Origin of Life Thingies
Julie Thomas
Here are some interesting excerpts from a recent article in the New York
Times.
>The New York Times, April 6, 1999, Tuesday, Science Desk
>HEADLINE: Inside The Cell, Experts See Life's Origin
>BYLINE: By NICHOLAS WADE
>Gerald F. Joyce of the Scripps Research Institute and Leslie E. Orgel
>of the Salk Institute write in "The RNA World" that they believe the
>appearance of small RNA molecules "would have been a near miracle."
>Thomas R. Cech, an RNA expert at the University of Colorado, said in an
>interview that RNA "is far too complex to have been the first
>self-replicating molecule, as if it emerged like Athena from Zeus's
>head."
>Both Dr. Cech and Dr. Orgel, a leading authority on the origin of
>life, suggest that there was a pre-RNA world, in which the starring role
>was played by some other self-replicating, catalytic molecule.
Very interesting. It appears that in order to explain the origin of life
without reference to design, we not only need an imaginary RNA
World, but now we have to add an imaginary pre-RNA world. At
this rate, in the next ten years, we'll probably have to add an
imaginary pre-pre-RNA World.
>"If you want DNA-like double helices, there are probably scores" of
>molecules that would serve as genetic systems, Dr. Orgel said. "It
>raises the question of why we have RNA and DNA instead of others that
>are equally good."
Indeed! What leads me to be so skeptical of abiogenesis is not
the problem of coming up with complexity, but the problem of
specificity and why it is that *our* biochemical reality exists.
>The concept of the RNA world is also unproven in its central
>assertion, that an RNA molecule could catalyze its own replication. The
>natural RNA catalysts found today sponsor quite simple chemical
>reactions. Chemists like David P. Bartel of the Whitehead Institute in
>Cambridge, Mass., have been trying to construct RNA molecules with a
>more extensive repertoire. Some RNA's show promising behavior such as
>being able to copy a short stretch of another RNA. But that is a far cry
>from a self-copying molecule.
>"No one has come close to getting a self-replicating RNA," Dr. Bartel
>said. "It's a long road. It would be exciting to get an RNA that can
>copy a complete turn of the helix."
This is important to keep in mind given that many abiogenesis apologists
speak as if self-replicating ribozymes exist.
>In a foreword to the first edition of "The RNA World," written when
>the oldest known fossils were a mere 3.6 billion years old, Dr. Crick
>said that the available window "leaves an astonishingly short time to
>get life started." He also noted that the three kingdoms of early life
>-- bacteria, the bacteria-like microbes known as archaea, and the plant
>and animal kingdom -- "seem a very long distance from their hypothetical
>common ancestor."
>Dr. Crick then proposed that life might have started elsewhere in the
>universe, maybe on a planet whose chemical environment was more
>conducive to the genesis of life than was Earth's. The three kingdoms
>might represent the survivors of an assortment of microbes sent to
>colonize distant planets.
My, my. When my line of thinking is not too different from a Nobel
laureate like Francis Crick, things are lookin' up. ;)
--
Mark Isaak
Julie Thomas <iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> wrote:
>Very interesting. It appears that in order to explain the origin of life
>without reference to design, we not only need an imaginary RNA
>World, but now we have to add an imaginary pre-RNA world.
May I remind you that you imagine a pre-RNA world yourself, and you
populate it something more complex than self-replicating molecules.
--
Mark Isaak atta @ best.com http://www.best.com/~atta
"My determination is not to remain stubbornly with my ideas but
I'll leave them and go over to others as soon as I am shown
plausible reason which I can grasp." - Antony Leeuwenhoek
Tim DeLaney
>
> Here are some interesting excerpts from a recent article in the New York
> Times.
>
> >The New York Times, April 6, 1999, Tuesday, Science Desk
> >HEADLINE: Inside The Cell, Experts See Life's Origin
> >BYLINE: By NICHOLAS WADE
>
> >Gerald F. Joyce of the Scripps Research Institute and Leslie E. Orgel
> >of the Salk Institute write in "The RNA World" that they believe the
> >appearance of small RNA molecules "would have been a near miracle."
> >Thomas R. Cech, an RNA expert at the University of Colorado, said in an
> >interview that RNA "is far too complex to have been the first
> >self-replicating molecule, as if it emerged like Athena from Zeus's
> >head."
>
> >Both Dr. Cech and Dr. Orgel, a leading authority on the origin of
> >life, suggest that there was a pre-RNA world, in which the starring role
> >was played by some other self-replicating, catalytic molecule.
>
> without reference to design, we not only need an imaginary RNA
And, not too different from Peter's, either. :-)
--
Tim DeLaney
Dave Cox
iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie Thomas) wrote:
>
>
> Here are some interesting excerpts from a recent article in the New York
> Times.
>
> >The New York Times, April 6, 1999, Tuesday, Science Desk
> >HEADLINE: Inside The Cell, Experts See Life's Origin
> >BYLINE: By NICHOLAS WADE
>
> >Gerald F. Joyce of the Scripps Research Institute and Leslie E. Orgel
> >of the Salk Institute write in "The RNA World" that they believe the
> >appearance of small RNA molecules "would have been a near miracle."
> >Thomas R. Cech, an RNA expert at the University of Colorado, said in an
> >interview that RNA "is far too complex to have been the first
> >self-replicating molecule, as if it emerged like Athena from Zeus's
> >head."
>
> >Both Dr. Cech and Dr. Orgel, a leading authority on the origin of
> >life, suggest that there was a pre-RNA world, in which the starring role
> >was played by some other self-replicating, catalytic molecule.
>
> Very interesting. It appears that in order to explain the origin of life
> without reference to design, we not only need an imaginary RNA
> World, but now we have to add an imaginary pre-RNA world. At
> this rate, in the next ten years, we'll probably have to add an
> imaginary pre-pre-RNA World.
Or we could just stop all research projects now and declare the existence of
an imaginary designer. Then we can hold he/she/it responsible for all the
death and destruction in the world. And what shall we call this imaginary
designer? Maybe we could take a worldwide vote. That's the ticket.....
> >"If you want DNA-like double helices, there are probably scores" of
> >molecules that would serve as genetic systems, Dr. Orgel said. "It
> >raises the question of why we have RNA and DNA instead of others that
> >are equally good."
>
> Indeed! What leads me to be so skeptical of abiogenesis is not
> the problem of coming up with complexity, but the problem of
> specificity and why it is that *our* biochemical reality exists.
Indeed!....Why would a designer (obviously able to do anything he/she/it
wants) design *our* biochemical reality? An omnipotent designer would have a
literally infinite number of possible biochemical realities. So what are the
odds that a designer would design *our* biochemical reality? I guess that
would be 1:infinity. That would be a mathematical problem...
> --
>
>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Rampart, this is squad 51...We have a group of fundamentalists that
appear to be brain dead....."
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Peter Nyikos
>Here are some interesting excerpts from a recent article in the New York
>Times.
>>The New York Times, April 6, 1999, Tuesday, Science Desk
>>HEADLINE: Inside The Cell, Experts See Life's Origin
>>BYLINE: By NICHOLAS WADE
>>Gerald F. Joyce of the Scripps Research Institute and Leslie E. Orgel
>>of the Salk Institute write in "The RNA World" that they believe the
>>appearance of small RNA molecules "would have been a near miracle."
>>Thomas R. Cech, an RNA expert at the University of Colorado, said in an
>>interview that RNA "is far too complex to have been the first
>>self-replicating molecule, as if it emerged like Athena from Zeus's
>>head."
>>Both Dr. Cech and Dr. Orgel, a leading authority on the origin of
>>life, suggest that there was a pre-RNA world, in which the starring role
>>was played by some other self-replicating, catalytic molecule.
>Very interesting. It appears that in order to explain the origin of life
>without reference to design, we not only need an imaginary RNA
>World, but now we have to add an imaginary pre-RNA world.
Did the NYT go into any details as to what the pre-RNA world may
have used in place of RNA? DeDuve already gave one possibility
in _Vital Dust_: replacing the backbone of nucleotides with something
familiar--either amino acids or purines or pyrimidines, I forget which.
Do they find any "ghosts" of this pre-RNA world in us or any
other organisms? If not, we have not merely a HYPE but a DUPE:
a Diffident Unimaginable Postulated Entity.
At
>this rate, in the next ten years, we'll probably have to add an
>imaginary pre-pre-RNA World.
As well as start from scratch in searching for
real life examples of HYPEozymes.
Until they succeed, I'm not going to add a third hypothesis
to complement my Throomian (ribozyme-based life designing our
protein-enzyme life) hypothesis and Xordaxian hypothesis
(protein-enzyme life doing modest genetic engineering to produce
things like the bacterial flagellum). That would open me
up, for the first time ever, to a VALID charge of postulating
an unevidenced HYPE in the area of abiogenesis.
>>"If you want DNA-like double helices, there are probably scores" of
>>molecules that would serve as genetic systems, Dr. Orgel said. "It
>>raises the question of why we have RNA and DNA instead of others that
>>are equally good."
>Indeed! What leads me to be so skeptical of abiogenesis is not
>the problem of coming up with complexity, but the problem of
>specificity and why it is that *our* biochemical reality exists.
>>The concept of the RNA world is also unproven in its central
>>assertion, that an RNA molecule could catalyze its own replication. The
>>natural RNA catalysts found today sponsor quite simple chemical
>>reactions. Chemists like David P. Bartel of the Whitehead Institute in
>>Cambridge, Mass., have been trying to construct RNA molecules with a
>>more extensive repertoire. Some RNA's show promising behavior such as
>>being able to copy a short stretch of another RNA. But that is a far cry
>>from a self-copying molecule.
"short stretch" means about 6 nucleotides, when a ribozyme replicase can be
expected to have a length in the hundreds or even thousands.
Julie, do you have any idea how much in the way of ribozymes
or HYPEozymes (never mind DUPEozymes--I'm sure nobody, not
even Howard Hershey, has a clue about those) one must postulate in order
to have DNA replication? I'm trying to decide whether to
postulate that the Throomians had a DNA genome or a RNA
para-genome (each cell having its own "genome" of numerous RNA
molecules). Can you think of a substantially SIMPLER way
of replicating DNA than the existing one? If so, that could
be the ticket to a really promising version of the Throomian
hypothesis.
>>"No one has come close to getting a self-replicating RNA," Dr. Bartel
>>said. "It's a long road. It would be exciting to get an RNA that can
>>copy a complete turn of the helix."
Something Ian Musgrave was slow in revealing last year, causing
Howard Hershey to put his foot in his mouth more than once.
>This is important to keep in mind given that many abiogenesis apologists
>speak as if self-replicating ribozymes exist.
Especially Howard Hershey before Ian finally clarified
what he really was talking about last year.
>>In a foreword to the first edition of "The RNA World," written when
>>the oldest known fossils were a mere 3.6 billion years old, Dr. Crick
>>said that the available window "leaves an astonishingly short time to
>>get life started." He also noted that the three kingdoms of early life
>>-- bacteria, the bacteria-like microbes known as archaea, and the plant
>>and animal kingdom
I believe these are now called superkingdoms. For someone who
is trying to cater to laymen (note the avoidance of the term
"eukaryotes"), Nicholas Wade will probably wind up
confusing them worse than if he had used that big long
Greek word. After all, common parlance is that there
is an animal kingdom and a separate plant kingdom--a parlance
that has been with us for centuries if not milennia.
-- "seem a very long distance from their hypothetical
>>common ancestor."
A good example of a HYPE that is dogmatically asserted by
numerous people, including DeDuve in _Vital Dust_. Interestingly
enough, he actually seems undecided about which of the three
kingdoms came first, especially as between archae and eubacteria.
As for eukaryotes, few people in this newsgroup seem to
know what makes a eukaryote a eukaryote--it isn't endosymbionts,
it is a separate nucleus and cytoplasm, with transcription
taking place in the nucleus and translation in the cytoplasm.
>>Dr. Crick then proposed that life might have started elsewhere in the
>>universe, maybe on a planet whose chemical environment was more
>>conducive to the genesis of life than was Earth's. The three kingdoms
>>might represent the survivors of an assortment of microbes sent to
>>colonize distant planets.
>My, my. When my line of thinking is not too different from a Nobel
>laureate like Francis Crick, things are lookin' up. ;)
Well, he gave me the idea in the first place, as Tim DeLaney
may or may not realize. It all began about three years ago,
when I checked out Crick's _Life Itself_ and DeDuve's _Vital
Dust_ out of the library at the same time. Though both are
Nobel laureates in biochemistry, Crick seems like by far
the more levelheaded of the two.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
nyi...@math.sc.edu
at...@best.comNOSPAM (Mark Isaak) wrote:
> In article <7fah1s$b09$1...@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>,
> Julie Thomas <iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> wrote:
> >without reference to design, we not only need an imaginary RNA
> >World, but now we have to add an imaginary pre-RNA world.
>
> populate it something more complex than self-replicating molecules.
No, you may not. :-)
Your claim about what Julie imagines is a figment of your imagination,
or else that of your symbiotic "twin", Matt Silberstein,
who manages to misunderstand the clearest things posted
by Julie--and by others like Bernd Pichulik. See the
"Fair is fair" thread for a prime case of Matt
"misunderstanding" Bernd. Letting
Matt lead you to conclude anything about Julie is a case
of the blind leading the blind.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
Matt Silberstein
(Julie Thomas):
>
>
>
>Here are some interesting excerpts from a recent article in the New York
>Times.
>
>>The New York Times, April 6, 1999, Tuesday, Science Desk
>>HEADLINE: Inside The Cell, Experts See Life's Origin
>>BYLINE: By NICHOLAS WADE
>
>>Gerald F. Joyce of the Scripps Research Institute and Leslie E. Orgel
>>of the Salk Institute write in "The RNA World" that they believe the
>>appearance of small RNA molecules "would have been a near miracle."
>>Thomas R. Cech, an RNA expert at the University of Colorado, said in an
>>interview that RNA "is far too complex to have been the first
>>self-replicating molecule, as if it emerged like Athena from Zeus's
>>head."
>
>>Both Dr. Cech and Dr. Orgel, a leading authority on the origin of
>>life, suggest that there was a pre-RNA world, in which the starring role
>>was played by some other self-replicating, catalytic molecule.
>
>Very interesting. It appears that in order to explain the origin of life
>without reference to design, we not only need an imaginary RNA
>World, but now we have to add an imaginary pre-RNA world. At
>this rate, in the next ten years, we'll probably have to add an
>imaginary pre-pre-RNA World.
>
Let's be a bit more clear here. The "world" part is not imaginary at
all: it is the Earth. Unlike the Thomastic position, these people are
not actually postulating some other world where things took place. And
I suspect these non-Thomasites are actually working on examining this
possible pre-RNA chemistry.
>>"If you want DNA-like double helices, there are probably scores" of
>>molecules that would serve as genetic systems, Dr. Orgel said. "It
>>raises the question of why we have RNA and DNA instead of others that
>>are equally good."
>
>Indeed! What leads me to be so skeptical of abiogenesis is not
>the problem of coming up with complexity, but the problem of
>specificity and why it is that *our* biochemical reality exists.
>
What would you expect? For us to have someone else's biochemical
reality? Or to just have some sort of general biochemistry?
>
[snip]
>>In a foreword to the first edition of "The RNA World," written when
>>the oldest known fossils were a mere 3.6 billion years old, Dr. Crick
>>said that the available window "leaves an astonishingly short time to
>>get life started." He also noted that the three kingdoms of early life
>>-- bacteria, the bacteria-like microbes known as archaea, and the plant
>>and animal kingdom -- "seem a very long distance from their hypothetical
>>common ancestor."
>>Dr. Crick then proposed that life might have started elsewhere in the
>>universe, maybe on a planet whose chemical environment was more
>>conducive to the genesis of life than was Earth's. The three kingdoms
>>might represent the survivors of an assortment of microbes sent to
>>colonize distant planets.
>
>My, my. When my line of thinking is not too different from a Nobel
>laureate like Francis Crick, things are lookin' up. ;)
Aren't postdictions fun? ;-)
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------------------
The Killing, Paths of Glory, Spartacus, Lolita, Dr Strangelove,
2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon,
The Shinning, Full Metal Jacket, and, last of all, but I hope
not the least, Eyes Wide Shut. I will miss him.
Matt Silberstein
>In article <7fai9u$c99$1...@shell6.ba.best.com>,
> at...@best.comNOSPAM (Mark Isaak) wrote:
>> In article <7fah1s$b09$1...@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>,
>> Julie Thomas <iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> wrote:
[posted and emailed since Peter has said he has problems getting
posts.]
>> >Very interesting. It appears that in order to explain the origin of life
>> >without reference to design, we not only need an imaginary RNA
>> >World, but now we have to add an imaginary pre-RNA world.
>>
>> May I remind you that you imagine a pre-RNA world yourself, and you
>> populate it something more complex than self-replicating molecules.
>
>No, you may not. :-)
>
>Your claim about what Julie imagines is a figment of your imagination,
>or else that of your symbiotic "twin", Matt Silberstein,
>who manages to misunderstand the clearest things posted
>by Julie--and by others like Bernd Pichulik. See the
>"Fair is fair" thread for a prime case of Matt
>"misunderstanding" Bernd. Letting
>Matt lead you to conclude anything about Julie is a case
>of the blind leading the blind.
>
Wow, Mark. You are wrong because of "errors" I have made. I have seen
Peter do some logical gymnastics on ad hominem, but this one takes the
cake.
BTW, Peter, do you ever want to discuss this sig? You (falsely)
predicted that I would run away from discussing in. In fact, you have
run away from this. Just like you have run away from discussing how
you repeatedly misrepresented the Cambridge definition of ad hominem.
Again, this sig show that even human design include removing parts.
Behe's "direct" evolution is simply nonsense.
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------------------
Perfection (in design) is achieved not when there is nothing
more to add, but rather when there is nothing more to take away.
Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (who was an aviator and aircraft designer
when he wasn't being the author of classic children's books)
Stephen Bracker
<7fah1s$b09$1...@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>...>
>
>
>Here are some interesting excerpts from a recent article in the New
York
>Times.
>
>>The New York Times, April 6, 1999, Tuesday, Science Desk
>>HEADLINE: Inside The Cell, Experts See Life's Origin
>>BYLINE: By NICHOLAS WADE
>
>>Gerald F. Joyce of the Scripps Research Institute and Leslie E.
Orgel
>>of the Salk Institute write in "The RNA World" that they believe the
>>appearance of small RNA molecules "would have been a near miracle."
>>Thomas R. Cech, an RNA expert at the University of Colorado, said in
an
>>interview that RNA "is far too complex to have been the first
>>self-replicating molecule, as if it emerged like Athena from Zeus's
>>head."
>
>>Both Dr. Cech and Dr. Orgel, a leading authority on the origin of
>>life, suggest that there was a pre-RNA world, in which the starring
role
>>was played by some other self-replicating, catalytic molecule.
>
life
>without reference to design, we not only need an imaginary RNA
>imaginary pre-pre-RNA World.
I guess I’m not nearly as troubled by this as you seem to be. It’s in
the nature of many scientific investigations that we “start in the
middle and work toward the edges”. Thus cosmology starts by describing
the universe as it is today and was in the recent past, and pushes
back in time closer and closer to the big bang. Particle physics got
its start in chemistry of the everyday world, then atomic physics,
then nuclear physics, by now quarks and gluons and (as yet
hypothetical) components within quarks.... Evolutionary theory itself
certainly started in the middle and worked back. It’s not a bit
surprising that abiogenesis investigations are proceeding in that
manner too.
Today we don’t know (at least I certainly don’t) whether something
like the “RNA World” scenario will be confirmed, and whether it is
necessarily preceded by one or two or twenty previous “worlds” before
we get back at last to simple organic chemistry. I’m sure that the
people working on sorting out the truth about atoms and molecules
several centuries ago would have been equally taken aback had they
somehow glimpsed the many “worlds” of structure (molecules, atoms,
atomic nuclei, protons and neutrons, quarks and gluons, and next...)
lying beneath their then-observed reality, but over time all but the
“next” have been thoroughly studied.
Now of course, since American Science Center still offers no
Abiogenesis Kit for highschool science projects, it’s perfectly
possible to believe that the reason we still have not understood all
the “worlds” leading to life on Earth is that it didn’t happen this
way at all. Perhaps powerful aliens (or their artifacts) arrived here
from distant realms and jump-started life on Earth. Perhaps a deity
(one of many candidates) performed a fiat creation of primitive
lifeforms using supernatural means. (The more traditional creationist
view, that a Judeo-Christian God created life pretty much as we know
it in a busy few days, is of course strongly refuted by the evidence.)
Even if the science fair kit *were* available, it would only establish
the plausibility of natural abiogenesis on Earth, not the historical
fact that these processes actually took place.
But in my view, fiat creation and panspermy are both hypotheses,
however attractive to their proponents, which should not guide our
research priorities until the perfectly ordinary earth-based scenarios
have been shown to be virtually impossible. We’re still a long way
from that point today, but the science underlying abiogenesis studies
is still very young. Meanwhile, the exploration of new “worlds”
beckons. What a time to be a young molecular biologist!
>>"If you want DNA-like double helices, there are probably scores" of
>>molecules that would serve as genetic systems, Dr. Orgel said. "It
>>raises the question of why we have RNA and DNA instead of others
that
>>are equally good."
>
>Indeed! What leads me to be so skeptical of abiogenesis is not
>the problem of coming up with complexity, but the problem of
>specificity and why it is that *our* biochemical reality exists.
On the contrary, I don’t find this to be a particularly interesting
issue (unless I badly misunderstand what you’re saying). Suppose that
a hundred years from now we have ten well-confirmed possible
developmental paths from simple organic chemistry to life-like-ours,
and a hundred well-confirmed possible development paths from simple
organic chemistry to life-quite-different-from-ours. The big news is
that yes, we now understand how abiogenesis on Earth might have
worked. Now we can go searching for that *particular* pathway that led
to us. Perhaps we can even understand a bit about how it happened that
a path to life-like-us won out over other paths to
life-quite-different, but to me those details aren’t significant at a
fundamental level. The fact that we ended up with one from amongst a
multitude of possible outcomes seems no reason to doubt the whole
process.
Similarly, the reason that I exist, and not Stephanie (offspring of
the next sperm in line, rudely pushed aside by the one that led to
me), is far less interesting (to everyone but me) than the fact that
such processes can lead to thinking, feeling beings at all. If there
are many forms of life-different-from-us and many developmental
pathways to each possible form of life, then it may be that the one
that prevailed was simply determined by a multitude of tiny historical
accidents -- accidents that can no more be reconstructed in detail
than can the details of the sperm race that led to me. I don’t imagine
that there is any fundamental “problem of specificity” with respect to
my own existence, nor do I think that there a corresponding problem of
specificity with respect to the development of “our biochemical
reality”. Such problems of specificity are only significant problems
if we somehow believe that the universe (or it’s fabricator or
creator) had our kind of life, or me as an individual, as a goal at
the outset, but I see no reason to believe that.
<out of time; snip remainder>
Regards,
Steve Bracker
howard hershey
>
> In article <7fai9u$c99$1...@shell6.ba.best.com>,
> at...@best.comNOSPAM (Mark Isaak) wrote:
> > In article <7fah1s$b09$1...@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>,
> > Julie Thomas <iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> wrote:
> > >without reference to design, we not only need an imaginary RNA
> > >World, but now we have to add an imaginary pre-RNA world.
> >
> > populate it something more complex than self-replicating molecules.
>
> No, you may not. :-)
>
> Your claim about what Julie imagines is a figment of your imagination,
Well, I suspect that he thinks that Julie imagines an "intelligent
designer" somewhat more complex than self-replicating molecules existed
sometime before the appearance of life on this planet. Whether Julie
also thinks that there ever was an RNA world so that the imagined
"intelligent designer" could be a part of a pre-RNA world is more
problematic and less likely.
I am, of course, presuming that you were more concerned with the use of
the words "pre-RNA" in the above rather than in the actual sense of what
was meant by the above. That would certainly fit your pattern.
> or else that of your symbiotic "twin", Matt Silberstein,
> who manages to misunderstand the clearest things posted
> by Julie--and by others like Bernd Pichulik. See the
> "Fair is fair" thread for a prime case of Matt
> "misunderstanding" Bernd. Letting
> Matt lead you to conclude anything about Julie is a case
> of the blind leading the blind.
>
howard hershey
Whoa! Hold the presses. Does this mean that you have been *hiding* all
the evidence you have for the existence of Xordaxians and Throomians all
along? And here I thought you merely posited them to explain features
you don't think could have evolved.
>
> >>"If you want DNA-like double helices, there are probably scores" of
> >>molecules that would serve as genetic systems, Dr. Orgel said. "It
> >>raises the question of why we have RNA and DNA instead of others that
> >>are equally good."
>
> >Indeed! What leads me to be so skeptical of abiogenesis is not
> >the problem of coming up with complexity, but the problem of
> >specificity and why it is that *our* biochemical reality exists.
That is like asking why my hand only contains a 10,9,5,Q,2. Chance
alone *could* be an explanation or there might also be good chemical
reasons.
>
> >>The concept of the RNA world is also unproven in its central
> >>assertion, that an RNA molecule could catalyze its own replication. The
> >>natural RNA catalysts found today sponsor quite simple chemical
> >>reactions. Chemists like David P. Bartel of the Whitehead Institute in
> >>Cambridge, Mass., have been trying to construct RNA molecules with a
> >>more extensive repertoire. Some RNA's show promising behavior such as
> >>being able to copy a short stretch of another RNA. But that is a far cry
> >>from a self-copying molecule.
>
> "short stretch" means about 6 nucleotides, when a ribozyme replicase can be
> expected to have a length in the hundreds or even thousands.
>
> Julie, do you have any idea how much in the way of ribozymes
> or HYPEozymes (never mind DUPEozymes--I'm sure nobody, not
> even Howard Hershey, has a clue about those) one must postulate in order
> to have DNA replication? I'm trying to decide whether to
> postulate that the Throomians had a DNA genome or a RNA
> para-genome (each cell having its own "genome" of numerous RNA
> molecules). Can you think of a substantially SIMPLER way
> of replicating DNA than the existing one? If so, that could
> be the ticket to a really promising version of the Throomian
> hypothesis.
Why don't you look at adenovirus replication. But why DNA replication?
>
> >>"No one has come close to getting a self-replicating RNA," Dr. Bartel
> >>said. "It's a long road. It would be exciting to get an RNA that can
> >>copy a complete turn of the helix."
>
> Something Ian Musgrave was slow in revealing last year, causing
> Howard Hershey to put his foot in his mouth more than once.
I rather doubt that a single enzyme (ribozyme) activity was involved.
Nor that all the steps involved enzyme activity at all.
>
> >This is important to keep in mind given that many abiogenesis apologists
> >speak as if self-replicating ribozymes exist.
>
> Especially Howard Hershey before Ian finally clarified
> what he really was talking about last year.
>
> >>In a foreword to the first edition of "The RNA World," written when
> >>the oldest known fossils were a mere 3.6 billion years old, Dr. Crick
> >>said that the available window "leaves an astonishingly short time to
> >>get life started." He also noted that the three kingdoms of early life
> >>-- bacteria, the bacteria-like microbes known as archaea, and the plant
> >>and animal kingdom
>
> I believe these are now called superkingdoms. For someone who
> is trying to cater to laymen (note the avoidance of the term
> "eukaryotes"), Nicholas Wade will probably wind up
> confusing them worse than if he had used that big long
> Greek word. After all, common parlance is that there
> is an animal kingdom and a separate plant kingdom--a parlance
> that has been with us for centuries if not milennia.
>
> -- "seem a very long distance from their hypothetical
> >>common ancestor."
>
> A good example of a HYPE that is dogmatically asserted by
> numerous people, including DeDuve in _Vital Dust_. Interestingly
> enough, he actually seems undecided about which of the three
> kingdoms came first, especially as between archae and eubacteria.
With good reason. There seems to have been a lot of horizontal transfer
of information among all the superkingdoms.
>
> As for eukaryotes, few people in this newsgroup seem to
> know what makes a eukaryote a eukaryote--it isn't endosymbionts,
> it is a separate nucleus and cytoplasm, with transcription
> taking place in the nucleus and translation in the cytoplasm.
I would hazard that there are very few people (other than the
creationists) who *don't* know that and many of them know even more
differences between eucaryotes and eubacteria/archaeans.
>
> >>Dr. Crick then proposed that life might have started elsewhere in the
> >>universe, maybe on a planet whose chemical environment was more
> >>conducive to the genesis of life than was Earth's. The three kingdoms
> >>might represent the survivors of an assortment of microbes sent to
> >>colonize distant planets.
>
> >My, my. When my line of thinking is not too different from a Nobel
> >laureate like Francis Crick, things are lookin' up. ;)
And I agree - with Crick, not Peter. Abiogenesis *may* indeed require a
planet with a different chemical environment. But it is not *known*
that this *must* be the case. Or even that it is more likely. At least
not yet. The way to go about determining this is to decide what the
necessary features of abiogenesis are and determining what environments
they can occur in and then rule the earth in or out. For example, it is
possible to rule out abiogenesis in an oxygen rich environment for cause
(necessary precursors to life will not form or accumulate). If it could
be shown that the early earth's atmosphere was heavily oxygenated, one
could reasonably rule out life arising on this planet (or at least on
most environments on this planet). Peter certainly has not contributed
one bit of actual evidence of this sort toward making his case that
abiogenesis is more likely to have occurred off-planet than on-planet.
The working hypothesis should be the simpler hypothesis. The working
hypothesis should start with the possibility of life arising in some
possible early earth environment, but non-earth environments do need to
be explored. I have always stated that I think that off-planet
synthesis is a *possibility* and have pointed out the types of evidence
that would lead to the hypothesis of off-planet abiogenesis being
considered more strongly. Similarly, although I seemingly have to keep
repeating it, I also have no inherent objection to intelligent design
and think the idea can be explored scientifically. My complaint is not
that the idea of off-planet abiogenesis (althogh I do not think it is
likely because of the added difficulties) is impossible, it is that
Peter presents no (zero, nada, nil) valid evidence to support the idea
that off-planet is more likely. The ideas that he does present
(Behevian nonsense about systems that look machine-like in Peter's eyes
and hand-waving about planets with nitrogen atmospheres and phony
'estimates' of probability) are certainly not the type of argument one
would get from Crick. For one thing, Peter is just too damn cocksure
and insistent that abiogenesis *must* be off-planet without even wanting
to consider the on-planet alternatives or the added difficulties
involved in an off-planet site. And there is a reason for this.
It is quite clear that Peter is *not* really interested in exploring how
abiogenesis occurred (nor even whether it occurred on this planet or
that planet). Nearly all of his objections have been to the idea that
abiogenesis (or certain steps after abiogenesis) can occur *anywhere* by
*any* mechanism at all aside from intervention by an intelligent
entity. He often talks out of both sides of his mouth on this. Note
that to the above argument that abiogenesis might have involved an RNA
world intermediate stage, that Peter is *not* arguing that an RNA world
intermediate stage is more likely on a planet with a reducing atmosphere
containing much hydrogen and that this is the type of setting in which
the Throomians could arise by abiogenesis. He is claiming that the RNA
world involves HYPEs and DUPEs and could not happen; not on the earth
(but without specifying why not) and, by virtue of the absence of any
obvious reference to the types of conditions in which he does think it
reasonable to get such RNA-world intermediates, not anywhere else. But
then he turns around and talks about the Throomians and asserts that
they (somehow) arose by (a vague sort of) abiogenesis, but apparently
*not* via the HYPEs and DUPEs that he is ridiculing. And he clearly is
of the idea that certain features of life as we know it cannot arise by
evolutionary mechanisms *even* on these other planets. Variously, the
features that he thinks cannot arise by evolutionary mechanisms
*anywhere* in the universe include things like eubacterial flagella and
the mechanism of protein synthesis. The *reason* for inventing the
Throomians, in short, is *not* to seriously propose natural abiogenesis
and evolution on another (more Edenesque) planet because the conditions
for abiogenesis were wrong on the early earth (Crick's hypothesis). It
is rather so as to be able to propose intelligent entities so that
certain features of life on this planet can be ascribed to intelligent
intervention rather than natural process without having to call the
intelligent interveners GOD.
If Peter were to say that he does not think that the RNA world is likely
to have occurred on the earth (preferably with specific reasons given
that deal with things like the turnover time of ribonucleotides) but
that the RNA world certainly is a possible mechanism by which
abiogenesis could have produced intermediate stages leading to life like
ours under different conditions (the planet Eden), he might find that
such a reasonable, measured, and cautious approach might even be
regarded with sympathetic ears from surprising sources. That would be an
argument similar to Crick's. But no. Peter instead asserts that all
attempts to produce complex organisms by RNA world intermediates are
ridiculous and the persons who propose such intermediate stages are
below 50-IQ simulators and liars to boot. And then he turns around and
talks about the Throomians without any hint as to how abiogenesis could
occur on that planet aside from some handwaving about a 10^googol
planets or universes or whatever. No hint that their abiogenesis might
involve events similar to those proposed for abiogenesis on the earth.
It is clear that the *only* reason for his argument is to produce
intelligent entities so as to be able to propose the idea that certain
features of life on this planet required intelligent intervention. That
was also the reason behind all the threads on development and Behe's
ideas; Peter was searching for some miraculous event that *required* an
intelligent intervener. And, of course, there is the additional burden
anyone who disagrees with Peter has of having to deal with his obnoxious
personality. Few people can stand him for very long.
Peter is an ideologue whose sole idee fixe is that life did not arise on
this planet *and* that life on this planet requires intelligent
intervention. I am interested in how abiogenesis occurred whatever
planet it occurred on. But I firmly reject the idea that he has
presented any real evidence that any feature of life on this planet
*required* intelligent intervention. I am not adverse to the
possibility of intelligent design. But assertion of such based on an
unevidenced hypothesis about what intelligent aliens on another planet
could have done is not evidence any stronger than saying that the gods
or the flagella fairy did it.
>
> Well, he gave me the idea in the first place, as Tim DeLaney
> may or may not realize. It all began about three years ago,
> when I checked out Crick's _Life Itself_ and DeDuve's _Vital
> Dust_ out of the library at the same time. Though both are
> Nobel laureates in biochemistry, Crick seems like by far
> the more levelheaded of the two.
Unlike Peter, Crick does not assume that there are steps in the process
that *requires* an intelligent intervener. Peter's adherence to Crick's
idea is *only* for the purpose of being able to surreptitiously slip in
the claim that features of life on the earth require intelligent
intervention. That is not the same as Crick's motivation.
nyi...@math.sc.edu
howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
> nyi...@math.sc.edu wrote:
> >
> > In article <7fai9u$c99$1...@shell6.ba.best.com>,
> > at...@best.comNOSPAM (Mark Isaak) wrote:
> > > In article <7fah1s$b09$1...@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>,
> > > Julie Thomas <iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> wrote:
> > > >without reference to design, we not only need an imaginary RNA
> > > >World, but now we have to add an imaginary pre-RNA world.
> > >
> > > populate it something more complex than self-replicating molecules.
> >
> > No, you may not. :-)
> >
> > Your claim about what Julie imagines is a figment of your imagination,
>
> Well, I suspect that he thinks that Julie imagines an "intelligent
> designer" somewhat more complex than self-replicating molecules existed
> sometime before the appearance of life on this planet.
Did you miss the pre-RNA world bit? or are you still pandering
to people who think Julie is talking about God?
> I am, of course, presuming that you were more concerned with the use of
> the words "pre-RNA" in the above rather than in the actual sense of what
> was meant by the above.
Ah, so you didn't miss it. That leaves the alternative...
Or do you have a third alternative?
>That would certainly fit your pattern.
Pandering to people who think Julie's designer is God certainly
fits YOUR pattern; hence your apparent inability to take
part in the "Evolutionism and anti-theism" thread, where
your anti-theistic prejudices are laid bare.
> > or else that of your symbiotic "twin", Matt Silberstein,
> > who manages to misunderstand the clearest things posted
> > by Julie--and by others like Bernd Pichulik. See the
> > "Fair is fair" thread for a prime case of Matt
> > "misunderstanding" Bernd. Letting
> > Matt lead you to conclude anything about Julie is a case
> > of the blind leading the blind.
And Hershey is another one of those blind guides, with a self-imposed
case of blindness, just like that of Matt.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
nyi...@math.sc.edu
In article <7fft4q$ovp$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
Dave Cox <c...@prontomail.com> wrote:
> In article <7fah1s$b09$1...@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>,
> iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Julie Thomas) wrote:
> > >The New York Times, April 6, 1999, Tuesday, Science Desk
> > >HEADLINE: Inside The Cell, Experts See Life's Origin
> > >BYLINE: By NICHOLAS WADE
> >
> > >Gerald F. Joyce of the Scripps Research Institute and Leslie E. Orgel
> > >of the Salk Institute write in "The RNA World" that they believe the
> > >appearance of small RNA molecules "would have been a near miracle."
> > >Thomas R. Cech, an RNA expert at the University of Colorado, said in an
> > >interview that RNA "is far too complex to have been the first
> > >self-replicating molecule, as if it emerged like Athena from Zeus's
> > >head."
> >
> > >Both Dr. Cech and Dr. Orgel, a leading authority on the origin of
> > >life, suggest that there was a pre-RNA world, in which the starring role
> > >was played by some other self-replicating, catalytic molecule.
> >
> > Very interesting. It appears that in order to explain the origin of life
> > without reference to design, we not only need an imaginary RNA
> > World, but now we have to add an imaginary pre-RNA world. At
> > this rate, in the next ten years, we'll probably have to add an
> > imaginary pre-pre-RNA World.
>
> Or we could just stop all research projects now and declare the existence of
> an imaginary designer.
Or we could start doing research projects on both para-RNA worlds
and on design, undaunted by "Mother Earth did it" fanatics who
dismiss all hypotheses about designers by labeling the
designers "imaginary".
Then we can hold he/she/it responsible for all the
> death and destruction in the world. And what shall we call this imaginary
> designer? Maybe we could take a worldwide vote. That's the ticket.....
You may love the idea of a worldwide vote, Cox, because you figure
the people enamored of "Mother Earth did it" will win.
[See my followup to Bracker in which I talked about "protoplasm"
yesterday where I mention some of the main factors that can be
expected to go into such a vote.]
Sensible people gather evidence instead and try to look at it with an
open mind.
> > >"If you want DNA-like double helices, there are probably scores" of
> > >molecules that would serve as genetic systems, Dr. Orgel said. "It
> > >raises the question of why we have RNA and DNA instead of others that
> > >are equally good."
> >
> > Indeed! What leads me to be so skeptical of abiogenesis is not
> > the problem of coming up with complexity, but the problem of
> > specificity and why it is that *our* biochemical reality exists.
>
> Indeed!....Why would a designer (obviously able to do anything he/she/it
> wants) design *our* biochemical reality? An omnipotent designer
...is not what Julie and I have been hypothesizing, but perhaps
you have been misled by an armada of propagandists who keep
hinting and sometimes even lying otherwise. Whose posts HAVE you
been reading, anyway?
[Rest of GIGO statement deleted]
> > >The concept of the RNA world is also unproven in its central
> > >assertion, that an RNA molecule could catalyze its own replication. The
> > >natural RNA catalysts found today sponsor quite simple chemical
> > >reactions. Chemists like David P. Bartel of the Whitehead Institute in
> > >Cambridge, Mass., have been trying to construct RNA molecules with a
> > >more extensive repertoire. Some RNA's show promising behavior such as
> > >being able to copy a short stretch of another RNA. But that is a far cry
> > >from a self-copying molecule.
> > >"No one has come close to getting a self-replicating RNA," Dr. Bartel
> > >said. "It's a long road. It would be exciting to get an RNA that can
> > >copy a complete turn of the helix."
> >
> > This is important to keep in mind given that many abiogenesis apologists
> > speak as if self-replicating ribozymes exist.
> >
> > >In a foreword to the first edition of "The RNA World," written when
> > >the oldest known fossils were a mere 3.6 billion years old, Dr. Crick
> > >said that the available window "leaves an astonishingly short time to
> > >get life started." He also noted that the three kingdoms of early life
> > >-- bacteria, the bacteria-like microbes known as archaea, and the plant
> > >and animal kingdom -- "seem a very long distance from their hypothetical
> > >common ancestor."
> > >Dr. Crick then proposed that life might have started elsewhere in the
> > >universe, maybe on a planet whose chemical environment was more
> > >conducive to the genesis of life than was Earth's. The three kingdoms
> > >might represent the survivors of an assortment of microbes sent to
> > >colonize distant planets.
And the microbes could have been altered by genetic engineering;
that is one of my design theories, one I have been defending for
over two years now, and it has been widely misrepresented as
another creationist/fundamentalist notion by people whose
devotion to "Mother Earth did it" knows no bounds.
> > My, my. When my line of thinking is not too different from a Nobel
> > laureate like Francis Crick, things are lookin' up. ;)
[...]
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Rampart, this is squad 51...We have a group of fundamentalists that
> appear to be brain dead....."
Not in this thread. The people closer to brain death are
the people whose anti-fundamentalism makes them blind to
purely naturalistic design theories. OTOH people like me and
Julie are neither fundamentalists nor creationists, and
I don't even think the beings that designed the first Earth prokaryote
were endowed with an intelligence much if at all superior to
our own. Moreover, I for one believe they arose the same way
that "Mother Earth did it" assume that our own life form arose.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
nyi...@math.sc.edu
mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
> In talk.origins I read this message from iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
> (Julie Thomas):
>
> >
> >
> >
> >Here are some interesting excerpts from a recent article in the New York
> >Times.
> >
> >>HEADLINE: Inside The Cell, Experts See Life's Origin
> >>BYLINE: By NICHOLAS WADE
> >
> >>Gerald F. Joyce of the Scripps Research Institute and Leslie E. Orgel
> >>of the Salk Institute write in "The RNA World" that they believe the
> >>appearance of small RNA molecules "would have been a near miracle."
> >>Thomas R. Cech, an RNA expert at the University of Colorado, said in an
> >>interview that RNA "is far too complex to have been the first
> >>self-replicating molecule, as if it emerged like Athena from Zeus's
> >>head."
> >
> >>Both Dr. Cech and Dr. Orgel, a leading authority on the origin of
> >>life, suggest that there was a pre-RNA world, in which the starring role
> >>was played by some other self-replicating, catalytic molecule.
> >
> >Very interesting. It appears that in order to explain the origin of life
> >without reference to design, we not only need an imaginary RNA
> >World, but now we have to add an imaginary pre-RNA world. At
> >this rate, in the next ten years, we'll probably have to add an
> >imaginary pre-pre-RNA World.
> >
Yes, lets--so why do you behave like a smart-alecky kid or
a pedantic nerd? You leap on the word "world" and play
games with it:
The "world" part is not imaginary at
> all: it is the Earth.
Fallacy of category. It is the pre-RNA aspect and the pre-pre-RNA
aspect that is imaginary.
Unlike the Thomastic position, these people are
> not actually postulating some other world where things took place.
Nor are they postulating it took place on earth. Least of
all Orgel, who was the co-founder of the theory of directed
panspermy with Nobel Laureate Francis Crick.
And
> I suspect these non-Thomasites are actually working on examining this
> possible pre-RNA chemistry.
Sure, I'm all ears. Maybe pre-RNA life is even more easy to
come up with than RNA world, in which case I'll have yet
another hypothesis to add to the Xordaxian and Throomian
hypotheses.
But you're so stuck on "Mother Earth did it" that you have
already decided to sneer at any such hypothesis I could
come up with. Unfortunately for you, I don't make up
hypotheses based on no evidence. When someone comes
up with a pre-ribozyme, then you can start pretending
I am talking about HYPEs, and continuing to pretend
that these other people weren't talking about HYPEs
even before the first pre-ribozyme was discovered.
> >>"If you want DNA-like double helices, there are probably scores" of
> >>molecules that would serve as genetic systems, Dr. Orgel said. "It
> >>raises the question of why we have RNA and DNA instead of others that
> >>are equally good."
> >
> >Indeed! What leads me to be so skeptical of abiogenesis is not
> >the problem of coming up with complexity, but the problem of
> >specificity and why it is that *our* biochemical reality exists.
> >
> What would you expect? For us to have someone else's biochemical
> reality? Or to just have some sort of general biochemistry?
No, there's this little matter of the protein takeover which
people like Tim DeLaney can only wish out of existence.
Are you one of these people?
For more on the protein takeover, see what I wrote in
followup to Julie about Wade Hines and Howard Hershey
on "Fair is fair" just yesterday.
> [snip]
>
> >>In a foreword to the first edition of "The RNA World," written when
> >>the oldest known fossils were a mere 3.6 billion years old, Dr. Crick
> >>said that the available window "leaves an astonishingly short time to
> >>get life started." He also noted that the three kingdoms of early life
> >>-- bacteria, the bacteria-like microbes known as archaea, and the plant
> >>and animal kingdom -- "seem a very long distance from their hypothetical
> >>common ancestor."
> >>Dr. Crick then proposed that life might have started elsewhere in the
> >>universe, maybe on a planet whose chemical environment was more
> >>conducive to the genesis of life than was Earth's. The three kingdoms
> >>might represent the survivors of an assortment of microbes sent to
> >>colonize distant planets.
> >
> >My, my. When my line of thinking is not too different from a Nobel
> >laureate like Francis Crick, things are lookin' up. ;)
>
> Aren't postdictions fun? ;-)
Not when people like you and Hershey have been sneering at Crick's
ideas as being totally unevidenced and acting as though they were
made up by Julie and me.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
University of South Carolina
nyi...@math.sc.edu
mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
> In talk.origins I read this message from nyi...@math.sc.edu:
>
> >In article <7fai9u$c99$1...@shell6.ba.best.com>,
> > at...@best.comNOSPAM (Mark Isaak) wrote:
> >> In article <7fah1s$b09$1...@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>,
> >> >Very interesting. It appears that in order to explain the origin of life
> >> >without reference to design, we not only need an imaginary RNA
> >> >World, but now we have to add an imaginary pre-RNA world.
> >>
> >> May I remind you that you imagine a pre-RNA world yourself, and you
> >> populate it something more complex than self-replicating molecules.
> >
> >No, you may not. :-)
> >
> >Your claim about what Julie imagines is a figment of your imagination,
> >or else that of your symbiotic "twin", Matt Silberstein,
> >who manages to misunderstand the clearest things posted
> >by Julie--and by others like Bernd Pichulik. See the
> >"Fair is fair" thread for a prime case of Matt
> >"misunderstanding" Bernd. Letting
> >Matt lead you to conclude anything about Julie is a case
> >of the blind leading the blind.
> >
> Wow, Mark. You are wrong because of "errors" I have made. I have seen
> Peter do some logical gymnastics on ad hominem, but this one takes the
> cake.
It's not a new one. I've been talking about this symbiotic relationship
between you and Mark for some time now. It works both ways: as
I pointed out in another thread, you have parasitized his
unconventional concept of "evolution is the designer". Can you
name a single other person in talk.origins who hews to this
word game?
> BTW, Peter, do you ever want to discuss this sig? You (falsely)
> predicted that I would run away from discussing in.
I underestimated your capacity for real or feigned obtuseness. But after
seeing how you snipped almost all evidence of it in your followup
to me showing how loony your replies to Bernd were, I'll try
not to underestimate it again.
In fact, you have
> run away from this. Just like you have run away from discussing how
> you repeatedly misrepresented the Cambridge definition of ad hominem.
I haven't run away, I merely put your pedantic post on the back
burner. Like Dave Horn, you don't deserve more than one followup
per month, but I'm giving you a tad more than you deserve. I've
dowloaded your post on ad hominems and hope to get around to it
this week.
Be patient: the mills of justice grind slowly, but they grind
exceeding fine.
> Again, this sig show that even human design include removing parts.
Excruciatingly literal-minded, and besides, Behe never denied
your common-sense conclusion.
> Behe's "direct" evolution is simply nonsense.
Ridiculous non sequitur.
> Matt Silberstein
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Perfection (in design) is achieved not when there is nothing
> more to add, but rather when there is nothing more to take away.
Did you ever try to deal with my original comment:
Antoine is saying that perfection in design is achieved
when IC is achieved.
Reposting this while not dealing with my original comment
is almost as bad as dropping it like a hot potato--and
more symptomatic of an overblown case of chutzpah.
> Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (who was an aviator and aircraft designer
> when he wasn't being the author of classic children's books.
I don't consider _The Little Prince_ to be a children's
book any more than I consider _Gulliver's Travels_ to be one.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Matt Silberstein
Does not mean it makes sense, then or now.
> I've been talking about this symbiotic relationship
>between you and Mark for some time now. It works both ways: as
>I pointed out in another thread, you have parasitized his
>unconventional concept of "evolution is the designer". Can you
>name a single other person in talk.origins who hews to this
>word game?
>
Totally and completely irrelevant. You attack Mark by pointing out
error I had supposedly made. That simply makes no logical sense.
>> BTW, Peter, do you ever want to discuss this sig? You (falsely)
>> predicted that I would run away from discussing in.
>
>I underestimated your capacity for real or feigned obtuseness. But after
>seeing how you snipped almost all evidence of it in your followup
>to me showing how loony your replies to Bernd were, I'll try
>not to underestimate it again.
>
Yes, you and he completely ignored my point. Hoyle's calculation makes
no sense, Bernd's analogy does not resemble any proposed abiogenesis.
His idea that things are 3-D, not 2-D is rather trivial and
irrelevant. And you comments were pretty standard ad hominem. And you
still don't seem to understand your own source on what ad hominem
means.
> In fact, you have
>> run away from this. Just like you have run away from discussing how
>> you repeatedly misrepresented the Cambridge definition of ad hominem.
>
>I haven't run away, I merely put your pedantic post on the back
>burner.
Pedantic? Pedantic? You mean because I actually looked up the
reference you have given and found that it offers no support for you
claims?
> Like Dave Horn, you don't deserve more than one followup
>per month, but I'm giving you a tad more than you deserve. I've
>dowloaded your post on ad hominems and hope to get around to it
>this week.
>
>Be patient: the mills of justice grind slowly, but they grind
>exceeding fine.
>
And then there is you.
>> Again, this sig show that even human design include removing parts.
>
>Excruciatingly literal-minded, and besides, Behe never denied
>your common-sense conclusion.
>
No, he did not. He just ignored the gaping holes in his claims.
>> Behe's "direct" evolution is simply nonsense.
>
>Ridiculous non sequitur.
>
No non sequitur at all. When all is said and done Behe argues against
the idea that certain systems came about by the addition of a part at
a time. And so he says they were probably designed.
>> Matt Silberstein
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>> Perfection (in design) is achieved not when there is nothing
>> more to add, but rather when there is nothing more to take away.
>
>Did you ever try to deal with my original comment:
>Antoine is saying that perfection in design is achieved
>when IC is achieved.
>
So? Even if IC where the goal of human design (and it is not and you
seem to have a simplistic understanding of design and of AdSE
comment), that does not mean that the existence of an IC system
implies design at all.
Behe's IC means that the system fails if any part is removed. Human
systems are "well design" if removal of a part means it does not
perform within desired tolerances. A much different concept. A car may
work quite well for quite some time without a spare tire. A spare tire
is clearly not part of a Behevian IC system. But it is part of a well
designed car. The design of the car is less than perfect if you take
away the spare tire.
>Reposting this while not dealing with my original comment
>is almost as bad as dropping it like a hot potato--and
>more symptomatic of an overblown case of chutzpah.
>
You comment is pretty irrelevant.
>> Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (who was an aviator and aircraft designer
>> when he wasn't being the author of classic children's books.
>
>I don't consider _The Little Prince_ to be a children's
>book any more than I consider _Gulliver's Travels_ to be one.
>
So? You considerations are not exactly law, are they?
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------------------
You are the humanitarian.
You want to save the world.
Take the gun.
From "The President's Analyst"
Matt Silberstein
[snip]
>It works both ways: as
>I pointed out in another thread, you have parasitized his
>unconventional concept of "evolution is the designer". Can you
>name a single other person in talk.origins who hews to this
>word game?
>
Sorry for the second follow-up, but I forgot to mention this. Yes,
Peter, I can think of another poster who hold that position. I have
already told you this. Look up Bertvan. He argues just this position:
that Design does not imply a designer. I don't know why you say I am
playing a word game. What I have said is that the question of Design
does depend on the definition. If it does not necessarily imply a
designer then we an consider forces, such as gravity and evolution as
designers. You might read some Dawkins to see how he discusses this.
OTOH, if Design does imply a being with intention then I hold a
different view. I am not play word games, I am avoiding them. I am
presenting my position for various meanings of the words. That way we
can discuss the ideas, not the words.
[snip]
howard hershey
>
> In article <371C74...@indiana.edu>,
> howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
> > nyi...@math.sc.edu wrote:
> > >
> > > at...@best.comNOSPAM (Mark Isaak) wrote:
> > > > In article <7fah1s$b09$1...@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>,
> > > > Julie Thomas <iz...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> wrote:
> > > > >Very interesting. It appears that in order to explain the origin of life
> > > > >without reference to design, we not only need an imaginary RNA
> > > > >World, but now we have to add an imaginary pre-RNA world.
> > > >
> > > > May I remind you that you imagine a pre-RNA world yourself, and you
> > > > populate it something more complex than self-replicating molecules.
> > >
> > > No, you may not. :-)
> > >
> > > Your claim about what Julie imagines is a figment of your imagination,
> >
> > designer" somewhat more complex than self-replicating molecules existed
> > sometime before the appearance of life on this planet.
>
> Did you miss the pre-RNA world bit? or are you still pandering
> to people who think Julie is talking about God?
Peter, you really are an idiot savant blinded to my real words by your
desire to demonize me (presently I am to be branded an anti-theist
rather than a below-50 IQ simulator or liar). What I said was that
"Julie imagines an "intelligent designer" somewhat more complex than
self-replicating molecules". I meant just that. It is rather hard to
have an "intelligent design" theory without an "intelligent designer" of
some sort, is it not? Are you saying that Julie's theory involves an
intelligent designer that is as *simple* as or *simpler* than a
self-replicating molecule? I did not mention 'God' at all in this
thread or even imply even indirectly that I think that God is what Julie
wants her HYPE to be (although that is my suspicion).
>
> > I am, of course, presuming that you were more concerned with the use of
> > the words "pre-RNA" in the above rather than in the actual sense of what
> > was meant by the above.
>
> Ah, so you didn't miss it. That leaves the alternative...
Yes. It leaves the alternative that I knew exactly what you were
thinking - that you were focusing on the words "pre-RNA" rather than in
the actual sense of what was meant. It leaves the alternative that I
was acurately describing the fact that "intelligent design" theories do
require positing currently unevidenced but rather complex entities
called "intelligent designers".
>
> Or do you have a third alternative?
Feel free to suggest it.
>
> >That would certainly fit your pattern.
>
> Pandering to people who think Julie's designer is God certainly
Julie has made it abundantly clear that she has not a bloody clue as to
the identity of the mystery 'designer'. She also, though *she* is not
about to say so, has presented no evidence that any feature of life
required a designer nor any algorithm for accurately identifying
designed events. My suspicion is that she would *like* to have the HYPE
designer she imagines be God. I have the same suspicion about your
'aliens', but you seem to be more willing to accept a mortal alien (in
the first iteration anyway) as long as the principle that "life as we
know it requires an intelligent designer" can be retained. That is why
you are unwilling to consider the rather reasonable idea of your aliens
shipping unmodified (unmodified by the aliens but not by evolution on
their planet) bacteria with their *evolved* (on Xordax) flagella and
OriC from the planet Xordax to the earth (which would be much closer to
Crick's hypothesis).
> fits YOUR pattern; hence your apparent inability to take
> part in the "Evolutionism and anti-theism" thread, where
> your anti-theistic prejudices are laid bare.
>
I limit myself to threads that have some interest to me and might have
some interest to others. A thread about my religious beliefs or lack
thereof lacks general interest. A thread where you accuse me of this or
that is so common as to be boring. Your mind is so twisted into tiny
little nasty knots that I don't care what you think of me. I would only
start to worry if you treated me politley and as if you agreed with what
I said. If you want to go on record calling me the AntiChrist and tool
of Satan, go ahead. It will only garner me points in the t.o. game
(although I'll have to check the rules; the points may require that the
name-calling come from a standard YEC creationist and not Peter, since
getting an _ad hominem_ attack from Peter may be like finding three-leaf
clovers).
[snip]
PZ Myers
<hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>nyi...@math.sc.edu wrote:
[snip]
>I limit myself to threads that have some interest to me and might have
>some interest to others. A thread about my religious beliefs or lack
>thereof lacks general interest. A thread where you accuse me of this or
>that is so common as to be boring. Your mind is so twisted into tiny
>little nasty knots that I don't care what you think of me. I would only
>start to worry if you treated me politley and as if you agreed with what
>I said. If you want to go on record calling me the AntiChrist and tool
>of Satan, go ahead. It will only garner me points in the t.o. game
>(although I'll have to check the rules; the points may require that the
>name-calling come from a standard YEC creationist and not Peter, since
>getting an _ad hominem_ attack from Peter may be like finding three-leaf
>clovers).
Clovers smell nice and are pretty to look at, so I don't think your
analogy is a very good one. Maybe a better analogy would be that getting
an ad hominem from Nyikos is like getting dirty in a mud-wrestling match.
It's such a common thing that I don't think it deserves points in LouAnn's
game...but I was a bit miffed that I've dropped so far out of the running
that no one takes it for granted that I will reply to his baiting anymore,
so I came up with another game. We can keep score with DejaNews! Just do
a Power Search in DN for posts by Nyikos on talk.origins that contain your
name. It's easy, and you can keep track without actually having to *read*
anything he has written.
I did a quick check for this past week, to get my score and that of a few
other of his obsessions. Here's a breakdown:
Matt Silberstein: 3 I guess it's official. He's old news.
Dave Horn 4 Viciousness doesn't pay.
Larry Moran 9 Damn good for someone too arrogant to ever talk to him
Howard Hershey 10 OK, but a poor return on all that effort
Paul Myers 17! The Champ! And I didn't reply to him even once!
On thinking about it, though, this scoring has some problems. It might
reward people who prod Nyikos heavily, and we certainly don't want to
encourage that kind of thing. So, I came up with a new metric, the
Nyikos Obsession Index (NOI). Take the number of posts in which he mentions
you, and divide it by the number of times you mention him, plus one (to
avoid that annoying division by error problem). This changes the scoring
a bit:
Dave Horn 4/12+1 = 0.3
Howard Hershey 10/13+1 = 0.7
Matt Silberstein 3/ 2+1 = 1.0
Paul Myers 17/ 2+1 = 5.7
Larry Moran 9/ 0+1 = 9.0
Unfortunately, this does knock me off the top of the heap, but I think if
I just follow the Moran strategy for a while I can easily make it to first
place. Too bad this post will count against me...but it might be worth it
to encourage everyone to play.
--
PZ Myers
howard hershey
Hypothetical is the term you mean. Imaginary is reserved for hypotheses
based on unevidenced fairies and HYPEs. Hypothetical is used for
possibilities where the requisite material conditions are feasible and
known in the material world.
>
> Unlike the Thomastic position, these people are
> > not actually postulating some other world where things took place.
>
> Nor are they postulating it took place on earth. Least of
> all Orgel, who was the co-founder of the theory of directed
> panspermy with Nobel Laureate Francis Crick.
Nor are they postulating that any step required an intelligent
designer. A shift of abiogenesis and evolution to a different planet is
one thing. A postulation of *intelligent design* is something else.
>
> And
> > I suspect these non-Thomasites are actually working on examining this
> > possible pre-RNA chemistry.
>
> Sure, I'm all ears. Maybe pre-RNA life is even more easy to
> come up with than RNA world, in which case I'll have yet
> another hypothesis to add to the Xordaxian and Throomian
> hypotheses.
>
> But you're so stuck on "Mother Earth did it" that you have
> already decided to sneer at any such hypothesis I could
> come up with. Unfortunately for you, I don't make up
> hypotheses based on no evidence.
ROTFLOL. And the evidence for Xordaxians and/or Throomians is? The
evidence that they must have *designed* certain features into organisms
is?
> When someone comes
> up with a pre-ribozyme,
PNAs (protein nucleic acids) *have* been synthesized as have several
other possible 'genomic' materials. They are known to exist. Whether
they *were* an earlier form of genome for life as we know it is an
hypothesis. But the existence of the material conditions needed for such
an hypothesis are not HYPEs. I do believe that enzymatic activity is at
least as likely in PNAs as it is in RNAs, just given the nature of the
material. And, although I have not looked, I would bet that this has
already been tested.
> then you can start pretending
> I am talking about HYPEs, and continuing to pretend
> that these other people weren't talking about HYPEs
> even before the first pre-ribozyme was discovered.
How would you know? You don't look at the recent literature, after all.
>
> > >>"If you want DNA-like double helices, there are probably scores" of
> > >>molecules that would serve as genetic systems, Dr. Orgel said. "It
> > >>raises the question of why we have RNA and DNA instead of others that
> > >>are equally good."
> > >
> > >Indeed! What leads me to be so skeptical of abiogenesis is not
> > >the problem of coming up with complexity, but the problem of
> > >specificity and why it is that *our* biochemical reality exists.
> > >
> > What would you expect? For us to have someone else's biochemical
> > reality? Or to just have some sort of general biochemistry?
>
> No, there's this little matter of the protein takeover which
> people like Tim DeLaney can only wish out of existence.
> Are you one of these people?
>
> For more on the protein takeover, see what I wrote in
> followup to Julie about Wade Hines and Howard Hershey
> on "Fair is fair" just yesterday.
Peter Nyikos on the protein takeover. Without his even having to
examine the literature on the subject (other than a decade old general
textbook). That ought to be a source of some amusement.
>
> > [snip]
> >
> > >>In a foreword to the first edition of "The RNA World," written when
> > >>the oldest known fossils were a mere 3.6 billion years old, Dr. Crick
> > >>said that the available window "leaves an astonishingly short time to
> > >>get life started." He also noted that the three kingdoms of early life
> > >>-- bacteria, the bacteria-like microbes known as archaea, and the plant
> > >>and animal kingdom -- "seem a very long distance from their hypothetical
> > >>common ancestor."
> > >>Dr. Crick then proposed that life might have started elsewhere in the
> > >>universe, maybe on a planet whose chemical environment was more
> > >>conducive to the genesis of life than was Earth's. The three kingdoms
> > >>might represent the survivors of an assortment of microbes sent to
> > >>colonize distant planets.
> > >
> > >My, my. When my line of thinking is not too different from a Nobel
> > >laureate like Francis Crick, things are lookin' up. ;)
Actually, your thinking is quite different. Crick posits directed
panspermy under the direction of intelligent *transporters*, not
directed panspermy and *intelligent design* of organisms followed by
transport. You basically ignore Crick's reasoning for positing directed
panspermy (time available or more favorable environment for abiogenesis)
and instead use phony arguments for intelligent design. It is quite
clear that the only reason for your proposing directed panspermy is as
an excuse for positing intelligent design in a way that can also explain
away the total absence of evidence for a designer.
> >
> > Aren't postdictions fun? ;-)
>
> Not when people like you and Hershey have been sneering at Crick's
> ideas as being totally unevidenced and acting as though they were
> made up by Julie and me.
What evidence does Crick present for directed panspermy? I remember a
quote you use about the fact that we do not know enough to determine the
probability of abiogenesis on the earth. Ooops. A disagreement between
Crick and Hoyle there. I wonder which one is more likely to be
knowledgeable and right?
howard hershey
Pray tell how one can do research on design when the putative designers
are purely "imaginary" and leave no traces? Julie claims to be able to
do research based on an assumption of design (and I don't disagre, one
can have a research program based on visions seen in peyote-induced
dreams too). But research programs that produces results that really
require or search for evidence of a designer are something else. All
the 'design' research I have seen amounts to looking at something that
isn't understood by them and asserting 'the designer did that'. I can
see a research project based on the idea that life exists outside this
planet, followed by a search for signs of that life. But beyond that, I
have some trouble seeing what research program you are thinking about.
>
> Then we can hold he/she/it responsible for all the
> > death and destruction in the world. And what shall we call this imaginary
> > designer? Maybe we could take a worldwide vote. That's the ticket.....
>
> You may love the idea of a worldwide vote, Cox, because you figure
> the people enamored of "Mother Earth did it" will win.
> [See my followup to Bracker in which I talked about "protoplasm"
> yesterday where I mention some of the main factors that can be
> expected to go into such a vote.]
>
> Sensible people gather evidence instead and try to look at it with an
> open mind.
What evidence do you think you can gather?
>
> > > >"If you want DNA-like double helices, there are probably scores" of
> > > >molecules that would serve as genetic systems, Dr. Orgel said. "It
> > > >raises the question of why we have RNA and DNA instead of others that
> > > >are equally good."
> > >
> > > Indeed! What leads me to be so skeptical of abiogenesis is not
> > > the problem of coming up with complexity, but the problem of
> > > specificity and why it is that *our* biochemical reality exists.
> >
> > Indeed!....Why would a designer (obviously able to do anything he/she/it
> > wants) design *our* biochemical reality? An omnipotent designer
>
> ...is not what Julie and I have been hypothesizing, but perhaps
> you have been misled by an armada of propagandists who keep
> hinting and sometimes even lying otherwise. Whose posts HAVE you
> been reading, anyway?
Peter (Julie is, AFAIK, mum about her ideas of the designer's
omnipotence or lack thereof) posits a designer that has *at least* the
minimum skills needed to design the features he thinks must be
designed. He has no evidence at all what skills they actually have,
because he has no evidence at all that the panspermist life-transferers
exist, or *if* they exist, that they *designed* anything.
Why of course they *could* have been altered. Or the organisms simply
*could* have been shipped as is. The latter is a simpler hypthesis.
The question is whether you have 1) any evidence that the panspermists
exist and 2) any evidence that they altered anything. A circumstantial
case can be made for the former hypothesis, based on certain assumptions
about the mechanisms of abiogenesis and the time required. I know of no
case that has been made for the latter aside from personal incredulity.
> that is one of my design theories, one I have been defending for
> over two years now,
It is one you have been asserting without evidence for two years. You
have also erroneously been implying that Crick supports the *design*
part of your hypothesis.
> and it has been widely misrepresented as
> another creationist/fundamentalist notion by people whose
> devotion to "Mother Earth did it" knows no bounds.
It is hardly fundamentalist Christian. It may be 'creationist',
depending upon what the model proposes (when does extensive modification
become creation of life-as-we-know-it?).
>
> > > My, my. When my line of thinking is not too different from a Nobel
> > > laureate like Francis Crick, things are lookin' up. ;)
Your line of thinking diverges radically from Crick's wrt "design".
>
> [...]
>
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > "Rampart, this is squad 51...We have a group of fundamentalists that
> > appear to be brain dead....."
>
> Not in this thread. The people closer to brain death are
> the people whose anti-fundamentalism makes them blind to
> purely naturalistic design theories. OTOH people like me and
> Julie are neither fundamentalists nor creationists, and
> I don't even think the beings that designed the first Earth prokaryote
> were endowed with an intelligence much if at all superior to
> our own. Moreover, I for one believe they arose the same way
> that "Mother Earth did it" assume that our own life form arose.
You keep including me in some group you call ideologically committed to
"Mother Earth did it." I state here (and have before) that you have
presented no valid evidence for abiogenesis off planet (mostly because
you only present the vapid incredulity 'evidence' that requires
intelligent design rather than an argument based on time or required
optimal conditions). In fact you and Julie are exceedingly vague about
what features require off-planet synthesis and how one distinguishes
them. Julie's identification amounts to little more than calling an IC
system that doesn't meet requirements she regards as evidence for
evolution "designed" as her fall-back position.
I state here (and have before) that abiogenesis research does not
presently need to distinguish between off-planet and on-planet
abiogenesis, but needs to figure out how abiogenesis occurred regardless
of site. I am not *ideologically* committed to "Mother Earth did it."
for abiogenesis. In situ abiogenesis remains the simpler hypothesis,
and a quite reasonable one given the difficulties of transport. But in
the face of evidence that abiogenesis on the earth is unlikely and that
planets with conditions x provide a much more Edenesque environment for
abiogenesis and that transport is reasonable, I would certainly be
willing to change my mind (unlike some people who seem to be
*ideologically* committed to the unevidenced idea of intelligent design
and use off-planet processes and aliens with less than omnipotent powers
merely to avoid the unpleasant reality that there is no evidence for any
designer on this planet and to be able to pseudoclaim that the theory is
a natural law explanation).
I simply do not think *you* have made any headway in presenting a valid
argument for the hypothesis that you *really* propose (which is
intelligent design and not off-planet abiogenesis), much less any
evidence that these purely hypothetical intelligent design events
occurred off-planet. Even if *abiogenesis* occurred off-planet, that
does not, in itself, mean that intelligent design is required. A
reasonable case can be made for off-planet abiogenesis (but not a truely
compelling one given the current lack of knowledge of the requirements
for abiogenesis; a somewhat more reasonable case can still be made for
abiogenesis directly on this planet). No case at all has been made for
intelligent design of living systems or even parts of living systems
either on this or any other hypothetical world.
Please stop lumping people who disagree with the idea that you have
presented evidence for a hypothesis of intelligent design into a
category called ideologically committed to "Mother Earth did it." The
two sets are not identical. As I have to keep reminding Julie and you,
I am not even opposed *in principle* to the idea of intelligent design.
I just don't think that either of you have presented a shred of actual
evidence supporting the idea. The 'intelligent design' hypothesis is
not, at the current time, the best (or even a useful or valid)
*scientific* explanation. It is much more complex than other much
simpler known explanations. Intelligent design is little more than
omphalic pseudoscientific wishful thinking in its present incarnation.
Wade Hines
PZ Myers wrote:
> Matt Silberstein: 3 I guess it's official. He's old news.
> Dave Horn 4 Viciousness doesn't pay.
> Larry Moran 9 Damn good for someone too arrogant to ever talk to him
> Howard Hershey 10 OK, but a poor return on all that effort
10 I'm tied.
> Paul Myers 17! The Champ! And I didn't reply to him even once!
> Dave Horn 4/12+1 = 0.3
> Howard Hershey 10/13+1 = 0.7
> Matt Silberstein 3/ 2+1 = 1.0
> Paul Myers 17/ 2+1 = 5.7
> Larry Moran 9/ 0+1 = 9.0
10/ 2+1 = 3.3
Mark Isaak
Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In talk.origins I read this message from nyi...@math.sc.edu:
>
>[snip]
>
>>... as I pointed out in another thread, you have parasitized his
>>unconventional concept of "evolution is the designer". Can you
>>name a single other person in talk.origins who hews to this
>>word game?
>>
>Sorry for the second follow-up, but I forgot to mention this. Yes,
>Peter, I can think of another poster who hold that position. I have
>already told you this. Look up Bertvan. He argues just this position:
>that Design does not imply a designer. I don't know why you say I am
>playing a word game. What I have said is that the question of Design
>does depend on the definition. If it does not necessarily imply a
>designer then we an consider forces, such as gravity and evolution as
>designers.
I have also seen the concept used by someone else in a magazine (sorry, I
don't remember where). Which is hardly surprising; the concept of
evolution as a desiger is a fairly obvious one. I would be surprised if
the concept can't be dated to at least a century ago.
At any rate, it makes a lot more sense than the concept used by the
intelligent design crowd, who unanimously use "design" to be synonymous
with complexity, lack of knowledge, or both.
nyi...@math.sc.edu
troll but keeps up the pretense of thinking that Myers is
a man with valuable things to contribute to talk.origins, a man who is
no less honest than anyone else here. At least, this
post exposes Myers's modus operandi as no other I've seen.
In article <myers-21049...@bio-32.bio.temple.edu>,
my...@astro.ocis.temple.edu (PZ Myers) wrote:
> In article <371D9A...@indiana.edu>, howard hershey
> <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>
> >nyi...@math.sc.edu wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >I limit myself to threads that have some interest to me and might have
> >some interest to others. A thread about my religious beliefs or lack
> >thereof lacks general interest.
The thread wasn't about that, it was about Howard's evident contempt for
people with certain religious beliefs. Specifically, his evident
contempt for people who believe in the existence of
unevidenced HYPE designers,
like the God of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, or
even consider the existence of such a God to be a realistic
possibility.
A thread where you accuse me of this or
> >that is so common as to be boring.
Not nearly as common as threads where Howard accuses me falsely
of this and that, for instance believing certain things about
ectoderm that I don't believe, believing things about bats
that I don't believe, believing things about extraembryonic
membranes that I don't believe, believing things about
peptides that I don't believe. What's worse, he's conned
one person after another into wasting time trying to
convince me of things that I never denied and were never
an issue. Including decent (AFAIK) people like Andy Groves and
John Harshman.
Your mind is so twisted into tiny
> >little nasty knots that I don't care what you think of me.
The nasty little knots are all in Howard's mind. Knots that
twist almost everything I write beyond recognition. Knots
that he refuses to untie no matter how often I refute each
little twist and turn.
I would only
> >start to worry if you treated me politley and as if you agreed with what
> >I said. If you want to go on record calling me the AntiChrist and tool
> >of Satan, go ahead.
Howard wants me to do that because it would take people's minds
off the dreary pettiness of his torrent of dishonest actions in talk.origins.
He'd love to be thought of as spectacularly evil. He is, instead,
an obnoxious twit who enjoys lying about me because he loves
to see me waste my time refuting his lies, knowing almost
nobody gives a damn whether they are lies, AND that many people
would be ecstatic if one of them turned out to be TRUE.
It will only garner me points in the t.o. game
> >(although I'll have to check the rules; the points may require that the
> >name-calling come from a standard YEC creationist and not Peter,
But Howard knows better than to waste his time on standard
YEC creationists. He goes after people that the rifraff
of talk.origins are incompetent to go after: Julie Thomas and
me being the two salient examples.
since
> >getting an _ad hominem_ attack from Peter may be like finding three-leaf
> >clovers).
Of course, if Howard were to go on the rampage against people
like Arthur Biele, the way his spectacularly dishonest net.friend
Paul Myers did these last two weeks, he would probably get
a bunch of *ad hominems* from them too. Hardly anybody can
be expected to turn the other cheek in the face of such
massive dishonesty. When Jesus said to turn the other
cheek, he was referring to something quite different.
> Clovers smell nice and are pretty to look at, so I don't think your
> analogy is a very good one. Maybe a better analogy would be that getting
> an ad hominem from Nyikos is like getting dirty in a mud-wrestling match.
Myers, of course, provides the mud. I may be a muckraker,
but I don't produce mud; I expose it to the hard light of truth.
> It's such a common thing that I don't think it deserves points in LouAnn's
> game...but I was a bit miffed that I've dropped so far out of the running
> that no one takes it for granted that I will reply to his baiting anymore,
It is Myers who does the baiting, obviously, and keeps score
on the number of times the bait is gone for.
> so I came up with another game. We can keep score with DejaNews! Just do
> a Power Search in DN for posts by Nyikos on talk.origins that contain your
> name. It's easy, and you can keep track without actually having to *read*
> anything he has written.
>
> I did a quick check for this past week, to get my score and that of a few
> other of his obsessions. Here's a breakdown:
To Myers, the torrent of lies to which he subjects Behe, Julie Thomas,
Tim Teebken, Arthur Biele, and me--and that's just in 1999, folks!--
is all a frigging game, with the score being how many times we
use their names.
> Matt Silberstein: 3 I guess it's official. He's old news.
> Dave Horn 4 Viciousness doesn't pay.
> Larry Moran 9 Damn good for someone too arrogant to ever talk to him
> Howard Hershey 10 OK, but a poor return on all that effort
> Paul Myers 17! The Champ! And I didn't reply to him even once!
>
> On thinking about it, though, this scoring has some problems. It might
> reward people who prod Nyikos heavily, and we certainly don't want to
> encourage that kind of thing.
Just who is Myers trying to kid? His next way of keeping score
is just as encouraging of people to keep trolling.
So, I came up with a new metric, the
> Nyikos Obsession Index (NOI). Take the number of posts in which he mentions
> you, and divide it by the number of times you mention him, plus one (to
> avoid that annoying division by error problem). This changes the scoring
> a bit:
>
> Dave Horn 4/12+1 = 0.3
> Howard Hershey 10/13+1 = 0.7
> Matt Silberstein 3/ 2+1 = 1.0
> Paul Myers 17/ 2+1 = 5.7
> Larry Moran 9/ 0+1 = 9.0
>
> Unfortunately, this does knock me off the top of the heap, but I think if
> I just follow the Moran strategy for a while I can easily make it to first
> place. Too bad this post will count against me...but it might be worth it
> to encourage everyone to play.
Yes, folks, all Myers has to do is lie his head off about *others*,
like he has been doing to Biele, and he goes to the top,
as long as I go on exposing him for the liar that he is.
One of the standard myths of talk.origins is that I behave the
way I do because I can't stand people criticizing ME. Truth
is, people can criticize me all they want as long as they
do it honestly, whether or not they are correct in their criticism,
and they'll never get the treatment I give
Myers, Hershey, etc. On the other hand, if I see them
lying about Behe, Julie, etc. I give them the treatment they
deserve even if I'm not mentioned. I've been doing it for two years now,
but some people can never get a clue.
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
> --
> PZ Myers
Matt Silberstein
(PZ Myers):
[snip]
>
>It's such a common thing that I don't think it deserves points in LouAnn's
>game...but I was a bit miffed that I've dropped so far out of the running
>that no one takes it for granted that I will reply to his baiting anymore,
>so I came up with another game. We can keep score with DejaNews! Just do
>a Power Search in DN for posts by Nyikos on talk.origins that contain your
>name. It's easy, and you can keep track without actually having to *read*
>anything he has written.
>
>I did a quick check for this past week, to get my score and that of a few
>other of his obsessions. Here's a breakdown:
>
>Matt Silberstein: 3 I guess it's official. He's old news.
'Tis a sad thing.
>Dave Horn 4 Viciousness doesn't pay.
>Larry Moran 9 Damn good for someone too arrogant to ever talk to him
>Howard Hershey 10 OK, but a poor return on all that effort
>Paul Myers 17! The Champ! And I didn't reply to him even once!
>
>On thinking about it, though, this scoring has some problems. It might
>reward people who prod Nyikos heavily, and we certainly don't want to
>encourage that kind of thing. So, I came up with a new metric, the
>Nyikos Obsession Index (NOI). Take the number of posts in which he mentions
>you, and divide it by the number of times you mention him, plus one (to
>avoid that annoying division by error problem). This changes the scoring
>a bit:
>
>Dave Horn 4/12+1 = 0.3
>Howard Hershey 10/13+1 = 0.7
>Matt Silberstein 3/ 2+1 = 1.0
>Paul Myers 17/ 2+1 = 5.7
>Larry Moran 9/ 0+1 = 9.0
>
>Unfortunately, this does knock me off the top of the heap, but I think if
>I just follow the Moran strategy for a while I can easily make it to first
>place. Too bad this post will count against me...but it might be worth it
>to encourage everyone to play.
I think we need another index. The number of times Peter mentions you
by name while responding to someone else's post. Double points if you
are not involved in the thread at all.
Julie Thomas
Answering Howard
------------------------
As part of the t.o. drinking game, Louann proposes:
>One swig for every Julie Thomas or Boatwright thread over two hundred
>lines.
>Two swigs for every Julie Thomas or Boatwright thread *under* two
>hundred lines.
Not a bad idea. In fact, if y'all would start swiggin' some more, maybe
some critic will finally figure out what I am writing. After all, I must
confess that a few swigs of my own are behind some of those articles.
This is clearly important when you have to wade through the hundreds
of lines of responses my articles generate to rehash old arguments. So
with that said, here's another biggie with my enabler. Bottoms Up!
Howard writes:
>Julie claims to be able to do research based on an assumption of design
>(and I don't disagree, one can have a research program based on visions
>seen in peyote-induced dreams too).
I don't just "claim," I *show* how. And I'm glad you admit that one
can do research on an assumption of design. But the attempt to
equate it with having a research program based on drug-induced visions
is lame. I have shown how design can guide research in a systematic
and coherent fashion with multiple biological systems. Please show
me the analogous demonstrations from one who instead relies on
visions seen in peyote-induced dreams. Well?
>In fact you and Julie are exceedingly vague about
>what features require off-planet synthesis and how one distinguishes
>them.
Of course, I have only pointed out over 100 times (literally) that my
views don't in any way depend on design being "required." Howard
keeps trying to sneak this criterion at every chance because that
is just another way of making me argue that evolution is impossible
(thus, requiring design to explain its origin). Of course, no one
can ever demonstrate the impossible, thus this is simply a rhetotical
trick Howard employs to mask the weakness of his own position.
>Julie's identification amounts to little more than calling an IC
>system that doesn't meet requirements she regards as evidence for
>evolution "designed" as her fall-back position.
That's one way to spin it.
>As I have to keep reminding Julie and you,
>I am not even opposed *in principle* to the idea of intelligent design.
Anyone who believes this please e-mail me. If you send me $50,
I have a second-cousin with a great stock market tip.
>I just don't think that either of you have presented a shred of actual
>evidence supporting the idea.
That's Howard's subjective opinion. After all, evidence is essentially
interpreted data, and I have presented gobs of data interpreted to
support a design explanation. Howard simply inflates his
subjective opinion as some form of objective standard where someway
his disagreement with the notion that this data is evidence means
in fact this data is not evidence.
>The 'intelligent design' hypothesis is
>not, at the current time, the best (or even a useful or valid)
>*scientific* explanation. It is much more complex than other much
>simpler known explanations. Intelligent design is little more than
>omphalic pseudoscientific wishful thinking in its present incarnation.
Omphalic, pseudoscientific, and wishful thinking. The Thomas Rule states
that the more negative adjectives one uses to describe his/her opponents
views, the less open that person is to those views.
>She also, though *she* is not about to say so, has presented no evidence
>that any feature of life required a designer
This means only that I have not fallen for Howard's trap. I recognize
fully that Howard's position is so weak that he expects me to engage
him by proving the impossible. Because only then can he make a
powerful point. I simply think it is silly to argue that design is
a valid explanation only if it is *required* to explain something.
>nor any algorithm for accurately identifying designed events.
Two things. Note the use of "accurately." Who gets to decide
if the identification is accurate? Let me guess. Howard the
Open-Minded? Secondly, I have said that I am
developing my views. Unlike Howard, I don't have the luxury
of simply parroting someone else's ideas or waiting for some
expert to solve the problems for me.
>My suspicion is that she would *like* to have the HYPE
>designer she imagines be God.
Of course, it's all part of the Church of the OriC. You can all
send a donation along with the $50 for the stock tip.
>PNAs (protein nucleic acids) *have* been synthesized as have several
>other possible 'genomic' materials. They are known to exist.
Yes, PNAs have been *designed* by Nielson et al. during their work on
antisense RNA. This synthesis you speak of, did it occur under
conditions that nicely mimic the conditions of the prebiotic earth?
Besides, PNA monomers cyclize when activated, which makes
them a bad candidate for forming prebiotic oligos.
In reply to Wade, I wrote:
> JT The logic of NAIGS is as follows. If we start with a system
> JT that has been scored as a design event that contains different,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Howard replied:
>Was this done so that you can rule out the NAIGS of hemoglobin?
Nope. Thus far, I assume evolutionary origins in systems beyond
the bacterial cell.
>But what prevents the mechanism that produced the NAIGS of
>hemoglobin from occurring in other 'structures'?
It has nothing to do with a mechanism that "prevents." It's just
a crappy analog. Hemoglobin exists because one monomer
duplicated to give rise to a heterotetramer. An oxygen binding
protein thus evolved into an oxygen-binding protein that bound
oxygen cooperatively. That is, we have hard evidence that a single
globin molecule (in the form of myoglobin) can do essentially
what hemoglobin does. Hemoglobin itself is not a component in
a larger IC molecular machine. Now, when we look at the F-ATPase,
it exists because of the activity of *eight* protein subunits and thus
gene duplication buys us only *one* subunit (your best case
scenario is left with a 7-part IC system). We can't say what the
imaginary 7-subunit protein did to see if it is analogous to
myoglobin because no one has ever found a functioning F-ATPase
without the alpha or beta subunit. The ability to hydrolyze ATP
appears to depend on *three* subunits, but of course, this activity
by itself is deleterious to a cell. Yet if you couple it to a five other
proteins in an IC manner, you can use this hydrolysis to pump ions.
Or reverse the motor to use the ion gradient to synthesize ATP.
I don't see how hemoglobin is relevant unless you want to argue
that you had a 7-subunit F-ATP synthase and the duplication merely
improved its function. But there is no evidence to support this notion.
In fact, if NAIGS is correct, it's probably a bogus explanation.
> JT but similar components, the similarity amidst the difference
> JT is proposed to be of *functional* significance. NAIGS is
> JT simply one small step in one particular fashion that seeks
> JT to identify this functional significance. Y'see, it is not about
> JT *detecting* design. It is about *using* design.
Howard replies:
>What does design have to do with it? Other than that you only call it
>NAIGS when you have previously declared the system it occurs in 'a
>design event'?
It is becoming quite clear that some ninas (nitpicking naysayers)
become so obsessed with picking the nits and saying the nays that
they have no idea about the basis of the real argument. So, let
me try one last time. What design has to do with this is that
a person who scores this system as a design product can use
thematic IC to decipher a two-component IC subsystem that
also happens to show some limited sequence similarity. One
can then begin to think about this sequence similarity in terms
of design. Why does it exist? What is it for? NAIGS is one
form of speculation that can begin to address such questions.
It's a different way of approaching the data.
I wrote:
> Maybe because I am far more tentative and open-minded in my
> approach than you are. That is, I have just proposed this vaguely
> defined "design-motif" as a starting place. It is a simple working
> hypothesis that could be applied and tested. At this stage, there
> is no way I would propose it as evidence of design. However,
> if after several years of exploring other biological systems that
> are scored as design products turns up a more rigorous version
> of this motif, maybe *then* I would consider it as "evidence of
> design." But at this stage, it is too premature. But then you
> probably easily forget that am I *developing* an investigative
> approach and not engaged in apologetics, don't you. Hell, you
> probably don't even believe that, which means I am simply wasting
> my time with you and am quickly becoming bored with your
> responses.
Howard replies:
>My problem is the circularity of the reasoning.
There is no circularity (no more, at least, than using evolutionary
thinking to label the sequence similarity as homology and then
use this homology as evidence that the F-ATPase subunits evolved).
>The reason this particular NAIGS is not due to non-design
>mechanisms like duplication and divergence is because I have already
>declared the system to be designed.
Yet NAIGS was not used to score this as a design product. Thus,
no circularity. Besides, I just wrote that this is a tentative proposal.
I don't claim "NAIGS is not due to non-design mechanisms."
I make tentative proposals. Maybe you read my words by
projecting your own dogmatic attitude about origins.
>The same event occurring outside of those systems I have
>already declared to be 'designed' could be attributed to duplication and
>divergence.
Indeed. You don't get it, do you? You still think NAIGS is some
kind of detection thingie. You still have not come to grips
with how thorough this "alternative viewpoint" thing is.
>After Julie's simple declaration that the system was
>designed there is no evidence that could possibly lead her to conclude
>that any part was not designed.
I wouldn't argue that the part was "not designed." I would simply
be unable to score it as the product of design if evidence existed
to thwart such scoring (as in the case of the Krebs Cycle). Furthermore,
if it turns out that the alpha subunit has no functional significance,
it would be very hard to score this subunit as a design product and
I would indeed re-consider the duplication explanation.
>Sequence evidence of duplication and
>divergence is what a designer could do (and I agree, because a HYPE
>designer can do anything you want in whatever system you arbitrarily
>decide are the ones he designed).
Not so fast. Sequence similarity is data *interpreted* as evidence of
duplication and divergence. I see no reason why a designer is supposed
to steer clear of using sequence similarities, unless it's to keep Howard
Hershey's life simpler.
>Evidence that subsystems could function independently for completely
>different but related functions?
Find this evidence in homologous bacterial systems that predate the
F-ATPase and I will revisit and probably remove this as scored
design product (as I did already with the Krebs Cycle).
Nice try, Howard. But you think my views are so unconstrained
because you don't understand them (although that has never stopped
you from posting gobs of replies to points you don't understand).
I wrote:
> Remember I am *developing* an investigative approach.
> There are still a few other ideas I want to test out. Eventually, when
> the approach becomes more focused, I will indeed derive a type
> of checklist or flowchart. But if you want to give me a lesson,
> show me your checklist for determining if something evolved.
Howard replied:
>Are you telling me that the systems you have already picked out as
>'designed' represent nothing more than your own personal opinion?
Of course! Y'see, I'm not like you, Howard. I don't confuse personal
opinions with objective facts. From my years of experience with you,
you always try to pass off your personal judgments as objective statements
about other people and the world.
>What if I don't agree with your personal opinion?
Er, is this supposed to be news? It's painfully obvious that you don't agree
with almost any of my views. So what? I've always said, "I'll go my way,
you go yours." I can live with your rejection. Quit happily, I might add.
You apparently can't live with the fact that I don't agree with you and
need to have the last word on almost everything I write. Apparently, it
bothers you if something I write isn't followed up by your take on it. And
I seem to recall that you rationalize this obsession with my personal
opinions because you see yourself as a crusader defending poor, weak,
fragile lil' Science from the all-powerful and eeevil Julie Thomas posting
on the highly and ubiquitously respected talk.origins.
>Am I a propagandist on the order of Duane Gish thereby?
Well, yeah. Not because you don't agree with me (I really don't care
about that). But because you consistently misrepresent my views
with you bag-full-o-spin.
I wrote:
> > Let's remember that the ONLY evidence for gene duplication
> > in this system is the sequence similarity in question. But what
> > is the evidence that this sequence similarity is in fact due
> > to gene duplication? If one is closed to a design inference, it is
> > perfectly understandable why one would view things like Wade.
> > But if one is open to a design inference, the evidence that
> > convinces Wade becomes rather unconvincing.
Howard replies:
>Sequence similarity. No sequence similarity. Its always design after
>the initial conclusion that it was designed. What actual evidence, if
>you rule out evidence of systems with fewer proteins, potential
>subsystems with alternate functionality within the current system, and
>sequence similarity, could one possibly present?
Er, if you have evidence of a simpler F-ATPase, let's have it. If
you have evidence that all but one of the components of the F-ATPase
function in an alternative system, let's have it. If you have homologs
of the gamma, delta, epsilon, a, b, and c subunits, let's have them.
All I see is bluster and an appeal to imaginary evidence. That is,
Howard imagines evidence and then expects me to treat his imaginary
evidence as if it exists. Sorry, but my Krebs Cycle analysis
shows that your attempt to project your own dogmatism won't work.
And because I am not the apologist you are, I *do* think it is important
to determine if these similar activities actually exist, and if so, when
they originated, where they are found, and if they are biologically
relevant. I realize in your mind that all we need do is
imagine they existed and dare someone to prove that imaginary
situation is impossible.
>How does this differ from saying "Cause I say its designed"? If
>you don't accept evidence that contradicts your hypothesis,
Huh? Limited sequence similarity among the beta and
alpha subunits does NOT contradict my hypothesis. Get a
clue.
>and you don't have any direct evidence *for* your hypothesis,
>you have religion and not a scientific hypothesis.
And your direct evidence for the hypothesis that the
alpha and bet subunit are related through gene duplication is?
Oh yeah, I remember, the evidence amounts to "it can happen."
Howard writes:
>I have written posts that show how I think that design could be
>supported with evidence.
Really? How did you identify the designer and his/her motives
and methods? Perhaps you need to share these posts with
Mark and Matt.
>I am not against design as a scientific
>hypothesis. I am against unevidenced assertions of design. I am
>against omphalic design. I am against design as an automatic fallback
>position in preference to the more accurate "We don't know.". I favor
>the idea that, unless known mechanisms can be shown to be wrong, they
>are preferable to unknown HYPEs.
My, my. I am not against. I am against. I am against. I am
against. I favor. This sounds like the Hershey Creed. Have
you been working on this to formalize and organize the Pack
for possible tax-exempt status?
I wrote:
> Okay, consider yourself labeled as one who employs
> double standards. Science can be used to critique design, but never,
> never use it to support design.
Howard replied:
>Sure it can. Ask any anthropologist. Evidenced intelligent design can
>certainly be studied as a science.
I see. So when you claimed,
"I have written posts that show how I think that design could be
supported with evidence,"
those very same posts outlined the identity, motives, and methods
of the designers who produced design, right? Or is this just another
inconsistency born of the motive to throw everything, including
the kitchen sink, against design (a motive, which in turn, is born
of that open-mind of yours)?
Howard also writes:
>Unevidenced and unneccessary use of
>HYPEs to explain phenomena of nature, however, is decidedly anti-science
>or pseudoscience.
What's more, it might even cause the sky to fall!
Seriously, I would place human behavior, human belief, and human
interaction in the class of "phenomena of nature." Yet all the religions
of the world invoke HYPEs (called "God") to explain these (at least in
part). I suppose this shows that Howard now thinks religion is
"anti-science." Well?
>Once Julie has concluded that a system is "designed", all the parts of
>it are also "designed".
Howard projects his dogmatic approach upon me.
>Thus sequence similarity in a "designed" system
>does not have the same meaning that sequence similarity in a
>"non-designed" system has.
IF a system was designed, it could very well be that sequence similarity
does not mean gene duplication. Maybe I should begin to adopt
your approach and demand that you show why gene duplication is
REQUIRED to explain this sequence similarity.
>In a "designed" system sequence similarity
>is evidence of design. Absence of sequence similarity is also evidence
>of design. See how easy that is, Wade?
I never made either claim. This is just more of Howard's
misrepresentations at work.
>What I don't know is what goes
>into declaring a system "designed" and, what evidence, after that
>declaration is made, could possibly allow one to retract the conclusion
>of design, given the principles Julie has proposed that evidence that
>close cousins of components of the "designed" system (or entire
>subcomponents) can serve alternative functions independent of the system
>doesn't count as evidence against the "design" conclusion and neither
>does sequence similarity of components within the system.
Howard's ignorance probably stems from his reading of my
articles with the mindset of a nina.
>But, given the same evidence of sequence similarity and the logic of
>science, is the hypothesis that the two similar sequences arose by
>duplication and divergence by mechanisms that are known to exist in
>nature equivalent to a hypothesis that requires the invention of a
>completely unevidenced and unseen intelligent entity who produces
>sequence similarity or not as he chooses? I think not. Wade, I
>presume, also thinks not.
Who cares? From my angle, I don't need to propose completely
unevidenced and unseen functioning F-ATPases or other imaginary
precursors with imaginary functions all built upon meager sequence
similarity between only two of *eight* subunits. As for the
differing views being equivalent or not, that's simply a matter of
opinion.
>It is not the *idea* of an intelligent entity who invents sequences at
>will that I object to. It is the total lack of supporting scientific
evidence
>that any such entity exists that rules it out *as science*.
Well, duh. SIBO is not science. I guess y'can't teach old pack dogs
new tricks. It's the same old performance.
>You tell me. I would suggest some evidence that an intelligent designer
>existed at the time you need them to would be a start. I have suggested
>that convincing evidence that the two functionally convergent but
>structurally distinct bacterial flagellae (eubacterial and archaean)
>represents an *intelligent* design intenet rather than historical
>accident would be nice. I have suggested that evidence tracing all the
>"designed" features to a single point in time (especially since some of
>these, like bacterial flagella, represent "frills" not crucial to life
>and others, like OriC, represent "essentials") might provide some
>support. But those are just a few of my suggestions.
Huh? Hold on a minute. Evidence of an intelligent designer would only
be a start? I thought it was essential. I thought it was required. I
thought,
according to folks like you, Matt and Mark, that without this evidence, the
rest is bunk. Make up your mind. Either you need that independent
evidence of the designer or you don't. Which is it?
Finally, Wade wrote:
>
> >Resisting change is something that functional things often do.
I replied:
> So the precursors to the F-ATPases had no function, right?
> Oh, I get it. As functioning units, they could change into
> the F-ATPase, but then suddenly, the F-ATPases could
> no longer change because they were now functioning units.
Howard replied:
>You know that Wade would never claim that the precursors to the
>F-ATPases had *no* funtionality. That is Behe's claim of what would
>represent evidence of ICness, not Wade's. Selection is like a tornado,
>very strong and quick when it occurs (which is rarely in comparison to
>the steady breeze of dynamic stasis). If you look at the genomes of
>organisms, what you see is largely evidence of a dynamic stasis. The
>sequences of molecules change neutrally over evolutionary time within
>the constraint of retained functionality. Duplications come and
>duplications go. These changes are like a gentle constant breeze. They
>are constant enough to be considered clocklike in their regularity.
>['Detrimental' changes play no strong evolutionary role because
>selection is so strong.] Selectively 'beneficial' changes are
>exceedingly rare and typically produce only the initial functionality
>shift or the opportunity for a functionality shift, like the duplication
>of a myoglobin-like ancestral globin provided the opportunity to produce
>an oxygen-carrying blood-borne rather than cellular molecule. But once
>they have caught the eye of selection by, say, a chance change in a
>duplicate that leads it to be produced in a cell that enters the
>blood-stream, change will be rapid. Sequence changes that lead to
>improvement of a new beneficial functionality will occur with extreme
>rapidity compared to the rate of change at the neutral sites because it
>is driven by the favorable selection. But such selection for new
>functionality will not last forever. On a geological or sequence time
>scale, it will seem to be but a wink and the tornado of selection for
>new functionality has formed from a gentle swirling wind, raged for a
>moment in time, and died down. When selection has already led to the
>production of an optimized new functionality for the organism (say,
>converted the initial myoglobin-like oxygen carrier into a
>hemoglobin-like oxygen carrier), the nature of the system reverts back
>to dynamic stasis, but now with an added functionality of hemoglobin.
I see. A little poetry to go with your Creed. But I don't see how any
of thus touches on a most basic problem. When we look at the F-ATPase,
we find a molecular machine whose architecture has remained essentially
unchanged in many, many bacterial lineages, each representing billions
of years of exposure to evolutionary mechanisms. Why no change?
Because, it is argued, we have multiprotein complexes where protein:
protein interactions are key in generating the function. Essentially,
tinkering
hasn't done much in the last few billion years apparently because it was all
bad. Fine. But it would seem to me that the precursors of the F-ATPase
(or flagellum) were no less a multiprotein complex with their own function,
yet they changed into the F-ATPases. In other words, the constraints invoked
to explain the lack of change during the last few billion years (multiprotein
complexes with functions) are somehow lifted to explain the origin of
the F-ATPase yet there is no reason for lifting those constraints.
--
Paul Blake
Mark Isaak <at...@best.comNOSPAM> wrote in article
<7fldfb$d3e$1...@shell6.ba.best.com>...
> In article <37276455...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
> Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >In talk.origins I read this message from nyi...@math.sc.edu:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >>... as I pointed out in another thread, you have parasitized his
> >>unconventional concept of "evolution is the designer". Can you
> >>name a single other person in talk.origins who hews to this
> >>word game?
> >>
> >Sorry for the second follow-up, but I forgot to mention this. Yes,
> >Peter, I can think of another poster who hold that position. I have
> >already told you this. Look up Bertvan. He argues just this position:
> >that Design does not imply a designer. I don't know why you say I am
> >playing a word game. What I have said is that the question of Design
> >does depend on the definition. If it does not necessarily imply a
> >designer then we an consider forces, such as gravity and evolution as
> >designers.
>
> I have also seen the concept used by someone else in a magazine (sorry, I
> don't remember where). Which is hardly surprising; the concept of
> evolution as a desiger is a fairly obvious one. I would be surprised if
> the concept can't be dated to at least a century ago.
>
Well Darwin used Sexual Selection to explain the ocelli (Ball and
socket-like patterns) on the feathers of pheasants. (Descent of Man and
Selection in relation to Sex)
That can be an example of evolution as a designer.
--
Regards
Paul Blake
Associate Professor
University of Ediacara
--------------------------------------
As the days go by, we face the increasing inevitability that we are alone
in a Godless, uninhabited, hostile and meaningless universe. Still, you
got to laugh haven't you? - Red Dwarf
--------------------------------------
howard hershey
*****re-include parts Julie did not that came immediately after that
quote*****
But research programs that produces results that really require or
search for evidence of a designer are something else. All the 'design'
research I have seen amounts to looking at something that isn't
understood by them and asserting 'the designer did that'. I can see a
research project based on the idea that life exists outside this planet,
followed by a search for signs of that life. But beyond that, I have
some trouble seeing what research program you are thinking about.
******end****
In short, you can design research on any assumption you want (including
peyote dreams). A stopped analog watch is right twice a day. That does
not make it a useful machine for telling time (unless you redefine the
meaning of time so that all times are defined as consistent with watch
time, in which case the watch is *always* giving the right time).
>
> >In fact you and Julie are exceedingly vague about
> >what features require off-planet synthesis and how one distinguishes
> >them.
>
> Of course, I have only pointed out over 100 times (literally) that my
> views don't in any way depend on design being "required." Howard
> keeps trying to sneak this criterion at every chance because that
> is just another way of making me argue that evolution is impossible
> (thus, requiring design to explain its origin). Of course, no one
> can ever demonstrate the impossible, thus this is simply a rhetotical
> trick Howard employs to mask the weakness of his own position.
Not at all. We are *comparing* whether or not a completely unevidenced
mechanism involving unseen HYPEs is more or less likely than any of
several extrapolations from of a set of known mechanisms, whose
necessary conditions clearly were present at the right time and place.
It is not *impossible* to show that some of the known set of
explanations can be ruled unlikely in many of these cases. For example,
it is quite possible for evidence of ICness to compellingly show that a
system could not arise via a stepwise process with each step selected
for the end functionality. For example, one can use the absence of
sequence similarity to rule out that two proteins arose by ducation and
divergence. But the reason why I think that Julie needs to sequentially
rule out known evolutionary mechanisms is precisely *because* she has no
independent evidence for her mechanism. If she did, that would
short-circuit the process. She still needs to present that independent
evidence to make her hypothesis scientifically valid, since *even if*
she ruled out all known mechanisms, that would really only mean that the
mechanism is unknown and thus *needs* a novel or new mechanism. Julie
may not like the fact that completely unevidenced mechanisms are not
accepted as science, but that is not my problem. I only point out that
it is not science. Julie sometimes agrees, but doesn't like it to be
continually pointed out.
>
> >Julie's identification amounts to little more than calling an IC
> >system that doesn't meet requirements she regards as evidence for
> >evolution "designed" as her fall-back position.
>
> That's one way to spin it.
That is how you describe it.
>
> >As I have to keep reminding Julie and you,
> >I am not even opposed *in principle* to the idea of intelligent design.
>
> Anyone who believes this please e-mail me. If you send me $50,
> I have a second-cousin with a great stock market tip.
>
> >I just don't think that either of you have presented a shred of actual
> >evidence supporting the idea.
>
> That's Howard's subjective opinion. After all, evidence is essentially
> interpreted data, and I have presented gobs of data interpreted to
> support a design explanation.
Evidence is data that explicitly deals with an artfully and honestly
phrased specific question (a specific hypothesis). You can present tons
of data and interpret it any way you want without that data being
evidence. Unless you have phrased a question (hypothesis) so that only
*some* results can be used to support your thesis and alternative
results lead to its rejection, the data cannot be used to support a
design explanation. It is only regarded as 'evidence' for an hypothesis
when, to the best of one's understanding, that 'evidence' would *only*
occur if the proposed hypothesis is true. It is otherwise irrelevant.
If *ANY* data can be interpreted in a design explanation, design is
omphalic. If the data presented can be interpreted by either a design
or evolutionary explanation, it cannot be considered as *evidence* for
design. Nor can it be used to rule out design. In that case, science
prefers the explanation which is simpler. Unevidenced *intelligent*
HYPE explanations rarely are simpler, even if the altenative requires an
unevidenced subsystem or protein (clearly simpler than an intelligent
HYPE).
> Howard simply inflates his
> subjective opinion as some form of objective standard where someway
> his disagreement with the notion that this data is evidence means
> in fact this data is not evidence.
Not all data is evidence. Merely interpreting data to fit a 'design'
mechanism is not evidence, especially if any data can be so interpreted.
>
> >The 'intelligent design' hypothesis is
> >not, at the current time, the best (or even a useful or valid)
> >*scientific* explanation. It is much more complex than other much
> >simpler known explanations. Intelligent design is little more than
> >omphalic pseudoscientific wishful thinking in its present incarnation.
>
> Omphalic, pseudoscientific, and wishful thinking. The Thomas Rule states
> that the more negative adjectives one uses to describe his/her opponents
> views, the less open that person is to those views.
It is also accurate in this case.
>
> >She also, though *she* is not about to say so, has presented no evidence
> >that any feature of life required a designer
>
> This means only that I have not fallen for Howard's trap. I recognize
> fully that Howard's position is so weak that he expects me to engage
> him by proving the impossible. Because only then can he make a
> powerful point. I simply think it is silly to argue that design is
> a valid explanation only if it is *required* to explain something.
Let me rephrase that. Julie has presented reams of data that she
interprets as consistent with design, but no hypothesis that converts
that data into evidence explicitly supporting design and ruling out
evolution. In fact, after she declares a system "designed", it appears
that there can be no evidence against the hypothesis of design.
>
> >nor any algorithm for accurately identifying designed events.
>
> Two things. Note the use of "accurately."
An algorithm that explicitly distinguishes between evolutionary
mechanisms and design (where it is in fact possible for a piece of data
to lead to the rejection of design) would meet the criteria of
accurate. The algorithm I have seen you state: 1) No detailed
evolutionary history (as defined by Julie) and 2) ICness is obviously
inaccurate. The first part is inherently unable to distinguish between
the alternative hypotheses (absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence). The second only affects certain evolutionary mechanisms and
is an arbitrary restriction on an omphalic explanation.
> Who gets to decide
> if the identification is accurate? Let me guess. Howard the
> Open-Minded? Secondly, I have said that I am
> developing my views. Unlike Howard, I don't have the luxury
> of simply parroting someone else's ideas or waiting for some
> expert to solve the problems for me.
>
> >My suspicion is that she would *like* to have the HYPE
> >designer she imagines be God.
>
> Of course, it's all part of the Church of the OriC. You can all
> send a donation along with the $50 for the stock tip.
No. As I have pointed out several times, it is perfectly obvious that
any designer intelligent enough to design IC systems can certainly
design any simpler system. Given your algorithm for determining design,
*any* system with (in your opinion) insufficient evidence of evolution
can then be called the product of a designer and not just the IC ones.
(In short, I regard the IC requirement to be mere window dressing you
use, intentionally or not, to obfusticate the real God-of-the-Gaps core
of your argument by arbitrarily looking only at the complex features).
That reduces your basic design argument to "No evidence of evolution =
intelligent design", which is a false dichotomy (one seen all the time
in Dembski's ID work) in addition to all its other problems.
I do not know whether you are thinking of the *intelligent designer* as
omnipotent, but you certainly have not ruled it out. The only other
place where you have restricted design is to place it at the earliest
times of life on the earth, but again, this seems to be purely an
arbitrary restriction given *your* algorithm for identifying design (it
is less so with Peter's specification of an alien world and one-time
transhipment), but there is not evidence for that hypothesis either.
Clearly there are both IC systems and systems with unknown evolutionary
history that have happened since the initial appearance of life on the
earth. My problem is that you have not provided a valid method for
distinguishing design events from non-design events based on the
assumptions of the mechanisms (reams of data, but no evidence that
distinguishes between hypotheses - not surprising, since your hypothesis
is omphalic). The restrictions you impose on design seem to be purely
arbitrary and done only to misdirect people to look only at places where
your case has more of an appearance of reasonableness.
>
[snip rest, which largely hinges on the points described above: the
difference between interpreting data to fit a hypothesis and data which
represents *evidence* that distinguishes between hypotheses (assuming,
of course, that neither hypothesis is omphalicly consistent with any and
all evidence)]
Donald E. Flood
I do not want to beat an old drum here, as I have suggested this
publication before. I have read many of your posts, and I would
like your opinion about this book. Chapters 4 & 5 are pertinent.
http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/enter2.cgi?0309048869.html
Thanks.
Don
howard hershey
>
[snip]
>
> >After Julie's simple declaration that the system was
> >designed there is no evidence that could possibly lead her to conclude
> >that any part was not designed.
>
> I wouldn't argue that the part was "not designed." I would simply
> be unable to score it as the product of design if evidence existed
> to thwart such scoring (as in the case of the Krebs Cycle).
Just to explicitly point out that Julie is not saying that the Krebs
Cycle was *not* designed. She is merely saying that she arbitrarily
chooses not to call it designed. One of the signs of an omphalic theory
is that one cannot exclude it for any but arbitrary reasons. An
intelligent designer hypothesis that detects design by equating absence
of evidence for the alternative with evidence for the designer and makes
the designer able to do complex events cannot readily be excluded from
being the designer of simpler events.
>
> >Sequence evidence of duplication and
> >divergence is what a designer could do (and I agree, because a HYPE
> >designer can do anything you want in whatever system you arbitrarily
> >decide are the ones he designed).
>
> Not so fast. Sequence similarity is data *interpreted* as evidence of
> duplication and divergence. I see no reason why a designer is supposed
> to steer clear of using sequence similarities, unless it's to keep Howard
> Hershey's life simpler.
I agree. Your designer can use sequence similarity. It can use
whatever you want it to use. You present lots of re-interpreted data.
You present no evidence. I still do not know what kinds of data can
explicitly rule out the designer nor why you choose the arbitrary
restrictions you do.
>
[snip]
>
> > Okay, consider yourself labeled as one who employs
> > double standards. Science can be used to critique design, but never,
> > never use it to support design.
>
> Howard replied:
>
> >Sure it can. Ask any anthropologist. Evidenced intelligent design can
> >certainly be studied as a science.
>
> I see. So when you claimed,
>
> "I have written posts that show how I think that design could be
> supported with evidence,"
>
> those very same posts outlined the identity, motives, and methods
> of the designers who produced design, right?
Well, as a matter of fact, yes.
> Or is this just another
> inconsistency born of the motive to throw everything, including
> the kitchen sink, against design (a motive, which in turn, is born
> of that open-mind of yours)?
I was merely pointing out what I think is necessary to show that an
object was designed by an intelligent entity. Anthropological studies
point the way. So do studies of fossil worm burrows and reefs (at
somewhat lower levels of intelligence). Having evidence for the
existence of an intelligent entity at the right time and place is
helpful, but it is not enough by itself to show that some object was
designed by that entity. A connection has to be made between the entity
and the object and the object has to show unequivocable signs that it
could not occur unless the entity was there.
>
> Howard also writes:
>
> >Unevidenced and unneccessary use of
> >HYPEs to explain phenomena of nature, however, is decidedly anti-science
> >or pseudoscience.
>
> What's more, it might even cause the sky to fall!
>
> Seriously, I would place human behavior, human belief, and human
> interaction in the class of "phenomena of nature." Yet all the religions
> of the world invoke HYPEs (called "God") to explain these (at least in
> part). I suppose this shows that Howard now thinks religion is
> "anti-science." Well?
Science, as a discipline, is inherently a-theistic or non-theistic
(although its practioners need not be). Science does not, and has no
ability to, deal with miracles or supernatural events. Religions
provides a *different* (and in many ways equally valid) perspective on
human behavior, belief and interaction than science does. But I would
not call the religious perspectives science for the same reason I don't
call your approach scientific. Religions and religious beliefs use an
approach that accepts the validity of unevidenced explanation and
omphalic all-encompassing answers.
>
[snip]
>
> >It is not the *idea* of an intelligent entity who invents sequences at
> >will that I object to. It is the total lack of supporting scientific
> evidence
> >that any such entity exists that rules it out *as science*.
>
> Well, duh. SIBO is not science. I guess y'can't teach old pack dogs
> new tricks. It's the same old performance.
As long as you do not preface your proposals with the statement that you
have absolutely no evidence (not data that you can interpret from a
design perspective) for the existence of the designer, I guess I will
have to keep pointing out that SIBO is not science. Wouldn't want
newbies to be misled.
>
> >You tell me. I would suggest some evidence that an intelligent designer
> >existed at the time you need them to would be a start. I have suggested
> >that convincing evidence that the two functionally convergent but
> >structurally distinct bacterial flagellae (eubacterial and archaean)
> >represents an *intelligent* design intenet rather than historical
> >accident would be nice. I have suggested that evidence tracing all the
> >"designed" features to a single point in time (especially since some of
> >these, like bacterial flagella, represent "frills" not crucial to life
> >and others, like OriC, represent "essentials") might provide some
> >support. But those are just a few of my suggestions.
>
> Huh? Hold on a minute. Evidence of an intelligent designer would only
> be a start? I thought it was essential. I thought it was required. I
> thought,
> according to folks like you, Matt and Mark, that without this evidence, the
> rest is bunk. Make up your mind. Either you need that independent
> evidence of the designer or you don't. Which is it?
As pointed out above, you also need to makes some connection between the
designer and the designed object and show that the designer was
required. But since you don't have any of that evidence, the point is
moot.
Once full functionality is attained, it is maintained rather than
continuing indefinitely to change. Think of a chemical reaction (say
the formation of water from oxygen and hydrogen). It is not inevitable
that the reaction start. But sometimes it does The initial rate of
water formation is extremely fast, but the reaction slows down over
time. The pace of evolutionary change is like that. Reactions near
completion are in active stasis until the next precipitating event,
which is not inevitable.
> Because, it is argued, we have multiprotein complexes where protein:
> protein interactions are key in generating the function. Essentially,
> tinkering
> hasn't done much in the last few billion years apparently because it was all
> bad. Fine. But it would seem to me that the precursors of the F-ATPase
> (or flagellum) were no less a multiprotein complex with their own function,
> yet they changed into the F-ATPases. In other words, the constraints invoked
> to explain the lack of change during the last few billion years (multiprotein
> complexes with functions) are somehow lifted to explain the origin of
> the F-ATPase yet there is no reason for lifting those constraints.
The constraints are still there. An historical accident producing a
novel functionality by aggregation of subsystems is a rare event (and
not an inevitable one). The integrated nature of the subsystems do not
change initially. The eye crystallins formed because of historical
accident and did not initially change their original functionality
because in one cell type they acquired a second entirely separate
functionality completely unrelated to their original functionality.
Only Behevians think that the final functionality was the same as the
original and that all parts have to be added on stepwise.
> --
Matt Silberstein
(Julie Thomas):
>
[snip]
>Howard writes:
>
[snip]
>>As I have to keep reminding Julie and you,
>>I am not even opposed *in principle* to the idea of intelligent design.
>
>Anyone who believes this please e-mail me. If you send me $50,
>I have a second-cousin with a great stock market tip.
>
I believe him, I even agree. I have certainly accepted intelligent
design as an explanation for other phenomena.
[snip]
>The Thomas Rule states
>that the more negative adjectives one uses to describe his/her opponents
>views, the less open that person is to those views.
Do you agree with Peter that it is better you use negative terms to
describe the opponent rather than the view?
[snip]
>>I have written posts that show how I think that design could be
>>supported with evidence.
>
>Really? How did you identify the designer and his/her motives
>and methods? Perhaps you need to share these posts with
>Mark and Matt.
>
Simple. Get some evidence that the designer existed. Look at the body
of work of the designer. Look at other things the designer has done,
other than the specific items in question. Look at the environment the
designer lived in. That will do for a start.
[snip]
If it pretends to be science or replace science, yes. Scientific
Creationism and Behevian Intelligent Design are two good examples of
anti-science or pseudo-science. Your work, were we not agree is
independent of science, would go in the same category.
[snip]
>>You tell me. I would suggest some evidence that an intelligent designer
>>existed at the time you need them to would be a start. I have suggested
>>that convincing evidence that the two functionally convergent but
>>structurally distinct bacterial flagellae (eubacterial and archaean)
>>represents an *intelligent* design intenet rather than historical
>>accident would be nice. I have suggested that evidence tracing all the
>>"designed" features to a single point in time (especially since some of
>>these, like bacterial flagella, represent "frills" not crucial to life
>>and others, like OriC, represent "essentials") might provide some
>>support. But those are just a few of my suggestions.
>
>Huh? Hold on a minute. Evidence of an intelligent designer would only
>be a start? I thought it was essential. I thought it was required. I
>thought,
>according to folks like you, Matt and Mark, that without this evidence, the
>rest is bunk. Make up your mind. Either you need that independent
>evidence of the designer or you don't. Which is it?
>
Where is Peter when a discussion of necessary vs. sufficient is in
order? I predict Peter will totally ignore Julie's confusion here.
[snip]
Ken Cox
> Just to explicitly point out that Julie is not saying that the Krebs
> Cycle was *not* designed. She is merely saying that she arbitrarily
> chooses not to call it designed. One of the signs of an omphalic theory
> is that one cannot exclude it for any but arbitrary reasons. An
> intelligent designer hypothesis that detects design by equating absence
> of evidence for the alternative with evidence for the designer and makes
> the designer able to do complex events cannot readily be excluded from
> being the designer of simpler events.
Or, to put it a bit more simply: of course God *could* have done
it that way. He's God, He can do anything.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
howard hershey
>
> howard hershey wrote:
> > Just to explicitly point out that Julie is not saying that the Krebs
> > Cycle was *not* designed. She is merely saying that she arbitrarily
> > chooses not to call it designed. One of the signs of an omphalic theory
> > is that one cannot exclude it for any but arbitrary reasons. An
> > intelligent designer hypothesis that detects design by equating absence
> > of evidence for the alternative with evidence for the designer and makes
> > the designer able to do complex events cannot readily be excluded from
> > being the designer of simpler events.
>
> it that way. He's God, He can do anything.
Or space aliens. What is interesting is that Julie seems to think it is
contributing something to science to re-interpret events from a design
perspective (by inventing terms like NAIGS). Even karl can re-interpret
things from a design perspective. All you have to do is say that "A
designer could do that." Julie simply does it under a higher degree of
jargon. A design perspective can be used to explain any and
everything. I do believe that I have already said that a number of
times. Part of my difficulty is that I cannot think of a single
non-arbitrary test that could ever rule out *intelligent design* in
principle. Now if Julie could more explicitly describe the design
process and designer she envisions and the *evidence* she uses, one
*might* be able to propose an hypothesis that could distinguish between
that *type of design* and evolution. I have, when possible, tried to do
so - most lately by asking for the intelligent design impetus behind
producing two types of bacterial flagella. But, of course, one can
always say "A designer could do that." or complain that one is not
really interested in determining whether a designer did it, but in
whether it is possible to re-interpret the evidence from a design
perspective *if* one makes the assumption of design. I can save Julie a
lot of trouble. The answer is yes.
>
> --
> Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Dave Horn
>CC: Andrew MacRae, who probably knows Myers is an
>incorrigible troll but keeps up the pretense of thinking that
>Myers is a man with valuable things to contribute to talk.origins,
>a man who is no less honest than anyone else here.
Heh, heh...
What I find comical in this particular "new" thread is that it was less than
48 hours ago that Nyikos sent this to me:
----------
Peter Nyikos wrote in message <1999042021...@milo.math.sc.edu>...
>Dave follows up to a post in which I made no personal
>comments whatsoever about him (unless you count a
>place where I said he was being sloppy in use of words)
>and characteristically tries to turn our exchange into a
>full-blown airing of a vendetta.
----------
Forgetting for the moment that I have already answered this several times
(there's no vendetta, just having some fun at Nyikos's expense *and* making
a point he never can quite seem to grasp), this is simply more evidence of
Nyikosian hypocrisy. Nyikos will whine at others (particularly me) when he
can about topicality of articles posted here and there was a lot of talk
some time ago about how he feels it is his mission in life to "clean the
Augean stables of talk.origins" and try to get us to clean up our collective
act. But I asked a question way back then and it never got an answer from
Nyikos. It had to do with whom seems more likely to be perpetuating
personality and flame wars in this newsgroup? Is it someone who says his
piece and moves on? Or is it Nyikos...who brings things up over and over
again even when they have been answered (and insists they never were
answered -- though he won't say *why*). It never occurs to hypocritical
Nyikos that if he truly wants to "clean up" talk.origins, the best way is
not to respond if he feels that the article in question was irrelevant, not
topical, or inappropriate in some way. Nyikos finishes this latest diatribe
with this:
>One of the standard myths of talk.origins is that I behave the
>way I do because I can't stand people criticizing ME. Truth
>is, people can criticize me all they want as long as they do it
>honestly, whether or not they are correct in their criticism,
>and they'll never get the treatment I give Myers, Hershey, etc.
>On the other hand, if I see them lying about Behe, Julie, etc.
>I give them the treatment they deserve even if I'm not mentioned.
>I've been doing it for two years now, but some people can never
>get a clue.
Of course, this is simply not so. As we shall see, there are no lies in the
article that follows, but there is considerable criticism of Nyikosian
tactics and that has certainly raised his self-important ire. He *is* being
criticized, there is nothing dishonest about it, and so the above statement
that he doesn't react to that is a lie.
>At least, this post exposes Myers's modus operandi as
>no other I've seen.
Does it? Let's see...
>In article <myers-21049...@bio-32.bio.temple.edu>,
> my...@astro.ocis.temple.edu (PZ Myers) wrote:
>> In article <371D9A...@indiana.edu>, howard hershey
>> <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >nyi...@math.sc.edu wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >I limit myself to threads that have some interest to me and
>> >might have some interest to others. A thread about my
>> >religious beliefs or lack thereof lacks general interest.
>
>The thread wasn't about that...
In Nyikos's view. Of course, Nyikos rarely qualifies these kinds of
comments as being nothing more than his view. Watch, instead, what he
does...
>...it was about Howard's evident contempt for
>people with certain religious beliefs.
I have criticized Nyikos in the past and pointed out several specific
occasions where Nyikos cannot seem to score any kind of debate point unless
he can restate the argument of his correspondent. In response, Nyikos has
made vague complaints that such things are "a scam" but when challenged,
Nyikos seems completely incapable of explaining *why* it is a scam and why
the party being addressed is not the best source insofar as explaining what
*his* point of view is supposed to be. It is fair to note that Nyikos does
use the qualifier "evident" in this particular comment; but if it goes much
beyond this, Nyikos will insist on knowing Howard's intent better than
Howard does. That's par for the course for Nyikos as I have demonstrated
many, many times with respect to Nyikos's complaints at or about me.
>Specifically, his evident contempt for people who
>believe in the existence of unevidenced HYPE designers,
>like the God of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, or
>even consider the existence of such a God to be a realistic
>possibility.
That there is no evidence for either of these things should not be lost on
Nyikos, who has proclaimed himself to be the most scientific thinker in this
newsgroup on at least one occasion (that I saw), but he still reacts very
emotionally to any challenge to his own use of HYPE or unevidenced designers
in his arguments. The problem here is not Howard's apparently contempt for
such things -- the problem is *Nyikos's* contempt for those whose only crime
is to disagree with Nyikos.
>> >A thread where you accuse me of this or
>> >that is so common as to be boring.
>
>Not nearly as common as threads where Howard accuses
>me falsely of this and that, for instance believing certain things
>about ectoderm that I don't believe, believing things about bats
>that I don't believe, believing things about extraembryonic
>membranes that I don't believe, believing things about
>peptides that I don't believe. What's worse, he's conned
>one person after another into wasting time trying to
>convince me of things that I never denied and were never
>an issue. Including decent (AFAIK) people like Andy Groves
>and John Harshman.
Most of the details of these issues are no longer important to me and I
cannot comment specifically without looking up the specific discussions --
something I am frankly not inclined to do (considering that this is Nyikos
we're talking about). Given his past frequent back-pedals, restatements and
later spin-doctoring along with my general recollection and specific
incidents with respect to me, it is not unreasonable to believe that, in
fact, Nyikos has been corrected on a number of issues which he later
dismisses with "I never said that," "I never saw that," or "I can't find
that."
>> >Your mind is so twisted into tiny little nasty knots
>> >that I don't care what you think of me.
>
>The nasty little knots are all in Howard's mind. Knots that
>twist almost everything I write beyond recognition. Knots
>that he refuses to untie no matter how often I refute each
>little twist and turn.
...or how often Nyikos *presumes* to "refute." This is simply more of
Nyikos's juvenile form of argumentation, akin to "I know I am but what are
you." That Nyikos is a twisted, evil, hateful man seems to be concensus
here. And while Nyikos will certainly view his above response as
refutation, it is simple "is NOT." Nyikos will again expect the reader to
accept that it is so because he says it is so.
>> >I would only start to worry if you treated me politley
>> >and as if you agreed with what I said. If you want to
>> >go on record calling me the AntiChrist and tool
>> >of Satan, go ahead.
>
>Howard wants me to do that because it would take people's
>minds off the dreary pettiness of his torrent of dishonest
>actions in talk.origins.
None of which Nyikos can support as "dishonest." He simply declares them to
be so and expects the reader to accept them as such. I've never seen
anything dishonest out of Howard directed at Nyikos and I'm a better judge
of such things since I am a dispassionate observer of those discussions. In
response to this previously, Nyikos declared me "not dispassionate" without
so much as a cybernetic "bat of the eye" and dismissed it without further
comment. But the fact remains that in discussions between the two, Howard
is generally calm and Nyikos rants and raves. Readers are invited to draw
their own conclusions, of course, and should be every bit as dispassionate
in doing an evaluation. I am confident that the same conclusions will be
reached.
>He'd love to be thought of as spectacularly evil.
Nyikos once again displays a sense of self-importance. It is pretty clear
that Howard doesn't really care what Nyikos thinks.
Nyikos intensifies his whine thusly:
>He is, instead, an obnoxious twit who enjoys lying about
>me because he loves to see me waste my time refuting
>his lies, knowing almost nobody gives a damn whether
>they are lies, AND that many people would be ecstatic
>if one of them turned out to be TRUE.
See above. Nyikos has yet to demonstrate clearly a lie on the part of
anyone in talk.origins, let alone Howard. Furthermore, his name-calling
("obnoxious twit") demonstrates what I have said before: He is a hypocrite,
a lousy witness as a christian, and a disgrace to his title and his
institution.
>> >It will only garner me points in the t.o. game (although
>> >I'll have to check the rules; the points may require that the
>> >name-calling come from a standard YEC creationist and
>> >not Peter,
>
>But Howard knows better than to waste his time on standard
>YEC creationists. He goes after people that the rifraff
>of talk.origins are incompetent to go after: Julie Thomas and
>me being the two salient examples.
Speaking as one of the "riff raff," I have sent Nyikos scurrying on more
occasions than he will be willing to admit. In his inabilities to deal with
me on any level, Nyikos hides his snipes at me within messages directed at
others. This would be amusing if it wasn't so pathetic. Ah, what the
hell...it's Nyikos, after all. So I guess it *is* amusing -- even if it
*is* pathetic.
>> >...since getting an _ad hominem_ attack from Peter
>> >may be like finding three-leaf clovers).
>
>Of course, if Howard were to go on the rampage against
>people like Arthur Biele...
"Rampage?" I didn't see a "rampage." I saw another creationist countered
and challenged about things he was saying in the group. But because Nyikos
tends to ally himself with these sorts of people, he views "challenge" as a
"rampage."
Fascinating.
>...the way his spectacularly dishonest net.friend
>Paul Myers did these last two weeks...
Of course, there was no dishonesty demonstrated...simply disagreement and
refutation. But, of course, Nyikos doesn't have an argument if he can't
automatically declare folks he disagrees with "dishonest."
>...he would probably get a bunch of *ad hominems* from
>them too.
It is interesting to find Nyikos attempting to defend his otherwise
inexcusable conduct in this way. Nyikos responds with _ad hominems_
because, gosh, *anybody* would...or at least, that seems to be the argument.
But is this the case? Well, let's consider that Nyikos last month dredged
up a five-month old and long-dead discussion in which he was not really
involved all so he could launch an unprovoked _ad hominem_ attack on another
participant in this newsgroup. In that case, Nyikos *initiated* _ad
hominem_ attack on someone whose only crime was to voice an opinion that
Nyikos did not agree with. Nyikos did the same with the same target when
that target dared to provide a cursory report of a talk given by Nyikos's
god, Michael Behe. It was not enough for Nyikos to disagree. He had to
spew lengthy dissertations into the newsgroup that there were lies and
dishonesty. No amount of reasonable explanation seemed to suffice. But
then, Nyikos is not reasonable when it comes to himself or his gods.
>Hardly anybody can be expected to turn the other
>cheek in the face of such massive dishonesty. When
>Jesus said to turn the other cheek, he was referring
>to something quite different.
In our encounters, Nyikos likewise made vague christian references and
claimed that I misrepresented them. He never explained why that was, though
challenged repeatedly to do so. Would it do any good to Nyikos to remind
him of the context of the above reference and then ask what, then, was Jesus
referring to?
>> Clovers smell nice and are pretty to look at, so I don't
>> think your analogy is a very good one. Maybe a better
>> analogy would be that getting an ad hominem from Nyikos
>> is like getting dirty in a mud-wrestling match.
>
>Myers, of course, provides the mud. I may be a muckraker,
>but I don't produce mud; I expose it to the hard light of truth.
Nyikos does nothing more here than inflate his sense of self-importance.
Nyikos's view of truth seems to be quite bizarre when compared to most.
>> It's such a common thing that I don't think it deserves
>> points in LouAnn's game...but I was a bit miffed that I've
>> dropped so far out of the running that no one takes it for
>> granted that I will reply to his baiting anymore,
>
>It is Myers who does the baiting, obviously, and keeps score
>on the number of times the bait is gone for.
Pshaw! Nyikos is so unclued that he doesn't seem to realize that he is
being ridiculed. Still, there's hope. We haven't seen his lists in a
while, and I suspect it could be because he *finally* got a clue and noticed
that his lists not only were completely idiotic, but served only as fodder
for more ridicule directed at him.
>> so I came up with another game. We can keep score
>> with DejaNews! Just do a Power Search in DN for posts
>> by Nyikos on talk.origins that contain your name. It's
>> easy, and you can keep track without actually having to
>> *read* anything he has written.
>>
>> I did a quick check for this past week, to get my score and
>> that of a few other of his obsessions. Here's a breakdown:
>
>To Myers, the torrent of lies to which he subjects Behe, Julie
>Thomas, Tim Teebken, Arthur Biele, and me--and that's just
>in 1999, folks!
Of this "torrent of lies," Nyikos can support...none...zero...zilch. Oh, we
have seen lots of disagreement and some misunderstanding. Lies? Deliberate
attempts to deceive?
None.
>...is all a frigging game, with the score being how many times
>we use their names.
We? Who's "we?" The only person I see being ridiculed with this game is
Nyikos.
>> Matt Silberstein: 3 I guess it's official. He's old news.
>> Dave Horn 4 Viciousness doesn't pay.
Rats. Oh, well...good thing it didn't take a lot of effort.
>> Larry Moran 9 Damn good for someone too
>>arrogant to ever talk to him
>> Howard Hershey 10 OK, but a poor return on all that effort
>> Paul Myers 17! The Champ! And I didn't reply to him
>>even once!
>>
>> On thinking about it, though, this scoring has some problems.
>> It might reward people who prod Nyikos heavily, and we
>> certainly don't want to encourage that kind of thing.
>
>Just who is Myers trying to kid? His next way of keeping score
>is just as encouraging of people to keep trolling.
Nyikos seems to have a different concept of "trolling" than the rest of the
group.
>> So, I came up with a new metric, the Nyikos Obsession
>> Index (NOI). Take the number of posts in which he mentions
>> you, and divide it by the number of times you mention him,
>> plus one (to avoid that annoying division by error problem).
>> This changes the scoring a bit:
>>
>> Dave Horn 4/12+1 = 0.3
>> Howard Hershey 10/13+1 = 0.7
>> Matt Silberstein 3/ 2+1 = 1.0
>> Paul Myers 17/ 2+1 = 5.7
>> Larry Moran 9/ 0+1 = 9.0
>>
>> Unfortunately, this does knock me off the top of the heap, but
>> I think if I just follow the Moran strategy for a while I can easily
>> make it to first place. Too bad this post will count against me...
>> but it might be worth it to encourage everyone to play.
>
>Yes, folks, all Myers has to do is lie his head off about
>*others*...
The evidence is that if anyone is lying about anyone, it's Nyikos with
respect to those he hates.
>...like he has been doing to Biele, and he goes to the
>top, as long as I go on exposing him for the liar that he
>is.
"Go on" implies that it's been happening. I don't see it and Nyikos has
even specifically tried to convince me (in left-handed fashion, of course --
and no offense to the lefties in the audience) and failed to do so.
No one has been lying here, except maybe Nyikos himself...or it could be
that he's just delusional...
>One of the standard myths of talk.origins is that I behave
>the way I do because I can't stand people criticizing ME.
>Truth is, people can criticize me all they want as long as
>they do it honestly...
And this, of course, is a lie. If you criticize Nyikos, the pattern has
been that you are *automatically* dishonest. That leaves you open to
Nyikosian criticism in his peculiar little world.
>...whether or not they are correct in their criticism,
>and they'll never get the treatment I give Myers, Hershey,
>etc. On the other hand, if I see them lying about Behe,
>Julie, etc. I give them the treatment they deserve even if
>I'm not mentioned. I've been doing it for two years now,
>but some people can never get a clue.
Which, of course, says more about Nyikos's inflated sense of self-importance
than it does about the alleged lying of any other participant of
talk.origins.
nyi...@math.sc.edu
Trolling by MacRae's ally (Was: Origin of Life Thingies)
In article <7fpsp8$502$1...@news1.rmi.net>,
"Dave Horn" <dh...@henge.com> wrote:
> nyi...@math.sc.edu wrote in message
<7fljq2$vta$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >CC: Andrew MacRae, who probably knows Myers is an
> >incorrigible troll but keeps up the pretense of thinking that
> >Myers is a man with valuable things to contribute to talk.origins,
> >a man who is no less honest than anyone else here.
>
> Heh, heh...
>
> What I find comical in this particular "new" thread is that it was
less than
> 48 hours ago that Nyikos sent this to me:
>
> ----------
> Peter Nyikos wrote in message
<1999042021...@milo.math.sc.edu>...
> >Dave follows up to a post in which I made no personal
> >comments whatsoever about him (unless you count a
> >place where I said he was being sloppy in use of words)
> >and characteristically tries to turn our exchange into a
> >full-blown airing of a vendetta.
Of course. There were plenty of personal comments
about Behe by Myers, and some about me too; but
Horn is not one to let facts get in the way of his
vendetta.
>
> Forgetting for the moment that I have already answered this several
times
> (there's no vendetta,
Massive denial does not make facts. Horn's behavior
speaks for itself.
>just having some fun at Nyikos's expense *and* making
> a point he never can quite seem to grasp)
A standard scam of Horn's is to pretend I don't understand
something when there is no reason in the world to
supect that. Usually for the purpose of indulging in
a *petitio principii* fallacy.
, this is simply more evidence of
> Nyikosian hypocrisy. Nyikos will whine at others (particularly me)
when he
> can about topicality of articles posted here and there was a lot of
talk
> some time ago about how he feels it is his mission in life to "clean
the
> Augean stables of talk.origins"
That had nothing to do with topicality. It had to do with
slander and other forms of injustice perpetrated by people like
Horn here. Horn probably knows this by now, but the accusation
of "hypocrisy" is just too juicy for him to let go of.
>and try to get us to clean up our collective
> act. But I asked a question way back then and it never got an answer
from
> Nyikos.
Horn's questions do eventually mostly get answers, but
the answers may take a year or more in coming since there
is no good reason for me to waste more than two hours
a month on him, on the average. This thread is an exception:
talk.origins badly needs a single thread where this
bilge-spewing buffoon is solidly exposed for the perpetrator
of injustice that he is.
It had to do with whom seems more likely to be perpetuating
> personality and flame wars in this newsgroup?
And the answer is: Horn and his numerous allies, who
indulge in dirty debating tricks, including wholesale
slander as in the case of Myers.
Is it someone who says his
> piece and moves on? Or is it Nyikos...who brings things up over and
over
This from someone who flames me mercilessly in almost every
followup he does to me, dredging up old issues.
> again even when they have been answered (and insists they never were
> answered -- though he won't say *why*).
Done in two posts I did earlier today.
It never occurs to hypocritical
> Nyikos that if he truly wants to "clean up" talk.origins, the best way
is
> not to respond if he feels that the article in question was
irrelevant,
It stopped occurring to me in 1992, with another newsgroup,
and my experience since then is unanimously in favor
of not letting Horn and his allies run roughshod over
honest people with their dirty debating tricks and
outright slander.
TO BE CONTINUED
Peter Nyikos -- standard disclaimer --
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---