in early 1979, I began a thread
> > in talk.origins,
> >
> > TOWARDS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF MACROEVOLUTION

> > https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/MAgP4bAfV40/m/XDh3HKRhBgAJ

Judging from your reaction and those who followed you, it appears that
I chose the wrong last word. It should have been MEGA-EVOLUTION.

Trouble is, I was only told of George Gaylord Simpson's word and its usage
after that thread had run its course. But it includes "superorder level selection"
as between birds and pterosaurs.


> > in which I emphasized that there was some raw material for a true theory,
> > but nobody had tried to organize it into a coherent whole.
> > The "Extended Evolutionary Theory" hasn't seemed to be successful at doing that,
> > thanks in part to it being attacked by devotees of neo-Darwinism who claim
> > that it can all be done within that theory.
> >
> > Unfortunately, I do not know enough about the following bit to comment on it.
> > Suffice it to say that it is an example of quote-mining: Tour
> > devotes a lot of space elsewhere to criticisms of the very thing
> > of which he speaks below:

> >> and the theory of universal common descent is
> >> confronted by issues of uncommonness through ENCODE and orphan gene
> >> research. And each year the evidence for uncommonness is escalating."

> Where does he defend the theory of universal common descent, on which
> this is an attack.

Clueless question. He cites others who attack the idea of uncommonness.

Read the whole essay, and stop depending on your quote mine.


Remainder deleted, to be replied to next week. Time to begin my end of week
posting break.

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

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

[John Harshman]

I'm assuming, charitably, that all that was facetious. Of course I was
referring to the entire screed that I linked to.

> Anyway, I'm sure you recognize Fred Hoyle's metaphor for the difficulty of abiogenesis.
> Widely dismissed as fallacious, it has a respected modern counterpart.
> Bill Rogers dotes on it, and MarkE, of all people, seems to have become
> infatuated it. See the thread, "Excellent presentation by Bruce Damer and Dave Deamer"

Yes, I recognize it, but I don't know what the respected modern
counterpart is, and I have no interest in following you down the rabbit
hole, thank you all the same.

> My comments on the OP are here:
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/HMw_ZoXIIOc/m/cLcxh5GNAAAJ
>
> What emerges from the "redoubtable" Damer and Deamer is the following
> picture: "Given just the right kind and placement of volcanoes, deep sea vents,
> and just the right schedule of evaporation and refilling of vast pools,
> life will be produced in the junkyard of oligopeptides and oligonucleides
> and fatty acids and assorted minerals that were produced in the early earth."
>
> Hey, I'm not knocking junkyards. They have tremendously useful odds and ends
> if you know just where to find them and just the best place to put them.
>
>
>>>> A couple of quotes:
>>>
>>> Even they show a sophisticated understanding:
>
>> Sophistication, apparently, is in the eye of the beholder.
>
> Your cherry-picking eye shows no sign of having read the whole essay.

Not really a useful reply, is it?

>>>> "Recall, evolution is both about the mechanism by which change occurs
>>>> over time, and the theory of universal common descent.
>>>
>>> This is a distinction even professional biologists occasionally slip up on.
>>> The so-called "theory of evolution," the Modern Synthesis (a.k.a. neo-Darwinism)
>>> is really a theory of microevolution that ends in speciation, and has nothing
>>> whatsoever to say about common descent.
>
> You next indulge in false advertising:
>
>> Not true at all.
>
> You are moving the goalposts below, from the Modern Synthesis
> to another so-called "theory" altogether:
>
>> Way back in the Origin, Darwin had two theories:
>> natural selection and branching descent. Both are theories of evolution.
>
> The latter is not a theory, it is just another name for common descent.

Of course it's a theory. It's a testable hypothesis that explains a
considerable body of data. Whether there are other names for the same
theory isn't relevant. And Darwin was, from what I can see, the first to
propose it seriously.

>> "The theory of evolution" is perhaps a misnomer. And there are in fact
>> theories of evolution that go beyond speciation, though they are not
>> part of the "modern synthesis". I have mentioned species selection
>> frequently, though you haven't seemd interested in exploring that.
>
> You have never described it. Back in the 2019 thread I talk about below,
> you referred to Steven Stanley, but you let the matter drop.

Did you look up his book? Obviously you didn't, but why not?

> From the fragmentary descriptions I've seen, something like the following seems
> alien to the concept:
>
> Bird species A competed with Pterosaur species A' and drove it to extinction.
>
> Bird species B competed with Pterosaur species B' and drove it to extinction.
>
> Bird species C competed with Pterosaur species C' and drove it to extinction.
>
> ... net result: by shortly before the end-of-Mesozoic extinction, all but one
> of MANY pterosaur species known had a wingspread of at least two meters,
> and many had more than double that; while the BIGGEST wingspread of
> birds was 2 meters. There were oodles of small pterosaurs at the beginning
> of the Cretaceous, but they were all gone before the great extinction struck.

No, not alien at all, though there is considerable disagreement about
what counts as species selection. Some would refer to that as something
different, "species sorting", but I would accept it as one form of
species selection.

The key, to me, is whether there is selectable variation within the
species that allows it to adapt to the competition. If not, it's species
selection. If so, regular selection.

> <snip of side issue to be dealt with later>
>
>>>> But the mechanisms are unknown
>>>
>>> See about microevolution above. Back in early 1979, I began a thread
>>> in talk.origins,
>>>
>>> TOWARDS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF MACROEVOLUTION
>
>>> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/MAgP4bAfV40/m/XDh3HKRhBgAJ
>
> Judging from your reaction and those who followed you, it appears that
> I chose the wrong last word. It should have been MEGA-EVOLUTION.

No, it's not word choice that's the problem.

> Trouble is, I was only told of George Gaylord Simpson's word and its usage
> after that thread had run its course. But it includes "superorder level selection"
> as between birds and pterosaurs.

I would suggest that, at most, this is merely a sum of several species
selection events.

>>> in which I emphasized that there was some raw material for a true theory,
>>> but nobody had tried to organize it into a coherent whole.
>>> The "Extended Evolutionary Theory" hasn't seemed to be successful at doing that,
>>> thanks in part to it being attacked by devotees of neo-Darwinism who claim
>>> that it can all be done within that theory.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, I do not know enough about the following bit to comment on it.
>>> Suffice it to say that it is an example of quote-mining: Tour
>>> devotes a lot of space elsewhere to criticisms of the very thing
>>> of which he speaks below:
>
>>>> and the theory of universal common descent is
>>>> confronted by issues of uncommonness through ENCODE and orphan gene
>>>> research. And each year the evidence for uncommonness is escalating."
>
>> Where does he defend the theory of universal common descent, on which
>> this is an attack.
>
> Clueless question. He cites others who attack the idea of uncommonness.

So he doesn't defend the theory. He mentions objections to
"uncommonness", but it's clear what he prefers. Do you in fact disagree?

> Read the whole essay, and stop depending on your quote mine.

Did you read it? I don't recognize your characterization, which seems
based on a biased reading.

[DB Cates]

???
You need to be a bit more explicit about the form of your argument.As
stated, I don't see how it reflects on my claim. In particular, it must
be part of an argument , not two independent statements.

Joe: The earth is not flat.
Bob: Joe always lies.

If Bob can back up that "always" then I should indeed believe the
opposite of what Joe says and conclude that the argument had something
to do with Pratchett's Discworld universe and that there was no ad hom
fallacy.
OTOH, if Bob meant 'often' or 'mostly' and that was backed upI would be
right to reject Joe's statement, indeed *any* statement of Joe's, but be
under no obligation to accept the opposite of what he says. I should
just not bother use him as a source of information. And in this form it
would be an ad hom ("He's a notorious liar.") fallacy (does not address
the truth or falsity of the actual claim).

[DB Cates]

My take: It's an ad hom *fallacy*.

> If an argument is made, and the (perceived) character of the
> claimant is such that one is not willing to accept the
> argument unexamined (something no one should do, even for
> the arguments/claims of purported "experts"), it's not ad
> hominem.
>

My take: that's an ad hom but NOT a *fallacy.

> Others' mileages may, of course, vary. Widely. But then,
> that's philosophy: Two philosophers, three (or more)
> opinions.
>>

--

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 15:49:44 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Lawyer Daggett
<j.nobel...@gmail.com>:

...which is precisely the point I was making. It's ad
hominem if the refutation of a claim consists of an attack
on the claimant, not that the claimant is considered to be
unreliable.

>
>Making determinations of the fact hood of some suite of claimants is non-trivial.
>Interesting aspects of the nature of termination of myriad interactions and conceptualizations
>of English vocabulary are, in many respects, fascinating. I just hope few have committed
>themselves to ad hoc study that might well require significant contributions of caregiving.

[Burkhard]

You could not have know this, but this is bound to trigger me :o) I've just finished a
paper on something closely related, on the role of apologies in law (and on whether
or not robots/AIs can apologise).

So for the purpose of my reply, I'm narrowing this down in 2 ways: First, the
sin is relevant to the assessment of trustworthiness. (so e.g. not gluttony when
the issue is "do I belief that person's claim about the speed with which they were driving?).
So I'll stick with "malign lying", i.e. lying that is intentionally harmful.

In these cases I'd say we deal with a traditional inductive inference:
A lied under condition X at time 1; A lied under condition X at time 2, A lied under
condition X at time 3 etc... The present condition Y is sufficiently similar to X,
so therefore he is probably going to lie again.

The more Y is similar to X, the stronger the inference maybe he lied always to
police (X), but never to his mother (Y) etc)

This is also the way most common law jurisdictions deal with prior
conviction evidence: normally ruled out, but one way to bring it in
is if the past deeds of the accused show a strong, relevant and unusual
pattern ("you stood before this court 5 times in the past, denying every time
that it was you who burgled the house when the owners were away on holiday,
leaving a dump on their bed but inexplicably bringing cat food for their
cat with you. Every time the DNA showed it had been you. Why should we
believe your denial this time? It is even the same cat food again! (based
on a real case))

The second assumption I make is the "confession" is public, and accompanied by an
expression of remorse.

So not e.g.: Yes, I always lie, so what, servant of the oppressor, I happily lie in
your face again if needs be...

One thing we know, with considerable empirical data to back it up, is that the confessed
sinner is trusted more than the unrepentant one with regards to current or future
conduct (important in criminal sentencing e.g. the remorseful convict is in most
jurisdictions getting either formally or informally a discount., because their statements
as to future law-abiding conduct are more likely to be believed.) There are numerous
theories about why this happens, and some disagreement if it is rational.

But that only means they score higher than unrepentant sinners, not higher than
putative non-sinners. BUT often we give a higher confidence value in our own
assessment of the repentant sinner than the non-sinner. I think what's at play there
is something like this:

A has no history of (being caught) lying. So I give them the benefit of the doubt that
they are also truthful now. But sometimes even good people succumb to temptation,
and I don't know what might tempt them. So I'm bound to give a high credibility
weighting, but a low weighting in my own confidence of this weighting.

B has a history of lying. He says as much. And it seems clear from his confession
what sort of things make him lie (and none/some/all of them were present).
Furthermore, he has recognised these temptations himself and is remorseful
about them, so chances are he'd have spotted that he is falling into bad ways again.
So I'm giving him a lower credibility score than I give A, but I'm also much more
confident that my score of B is about right.

[Lawyer Daggett]

To that I can only add this: I seriously injured my back (again) on Wed. so was bedridden
on Thurs. and Friday. Because of the boredom, I resorted to drinking absurdly large amounts
of whiskey and so was very drunk when I wrote the above. Thus I have a (feeble) excuse.
Today I hope to convince my son to renew my supply of whiskey.

[Mark Isaak]

To complicate things further, there is the whole issue of framing, which
I believe is not listed as a fallacy because there is no attempt at
reasoning involved. But lawyers (I hear) are well familiar with the
concept. Putting someone in a suit and tie makes them more trusted then
putting them in a sleeveless t-shirt and torn jeans. Asking, "How fast
was car A going when it crashed into car B?" will get a different answer
(and suggest a different scenario to the jury) than asking, "How slow
was car A going when it bumped into car B?". Simply saying, "What if
Joe is a liar?" will make him less trusted.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 2:47:01 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> On 12/6/23 7:31 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 22:10:29 -0800, the following appeared in
> > talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
> > <specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
> >
> >> On 12/5/23 12:45 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 12:36:56?PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >>>> On 11/30/23 6:46 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 9:16:53?AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ... Tour is a creationist.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The first three parts of Tour's challenge -- the parts I am really interested in --
> >>>>> have NOTHING to do with creationism, and everything to
> >>>>> do with sussing out the current level of progress in OOL.
> >>>
> >>> Looks like you were never taught the full meaning of "*ad hominem* fallacy,"
> >>> Mark.

Mark swept his blatant fallacy under the rug,
and Casanova was all too willing to ignore it in his
and Mark's subsequent general treatise on fallacies.
So were everyone else who contributed to the general treatise.

> >> Ad hominem is often not a fallacy.
> >>
> > I have to disagree. Wiki discusses it quite well:
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
> >
> > While the final paragraph in the "History" section mentions
> > some arguments to the contrary, it also notes that these
> > arguments are not widely accepted. So "often" is a
> > significant overstatement; very occasionally" might be
> > better.
> >
> > Bottom line: Ad hominem is almost universally considered to
> > be a fallacy.

> It's a logical fallacy, but in practice, in the real world, it's not
> necessarily poor evidence of a person's general competence or
> reliability.

It is in the case where I criticized Mark Isaak for it. Twice in the same post.
Do you deny this?


> "Because you're a creationist, your claims are wrong" is a
> fallacy. But "Because you're a creationist, your claims about evolution
> are very likely to be wrong" is a pretty good bet.

Unfortunately for you and Mark Isaak, Tour said NOTHING about
either religion or biological evolution -- the only things you and
Erik Simpson have banked on with your cherry-picked short quotes--
in his ca. 20 minute opening statement in the 3 hour long roundtable.

"Dr. Lee Cronin & Dr. James Tour on Science and the Origin of Life, Cambridge Faculty Roundtable"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GDv4f2zUus

Tour stuck to OOL, and his five points in his 60-day challenge
were made more clearly than before, and Lee Cronin made no effort
to undermine them in his opening statement that followed Tour's.

Nor has anyone on this thread, or earlier threads on the topic of the challenge,
tried to undermine them.

[John Harshman]

I do.

>> "Because you're a creationist, your claims are wrong" is a
>> fallacy. But "Because you're a creationist, your claims about evolution
>> are very likely to be wrong" is a pretty good bet.
>
> Unfortunately for you and Mark Isaak, Tour said NOTHING about
> either religion or biological evolution -- the only things you and
> Erik Simpson have banked on with your cherry-picked short quotes--
> in his ca. 20 minute opening statement in the 3 hour long roundtable.

What he said is not relevant to whether his being a creationist should
make us suspicious of his opinions on the origin of life. What's
relevant is in fact whether he's a creationist. And that's what the
quotes were for. And the quoted essay, taken in full, supports the claim
that he's a creationist.

> "Dr. Lee Cronin & Dr. James Tour on Science and the Origin of Life, Cambridge Faculty Roundtable"
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GDv4f2zUus
>
> Tour stuck to OOL, and his five points in his 60-day challenge
> were made more clearly than before, and Lee Cronin made no effort
> to undermine them in his opening statement that followed Tour's.
>
> Nor has anyone on this thread, or earlier threads on the topic of the challenge,
> tried to undermine them.

Not relevant to my point.

[Martin Harran]

Th

> Today I hope to convince my son to renew my supply of whiskey.

That is not a feeble excuse, it’s a perfectly good excuse.

Sore backs can be a real bitch, I hope yours is improving.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

John, before I begin, I want to talk to you about a pressing issue that transcends
all our difficulties and disagreements in dealing with each other.

Talk.origins and sci.bio.paleontology -- indeed all Usenet groups -- are threatened with extinction
due to almost everyone's reliance on Google Groups. The following announcement
appears on every GG thread:

"Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new content from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of historical data will still be supported as it is done today."

You've always avoided posting on GG and hate to even look at it.
In times past, you have even tried to persuade me to switch to Giganews.
Are you still using it to read and post? Is there any sign that it, too,
will stop supporting talk.origins, etc.?

If the answer to the last question is No, I would like to look into switching
to it before February 15, and will spread the word about it.
I know there is a monthly fee, but if that is the price we have to pay
for saving talk.origins and s.b.p. from extinction, I for one am willing to pay it.

And now, on to responding to your comments below.

We can agree to disagree on this for the rest of this week, I hope.

> >> "Because you're a creationist, your claims are wrong" is a
> >> fallacy. But "Because you're a creationist, your claims about evolution
> >> are very likely to be wrong" is a pretty good bet.
> >
> > Unfortunately for you and Mark Isaak, Tour said NOTHING about
> > either religion or biological evolution -- the only things you and
> > Erik Simpson have banked on with your cherry-picked short quotes--
> > in his ca. 20 minute opening statement in the 3 hour long roundtable.

> What he said is not relevant to whether his being a creationist should
> make us suspicious of his opinions on the origin of life.

Suspicious, sure; but if you aren't interested in learning about the
present sorry state of origin of life research, your suspicions are moot.

If you ARE interested, then it behooves you to learn about what
happened in the debate I talked about below.

> relevant is in fact whether he's a creationist. And that's what the
> quotes were for. And the quoted essay, taken in full, supports the claim
> that he's a creationist.

There's an old Hungarian saying: don't hammer on open doors.
The second cherry-picked paragraph told me that much.
I said it showed a childlike faith, but I guess that wasn't enough for you.

It's one that is poignant, too, where he says that he is like Tevye in "Fiddler on the Roof."
about the evolution of animals: "I'm afraid that if I bend that much, I will break"

But prokaryotes, which postdate OOL, and more generally plants,
are a different matter altoghether. In Genesis, on the third day,
God is depicted as saying, "Let the earth bring forth plants..."
and then we are told, "The earth brought forth plants."

When it comes the turn of fish and birds, God also says
"Let the earth bring forth..." but with a crucial difference:
It says "God made..."

So I think Tour is free to believe whatever he wants
about the causes of OOL. In the dinner conversation that followed
his and Cronin's opening remarks, he even seemed to say just that.
Tomorrow I will find that part of the video and transcribe it here.

> > "Dr. Lee Cronin & Dr. James Tour on Science and the Origin of Life, Cambridge Faculty Roundtable"
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GDv4f2zUus
> >
> > Tour stuck to OOL, and his five points in his 60-day challenge
> > were made more clearly than before, and Lee Cronin made no effort
> > to undermine them in his opening statement that followed Tour's.
> >
> > Nor has anyone on this thread, or earlier threads on the topic of the challenge,
> > tried to undermine them.

> Not relevant to my point.

I accepted your point immediately on reading the second paragraph you displayed.

It's time to move on.

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

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

[John Harshman]

On 12/14/23 7:02 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> John, before I begin, I want to talk to you about a pressing issue that transcends
> all our difficulties and disagreements in dealing with each other.
>
> Talk.origins and sci.bio.paleontology -- indeed all Usenet groups -- are threatened with extinction
> due to almost everyone's reliance on Google Groups. The following announcement
> appears on every GG thread:
>
> "Effective February 15, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new content from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of historical data will still be supported as it is done today."
>
> You've always avoided posting on GG and hate to even look at it.
> In times past, you have even tried to persuade me to switch to Giganews.
> Are you still using it to read and post? Is there any sign that it, too,
> will stop supporting talk.origins, etc.?

I'm still using it and I've seen no signs that it will stop.

> If the answer to the last question is No, I would like to look into switching
> to it before February 15, and will spread the word about it.
> I know there is a monthly fee, but if that is the price we have to pay
> for saving talk.origins and s.b.p. from extinction, I for one am willing to pay it.

There are plenty of other options, but I haven't explored them.

I'm happy to agree that we disagree.

>>>> "Because you're a creationist, your claims are wrong" is a
>>>> fallacy. But "Because you're a creationist, your claims about evolution
>>>> are very likely to be wrong" is a pretty good bet.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately for you and Mark Isaak, Tour said NOTHING about
>>> either religion or biological evolution -- the only things you and
>>> Erik Simpson have banked on with your cherry-picked short quotes--
>>> in his ca. 20 minute opening statement in the 3 hour long roundtable.
>
>> What he said is not relevant to whether his being a creationist should
>> make us suspicious of his opinions on the origin of life.
>
> Suspicious, sure; but if you aren't interested in learning about the
> present sorry state of origin of life research, your suspicions are moot.

I'm not in fact all that interested in origin of life.

> If you ARE interested, then it behooves you to learn about what
> happened in the debate I talked about below.
>
>
>> relevant is in fact whether he's a creationist. And that's what the
>> quotes were for. And the quoted essay, taken in full, supports the claim
>> that he's a creationist.
>
> There's an old Hungarian saying: don't hammer on open doors.
> The second cherry-picked paragraph told me that much.
> I said it showed a childlike faith, but I guess that wasn't enough for you.
>
> It's one that is poignant, too, where he says that he is like Tevye in "Fiddler on the Roof."
> about the evolution of animals: "I'm afraid that if I bend that much, I will break"
>
> But prokaryotes, which postdate OOL, and more generally plants,
> are a different matter altoghether. In Genesis, on the third day,
> God is depicted as saying, "Let the earth bring forth plants..."
> and then we are told, "The earth brought forth plants."
>
> When it comes the turn of fish and birds, God also says
> "Let the earth bring forth..." but with a crucial difference:
> It says "God made..."
>
> So I think Tour is free to believe whatever he wants
> about the causes of OOL. In the dinner conversation that followed
> his and Cronin's opening remarks, he even seemed to say just that.
> Tomorrow I will find that part of the video and transcribe it here.

I have no idea what you think you just said here. What's clear (the only
clear thing) is that you've left out a great deal of what was going on
in your head. And for me, leaving that out makes your notions
disconnected and incomprehensible.

>>> "Dr. Lee Cronin & Dr. James Tour on Science and the Origin of Life, Cambridge Faculty Roundtable"
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GDv4f2zUus
>>>
>>> Tour stuck to OOL, and his five points in his 60-day challenge
>>> were made more clearly than before, and Lee Cronin made no effort
>>> to undermine them in his opening statement that followed Tour's.
>>>
>>> Nor has anyone on this thread, or earlier threads on the topic of the challenge,
>>> tried to undermine them.
>
>> Not relevant to my point.
>
> I accepted your point immediately on reading the second paragraph you displayed.

Your habit of hinting and sidling around your points made it hard to tell.

> It's time to move on.

Sure. Where to? Could you try posting as if you're talking to other
people who don't already know what you're going to say, and as if those
people can't figure it out from subtle, cryptic hints?

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Next week will be a different story. It will include his two fallacies,
which are missing above.

> I'm happy to agree that we disagree.
> >>>> "Because you're a creationist, your claims are wrong" is a
> >>>> fallacy. But "Because you're a creationist, your claims about evolution
> >>>> are very likely to be wrong" is a pretty good bet.
> >>>
> >>> Unfortunately for you and Mark Isaak, Tour said NOTHING about
> >>> either religion or biological evolution -- the only things you and
> >>> Erik Simpson have banked on with your cherry-picked short quotes--
> >>> in his ca. 20 minute opening statement in the 3 hour long roundtable.
> >
> >> What he said is not relevant to whether his being a creationist should
> >> make us suspicious of his opinions on the origin of life.
> >
> > Suspicious, sure; but if you aren't interested in learning about the
> > present sorry state of origin of life research, your suspicions are moot.

> I'm not in fact all that interested in origin of life.

Are you at all interested in science for the sake of science?
I am, completely. You only seem to be interested in paleontology
for the sake of
(a) paleontology and
(b) posting distorted negative claims about Feduccia and other "BANDITS"
by the likes of Darren Naish and Prum, along with your own attacks on Feduccia, etc.

Strangely enough, you seem supremely uninterested in using your knowledge of paleontology
to debate creationists. You never lifted a finger to support me when I argued
about the evolution of feathers with Dr. Dr. Kleinman, yet ornithology is your specialty
and Prum has a feather evolution hypothesis he is known widely for.

I even adopted, for the sake of argument, that birds are theropods.
The only thing on which you supported me against Kleinman was
the off-topic theme of what a poor "vanity press" magazine
he had published his last essay on.


Remainder deleted, to be replied to next week. I'm still taking the weekends off
from posting, but that may change as we approach the fateful February 15.

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

Univ. of South Carolina in Columbia, SC
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[erik simpson]

On 12/14/23 7:02 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

FYI, Thunderbird can be configured to use Eternal September as well as
giganews, and it's free. Thunderbird is quite versatile and has an
adaptive junk filter that can reduce or eliminate garbage.

Merry Christmas!

[John Harshman]

Yes, since you ask.

> I am, completely. You only seem to be interested in paleontology
> for the sake of
> (a) paleontology and
> (b) posting distorted negative claims about Feduccia and other "BANDITS"
> by the likes of Darren Naish and Prum, along with your own attacks on Feduccia, etc.

And now you abandon the subject in favor of old and imagined grievances.
Ain't nothing distorted about it, and, if I can return the mind-reading
favor, you only like Feduccia because he rejects cladistic analysis.

> Strangely enough, you seem supremely uninterested in using your knowledge of paleontology
> to debate creationists. You never lifted a finger to support me when I argued
> about the evolution of feathers with Dr. Dr. Kleinman, yet ornithology is your specialty
> and Prum has a feather evolution hypothesis he is known widely for.

You never argued with Kleinman. You argued *at* him. It takes two to
have an argument, and Kleinman never responded except with his canned
one-liners. I see no reason to support an exercise in futility.

> I even adopted, for the sake of argument, that birds are theropods.
> The only thing on which you supported me against Kleinman was
> the off-topic theme of what a poor "vanity press" magazine
> he had published his last essay on.

You're welcome?

> Remainder deleted, to be replied to next week. I'm still taking the weekends off
> from posting, but that may change as we approach the fateful February 15.

You could save effort if you eliminated the digressive listing of
grievances that makes up most of your posting. Then you wouldn't have to
say "remainder deleted".

[DB Cates]

I also use Thunderbird, but with Solani as a free source. (Eternal
September as a backup)

[jillery]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2023 11:29:50 -0600, DB Cates <cate...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>>>>> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 2:47:01?PM UTC-5, John Harshman

Good advice. ES is still delaying/dropping posts for no apparent
reason.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 07:13:28 -0500
jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Dec 2023 11:29:50 -0600, DB Cates <cate...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On 2023-12-15 9:41 PM, erik simpson wrote:
> >> On 12/14/23 7:02 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

[irrelevant part snipped]

> >> FYI, Thunderbird can be configured to use Eternal September as well as
> >> giganews, and it's free.  Thunderbird is quite versatile and has an
> >> adaptive junk filter that can reduce or eliminate garbage.
> >>
> >> Merry Christmas!
> >>
> >I also use Thunderbird, but with Solani as a free source. (Eternal
> >September as a backup)
>
>
> Good advice. ES is still delaying/dropping posts for no apparent
> reason.

AIUI it's due to Mr Banana trying to get his google filtering right.

Luckily google themselves will "solve" this next year.


Look how much easier this is to read now.




--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[erik simpson]

I've just been using ES for a couple of days. Have to noticed any
messages dropped recently. I've seen messages arriving in bunches;
that's probably the dalays. Dropped messages are harder to understand.

[erik simpson]

Amen! to that last thought. A click, and Signor Laureti is gone (to
Mars, I suppose0.

[jillery]

One way to notice dropped posts is to see replies to posts you don't
see. One way to notice delayed posts is to compare header dates to
delivered dates. Of course, these things are irrelevant to those who
insist ES works "just fine".

[erik simpson]

So far so good. We'll see.

[jillery]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 20:50:42 -0800, erik simpson

One can only hope.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 20:50:42 -0800

erik simpson <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 12/17/23 7:34 PM, jillery wrote:
> > On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 08:16:13 -0800, erik simpson
> > <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >

[snipped again]

> >> I've just been using ES for a couple of days. Have to noticed any
> >> messages dropped recently. I've seen messages arriving in bunches;
> >> that's probably the dalays. Dropped messages are harder to understand.
> >
> >
> > One way to notice dropped posts is to see replies to posts you don't
> > see. One way to notice delayed posts is to compare header dates to
> > delivered dates. Of course, these things are irrelevant to those who
> > insist ES works "just fine".
> >
> > --
> > To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
> >
> So far so good. We'll see.
>

I thought you'd agreed with me that shorter, relevant posts were better?

[Lawyer Daggett]

On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 9:27:04 AM UTC-5, Burkhard wrote:
> On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 7:27:03 PM UTC+1, Lawyer Daggett wrote:

> . . . B has a history of lying. . . .

I'm going to leave this here
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=QbK_PLUS_LJnXDL9v6FtzC9ofmw==

It has a political tinge to it but also has some nice practical examples of how
being a documented liar can have an impact. Yes, it drifts afield but it's still
rather funny if you can read a legal finding and laugh.

[erik simpson]

On 12/17/23 7:34 PM, jillery wrote:

Eternal September let me down. I'm on solani now...

[jillery]

On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 16:43:24 -0800, erik simpson

That's ok, nobody's perfekt.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

I'm sorry to be so late in responding, Öö . These last two weeks
were almost completely taken with preparing, and then grading,
final exams, along with some family obligations.

Today is my last day this year for posting, but I hope we can pick up this OOL theme
when I return from my break. It has a timelessness that personal comments lack.

On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 1:37:02 PM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Wednesday 6 December 2023 at 22:27:01 UTC+2, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 4:47:00 AM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:


> > > For me the issue is not what words Tour says but what he has done.
> >
> > So, aren't you interested in what we know and do not know about
> > the origins of life? Specifically, life as we know it, based on protein enzymes.
> >
> > This is what makes OOL so fascinating for me: the Central Doctrine
> > of the biochemistry of life as we know it is that information passes from nucleotides
> > to polypeptides (which are either proteins or the main ingredients of proteins)
> > but almost no information passes in the opposite direction.
> >
> Yes, and so all peptides used in life are of rather limited set of possible
> peptide space.

And the ribozymes of which we know are a far more limited set. The ones
I talk about here have vanished, supplanted by protein enzymes,
yet they were indispensable for getting life as we know it started.

>That highly likely makes the choices taken (and solutions
> built from such choices) suboptimal. Proteins are still remarkably better
> than ribozymes even as only rather narrow subset of the full potential is
> used.

What is your basis for this comparison? The ribosome is a ribozyme together with
a lot of "helper" proteins, but it can do its essential work [albeit less efficiently]
without them. As for the others I talk about next, we have no idea where
they lie in "polynucleotide" space.


> > To make a long story short, all paths from simple chemicals to life as we know it
> > seem to have to pass through the bottleneck of a ribozyme RNA replicase.
> > I described this concept to Erik Simpson earlier on this thread, but
> > no one here seems to be interested in trying to find another kind of path.

> RdRp and DdRp are available in protein form. I agree that ribozyme RdRp feels
> most logical to have for to go from RNA world to RNA + protein world.
> Protein RdRp we have and it is likely more efficient and robust than ribozyme
> RdRp but obviously could not be there before proteins themselves.

Yes, it requires a very high fidelity genetic code to produce the necessary protein enzymes.
Before then, a DNA genome is probably indispensable. Without knowing what the RdRp ribozymes
are like, we cannot be sure how easy or how hard it is to have mutations to a transcriptase or
reverse transcriptase or DNA replicase -- all necessarily ribozymes before their protein
counterparts have a chance of being produced in abundance.

> > And now comes the punch line: nobody, not even Lee Cronin, the "opponent" of Tour in the
> > debate, has the foggiest idea what ribozyme replicase (either for RNA or DNA, by the way)
> > might look like. By this I mean: what on earth might the sequence of nucleotides making it up be?
> >
> OK I see the only issue is we now do not have any ribozyme RdRp.

It's a huge one, make no mistake.


> But that is logical as even "more modern" protein RdRp is only yet there in some viruses.

Or lost in organisms, being no longer necessary for them. DNA replicase and transcriptase
to RNA are all that we need now, apparently, with mutations taking place in the DNA genomes
of both nuclei and endosymbionts (including mitochondria and chloroplasts).


> So what is the anticipated barrier to existence of ribozyme RdRp before its
> protein competitor emerged?

It's a bit like "lifting yourself up by the bootstraps." Without high fidelity replicators
to start with, how could any promising nucleotide sequence avoid getting degraded
by mutations to "junk RNA" or, at best, something not on a path towards a true replicase?

> Peptides could evolve with ribozyme RdRp forming protein RdRp that competed ribozyme RdRp out.

How do you replicate a polypeptide? We have nothing that does that directly, not even
in viruses, otherwise some kinds could replicate without host cell ribosomes -- unheard of!

> There must be some
> issue on that trajectory I don't see.

Don't forget the Central Dogma of which I wrote above. Its twin is that genetic
information does not flow from one polypeptide to another.


Below, we revert to talking about James Tour, after which you got speculative about AI.
Due to shortness of time, I'll defer any comment I make to after my break.

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

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

PS One last question: have you started looking at the 3+ hour video I talked about below?


> > > Tour has record of challenges. With Tour there will be conditions and
> > > inconveniences with such challenges.

> > Why don't you confine yourself to this latest one? This is the
> > one that a mainstream OOL researcher took seriously enough
> > to result in an amazing debate.
> >
> > Who cares about the ones where Tour's opponents were incompetent and/or clowns?
> >
> I did totally disappoint in him when he washed floor with "professor" Dave.
> That proved to me that it is political show only, and that is what is Tour's
> goal.
> > > "Challenges" themselves are for
> > > show, but whoever accepts those just gets nothing, even no right to
> > > record:
> > > “It shall not be recorded or extend beyond the three of us as this is
> > > not for show but for my edification.”
> > This one was not only recorded, the YouTube recording lasts for over
> > three hours, and I haven't had the time yet to go over the final hour.
> > > <https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/professor-james-tour-accepts-nick-matzkes-offer-to-explain-macroevolution/>
> > >
> > > Why should they then do it if they get nothing? Or what "reward" is that
> > > Tour erases his youtube channel?
> > He won't have the power to erase this one:
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GDv4f2zUus
> >
> > It's part of a prestigious series, with Harvard University hosting.
> >
> I try to find time to listen it at weekend (or to read the subtitles). Thanks.
> > > YouTube is not getting less full of
> > > BS. It is nothing like million of dollars that late James Randi offered
> > > for any paranormal or supernatural evidence whatsoever in his challenge.
> >
> > The origin of life is arguably the most difficult unsolved problem in all the
> > physical sciences. The origin of the cell is far more complicated than the evolution
> > of stars. Astrophysicists have been able to deduce what goes on in stars, depending
> > on where they started on the Herzprung-Russel main sequence.
> > Our sun will leave it before getting any further than carbon in producing heavier elements,
> > and will quickly become a white dwarf after that.
> >
> Oh who knows, we can not even figure out origin of petroleum. It is often located
> twice deeper than any organic sediment is (and so any fossil can be). Or may be
> there was (still is?) some kind of deep underground life? But I am rather
> convinced that manufacturing more potent than our own life-like technologies is
> coming soon anyway or already undergoing. With advance of nanotechnology and
> billions pumped into it each year it is highly likely that we have superior
> to our own biochemistry nanotechnology available soon.
> > The biggest stars can go all the way to iron, then suffer core collapse,
> > then become supernovas, producing all the remaining naturally occurring elements
> > in an unimaginably spectacular chain of reactions, then collapse either into a neutron star or a black hole.
> >
> > Along the way, they will first undergo a "hydrogen flash" while burning helium in earnest, then when
> > the helium is badly depleted, they will undergo a "helium flash". Both happen deep
> > inside, and no one has observed these and many other things
> > which they have deduced simply on well established theoretical grounds.
> >
> > But life is far too complicated for biologists to be good at the theory of its origins to the
> > same spectacular extent -- or even to a much less spectacular extent.
> >
> Issue is that whatever was OOL the result of it advanced in so pitifully sluggish
> pace that the study figuring it out is doomed to bring no economic benefits.
> At same time we have clearly done quite a step ahead in manufacturing
> mental singularities and not even hiding that. We can't yet figure what is economic
> effect of those (besides that it will be extensive).
>
> On worst cases ... within few decades there will be (A) large-scale battle between
> various grey goos controlled by various SkyNets by what current biochemistry including
> ourselves is either (A.1) already thrown aside as worthless or (A.2) kept still in role
> of curiously inferior pets or (B) whatever gods there supposedly exist and sometimes
> intervene stop hiding and (B.1) erase and forbid making SkyNets, (B.2) welcome
> SkyNets and teach them what are the next rules of game.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

This is the last post I do before my annual posting break begins.
It is my second reply to this Harshman post.

On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 11:52:09 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> On 12/14/23 7:02 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip of things talked about in first reply>

> > On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 3:32:09 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 12/13/23 5:50 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:


> >>> Unfortunately for you and Mark Isaak, Tour said NOTHING about
> >>> either religion or biological evolution -- the only things you and
> >>> Erik Simpson have banked on with your cherry-picked short quotes--
> >>> in his ca. 20 minute opening statement in the 3 hour long roundtable.
> >
> >> What he said is not relevant to whether his being a creationist should
> >> make us suspicious of his opinions on the origin of life.
> >
> > Suspicious, sure; but if you aren't interested in learning about the
> > present sorry state of origin of life research, your suspicions are moot.

> I'm not in fact all that interested in origin of life.

Seems like Mr. Tiib is the only one here besides me who is interested in
exploring the science behind it. I suspect it is because, like me but unlike you and Athel
and Mark Isaak and Daggett and jillery, he has no dog in this fight.

> >> relevant is in fact whether he's a creationist. And that's what the
> >> quotes were for. And the quoted essay, taken in full, supports the claim
> >> that he's a creationist.
> >
> > There's an old Hungarian saying: don't hammer on open doors.
> > The second cherry-picked paragraph told me that much.
> > I said it showed a childlike faith, but I guess that wasn't enough for you.
> >
> > It's one that is poignant, too, where he says that he is like Tevye in "Fiddler on the Roof."
> > about the evolution of animals: "I'm afraid that if I bend that much, I will break"
> >
> > But prokaryotes, which postdate OOL, and more generally plants,
> > are a different matter altoghether. In Genesis, on the third day,
> > God is depicted as saying, "Let the earth bring forth plants..."
> > and then we are told, "The earth brought forth plants."
> >
> > When it comes the turn of fish and birds, God also says
> > "Let the earth bring forth..." but with a crucial difference:
> > It says "God made..."
> >
> > So I think Tour is free to believe whatever he wants
> > about the causes of OOL. In the dinner conversation that followed
> > his and Cronin's opening remarks, he even seemed to say just that.

> > Tomorrow I will find that part of the video and transcribe it here. [1]

After these ordinary and perfectly intelligible English comments,
you revert to a perennial farce of yours, with a heavy dose of
gaslighting to boot.

> I have no idea what you think you just said here. What's clear (the only
> clear thing) is that you've left out a great deal of what was going on
> in your head. And for me, leaving that out makes your notions
> disconnected and incomprehensible.

Years of experience with this "you aren't clear" farce of yours lead to the
conclusion that a detailed explanation of what I had written above
is the last thing you want to see, and that you are fishing for
things that have nothing to do with the words I wrote.

But, in the unlikely event that I am wrong, I will elaborate on the above comments
when I return in January.


[1] Alas, turning in final grades for my two courses took precedence,
and getting to that point took a lot more work than expected. But
I will resume this theme in January.

> >>> "Dr. Lee Cronin & Dr. James Tour on Science and the Origin of Life, Cambridge Faculty Roundtable"
> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GDv4f2zUus
> >>>
> >>> Tour stuck to OOL, and his five points in his 60-day challenge
> >>> were made more clearly than before, and Lee Cronin made no effort
> >>> to undermine them in his opening statement that followed Tour's.
> >>>
> >>> Nor has anyone on this thread, or earlier threads on the topic of the challenge,
> >>> tried to undermine them.
> >
> >> Not relevant to my point.
> >
> > I accepted your point immediately on reading the second paragraph you displayed.

> Your habit of hinting and sidling around your points made it hard to tell.

The baseless allegation that I have this kind of habit makes this sentence another
bit of gaslighting, and another instance of your perennial farce.

> > It's time to move on.

> Sure. Where to?

To on-topic discussion; if not on OOL, then an analysis of Tour's attitude
towards OOL versus his attitude towards Biblical creationism, free
of all dismissal of him on the grounds of his being a creationist.

Instead of such movings-on, you instead reveal below how hypocritical you are every
time you plead with me to get back to on-topic discussion when you or
one of your pals is in the hot seat and you see no way to clearly win
that particular argument.

> Could you try posting as if you're talking to other
> people who don't already know what you're going to say, and as if those
> people can't figure it out from subtle, cryptic hints?

There you go again.

It's been a while since you've indulged in this farce of yours.
Had I brought it up out of the blue at some point, you
would have had some reason to accuse me of "holding a grudge"
and giving me the schoolmarmish/KGB style reprimand that
it isn't healthy to be that way. You did that to me a few weeks ago on a different topic, remember?

But it is clear that you can't change your "stripes" any more than
a tiger can, as the old saying goes. You just don't make it clear
that you've never let go of them.


Peter Nyikos

PS Don't think I am devoid of Christmas spirit. I had a nice exchange with
your sidekick Erik Simpson, and with him I am following Hemidactylus's
advice to call a truce for the season. But Christmas means nothing to a
person like you, who think God and a life after death are fairy tales
that normal adults need to grow out of.

[John Harshman]

On 12/22/23 7:33 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> This is the last post I do before my annual posting break begins.
> It is my second reply to this Harshman post.
>
> On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 11:52:09 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 12/14/23 7:02 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip of things talked about in first reply>
>
>>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 3:32:09 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 12/13/23 5:50 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>>>> Unfortunately for you and Mark Isaak, Tour said NOTHING about
>>>>> either religion or biological evolution -- the only things you and
>>>>> Erik Simpson have banked on with your cherry-picked short quotes--
>>>>> in his ca. 20 minute opening statement in the 3 hour long roundtable.
>>>
>>>> What he said is not relevant to whether his being a creationist should
>>>> make us suspicious of his opinions on the origin of life.
>>>
>>> Suspicious, sure; but if you aren't interested in learning about the
>>> present sorry state of origin of life research, your suspicions are moot.
>
>> I'm not in fact all that interested in origin of life.
>
> Seems like Mr. Tiib is the only one here besides me who is interested in
> exploring the science behind it. I suspect it is because, like me but unlike you and Athel
> and Mark Isaak and Daggett and jillery, he has no dog in this fight.

What fight?

>>>> relevant is in fact whether he's a creationist. And that's what the
>>>> quotes were for. And the quoted essay, taken in full, supports the claim
>>>> that he's a creationist.
>>>
>>> There's an old Hungarian saying: don't hammer on open doors.
>>> The second cherry-picked paragraph told me that much.
>>> I said it showed a childlike faith, but I guess that wasn't enough for you.
>>>
>>> It's one that is poignant, too, where he says that he is like Tevye in "Fiddler on the Roof."
>>> about the evolution of animals: "I'm afraid that if I bend that much, I will break"
>>>
>>> But prokaryotes, which postdate OOL, and more generally plants,
>>> are a different matter altoghether. In Genesis, on the third day,
>>> God is depicted as saying, "Let the earth bring forth plants..."
>>> and then we are told, "The earth brought forth plants."
>>>
>>> When it comes the turn of fish and birds, God also says
>>> "Let the earth bring forth..." but with a crucial difference:
>>> It says "God made..."
>>>
>>> So I think Tour is free to believe whatever he wants
>>> about the causes of OOL. In the dinner conversation that followed
>>> his and Cronin's opening remarks, he even seemed to say just that.
>
>>> Tomorrow I will find that part of the video and transcribe it here. [1]
>
> After these ordinary and perfectly intelligible English comments,
> you revert to a perennial farce of yours, with a heavy dose of
> gaslighting to boot.

You have no comprehension of what I do.

>> I have no idea what you think you just said here. What's clear (the only
>> clear thing) is that you've left out a great deal of what was going on
>> in your head. And for me, leaving that out makes your notions
>> disconnected and incomprehensible.
>
> Years of experience with this "you aren't clear" farce of yours lead to the
> conclusion that a detailed explanation of what I had written above
> is the last thing you want to see, and that you are fishing for
> things that have nothing to do with the words I wrote.

No comprehension whatsoever.

> But, in the unlikely event that I am wrong, I will elaborate on the above comments
> when I return in January.

Unlikely. You have forgotten many threads that you have promised to
reply to and many others that you haven't.

> [1] Alas, turning in final grades for my two courses took precedence,
> and getting to that point took a lot more work than expected. But
> I will resume this theme in January.
>
>
>>>>> "Dr. Lee Cronin & Dr. James Tour on Science and the Origin of Life, Cambridge Faculty Roundtable"
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GDv4f2zUus
>>>>>
>>>>> Tour stuck to OOL, and his five points in his 60-day challenge
>>>>> were made more clearly than before, and Lee Cronin made no effort
>>>>> to undermine them in his opening statement that followed Tour's.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nor has anyone on this thread, or earlier threads on the topic of the challenge,
>>>>> tried to undermine them.
>>>
>>>> Not relevant to my point.
>>>
>>> I accepted your point immediately on reading the second paragraph you displayed.
>
>> Your habit of hinting and sidling around your points made it hard to tell.
>
> The baseless allegation that I have this kind of habit makes this sentence another
> bit of gaslighting, and another instance of your perennial farce.

You are incapable of self-reflection. That much is clear.

>>> It's time to move on.
>
>> Sure. Where to?
>
> To on-topic discussion; if not on OOL, then an analysis of Tour's attitude
> towards OOL versus his attitude towards Biblical creationism, free
> of all dismissal of him on the grounds of his being a creationist.

Why doesn't that deserve dismissal? Can aa creationist be credible on
such subjects?

> Instead of such movings-on, you instead reveal below how hypocritical you are every
> time you plead with me to get back to on-topic discussion when you or
> one of your pals is in the hot seat and you see no way to clearly win
> that particular argument.

No such thing occurs or has ever occurred. For one thing, your judgment
of when, if ever, you put anyone in the hot seat is not reliable.

> > Could you try posting as if you're talking to other
>> people who don't already know what you're going to say, and as if those
>> people can't figure it out from subtle, cryptic hints?
>
> There you go again.
>
> It's been a while since you've indulged in this farce of yours.
> Had I brought it up out of the blue at some point, you
> would have had some reason to accuse me of "holding a grudge"
> and giving me the schoolmarmish/KGB style reprimand that
> it isn't healthy to be that way. You did that to me a few weeks ago on a different topic, remember?

I am in awe of "schoolmarmish/KGB". It's also fascinating that here, in
response to a complaint about your cryptic hints, you serve up another
cryptic hint.

> But it is clear that you can't change your "stripes" any more than
> a tiger can, as the old saying goes. You just don't make it clear
> that you've never let go of them.

Not sure what my stripes are in this analogy. Another cryptic hint.

> Peter Nyikos
>
> PS Don't think I am devoid of Christmas spirit. I had a nice exchange with
> your sidekick Erik Simpson, and with him I am following Hemidactylus's
> advice to call a truce for the season. But Christmas means nothing to a
> person like you, who think God and a life after death are fairy tales
> that normal adults need to grow out of.

You don't believe in either God or a life after death, right? Last I
heard, you were 90% certain that they didn't exist. What in fact does
Christmas mean to you?

Is there something wrong with being an atheist?

[erik simpson]

For amusement's sake I played this exchange through ChatGPT. Amazement
followed. ChatGPT's analysis is pretty accurate. Used on some of
Peter's other recent contributions made them more understandable than
the original. I might try it on some of my deathless prose.

[John Harshman]

Please do elaborate. What was the analysis? What did it do?

[erik simpson]

Register with ChatGPT, it's free and very easy to use.

[John Harshman]

I would prefer not to.

[erik simpson]

Good chioce. ChatGTP has clammed up since yesterday. Here's what is
says of the above:

"Of course, using ChatGPT can provide insights or alternative
interpretations of complex conversations. However, if you're not
inclined to register with ChatGPT or utilize its services, that's
entirely your choice.

If you have any specific questions or need assistance with something
else, feel free to ask. I'm here to help!"

My original opinion of ChatGPT has been restored: it's a sloppy parrot.

[erik simpson]

And you're right not to. ChatGPT no longer displays what it did
yesterday. My original opinion of ChatGPT is restored. It produces
nothing of interest except for students trying to fake a term paper.

[erik simpson]

[erik simpson]

[jillery]

On Sat, 23 Dec 2023 21:35:55 -0800, erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 12/23/23 5:18 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 12/23/23 10:34 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>> On 12/23/23 10:16 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 12/23/23 9:22 AM, erik simpson wrote:
>>>>> On 12/22/23 10:31 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/22/23 7:33 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> This is the last post I do before my annual posting break begins.
>>>>>>> It is  my second reply to this Harshman post.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 11:52:09?PM UTC-5, John Harshman

>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/14/23 7:02 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip of things talked about in first reply>
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 3:32:09?PM UTC-5, John

You seem to be having problems with GG too. Methinks the Usenet Gods
are angry with you.

[erik simpson]

They seem to be.

[Jim Bozley]

I gave it a shot:

https://chat.openai.com/share/9c4655cc-4347-4720-8fe9-dad95eca247b

[John Harshman]

Not bad. It gets one thing wrong: Peter doesn't criticize me for failing
to understand his points. He criticizes me for pretending not to
understand his points.