Have a querulous Paul Nelson Day!

This from the website of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design
(http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Ontogenetic_Depth) :

"Ontogenetic depth is a measure of the distance (in terms of cell division and differentiation) between a single-celled state and an adult animal (metazoan) capable of reproduction. All animals begin their existence as a single cell, the fertilized egg. From that cell, many other cells arise, and become specialized for particular functional roles -- for instance, as sensory organs, skeletal parts, or reproductive structures (such as ovaries). The ontogenetic depth of any species measures the developmental distance between the starting point, the egg, and the stage at which organisms in the species can successfully reproduce themselves.

Developmental biology has mapped the ontogenetic depth of a handful of species, in the so-called "model systems" of the discipline, such as the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans or the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. To explain the historical origin of any animal species (and arguably the same is true for plants), one must give an account of how that species' respective ontogenetic network -- i.e., its process of differentiation -- was constructed."

I did not do an exhaustive search of the site but I didn't see a copyright more recent than 2006 nor any society event more recent than 2004. Their address is in Princeton NJ if anyone wants to go have a look. It sad that with "Darwinism" on it's last legs there isn't more money for such endeavours. Where will all the researchers go?

Funny you should mention that. Someone did go have a look. It's a UPS store with a mailbox labeled "Suite 1800".

I did find one thread on the ISCID forum still active but almost all the posts for the last six months have been by the same person, nosivad, with one noticed interjection by DaveScot. A bit sad really.

The last posts?: http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000370-p-83.html

"The ontogenetic depth of any species measures the developmental distance between the starting point, the egg, and the stage at which organisms in the species can successfully reproduce themselves."

Easy. Now all you have to do is estimate the total number of cell divisions required, then multiply by the number of genes that must be properly regulated in order to achieve differentiation. Simple. In fact one could make and estimate for a few species already. As for the rest, I guess Paul better get buzy in the lab and measure the important parameters. Of course that still won't prove that the developmental pathways could not evolve.

This is just a nonsensical way of saying that development is complex and that in order to explain evolution you must explain development. Well the field of evo/devo has made an excellent start on that. Maybe Paul should get another degree and learn a thing or two about what is known about developmental genetics before declaring that no one understands it. After all, he can still claim that the pathetic level of detail is just not good enough for him. But then he would have to go into the lab anyway. Oh well.

novisad... that'd be AJNovisad, I'll wager.

David Stanton - what's that?? Paul should get himself into a lab?? But then he might have to interact with - *gasp* - the evilutionists! On their own turf!

He might even - horror of horrors! - learn something about evolution. They can't have that. He might even abandon ID altogether.

Sorry pee wee, but I celebrate "pee wee nobody day" everyday as I consider the totally vacuous nature of your entire existence and the meaningless drivel you post.

Real scientists, like say Dr. Chain, Nobel prize winner and life long opponent of evolution writ large laughed at weenies like you and considered your little hypothesis to be a fairy tale for the weakminded.

Evolution, the pseudoscience curse on progress and innovation, and the sink hole of wasted research dollars.

Keith - Please be quiet. I'm trying to listen to reason :-)

The ontogenetic depth of any species measures the developmental distance between the starting point, the egg, and the stage at which organisms in the species can successfully reproduce themselves.

"Evolution, the pseudoscience curse on progress and innovation, and the sink hole of wasted research dollars." -- keith

Are you kidding?

Hummm, mysterious numbers to impress the rubes, hah? How about the total number of genes of an organism, no, not mysterious enough. How about their total height divided by the number of eyes they have, hum, that has possibilities. Oh, I know, the total number of alleles for hair color within a species, to the Nth power, where N is the remainder after dividing their number of teeth by their number of stomachs. Ok, I promise to post a paper tomorrow.

So what is wrong with the concept of a number that can't be calculated? The "Omega" number of algorithmic complexity cannot be calculated, even in theory. It measures the probability that a given program with a given input will eventually halt. (See Greg Chaitin, "Meta Math," Pantheon, 2005)

However, Omega is different from Phu, the probability that a given creationist with a given claim will eventually halt. Although Phu cannot be calculated exactly, its value approaches zero asymptotically.

Chain, who got the Prize in 1945?

One Nobelist out of how many over the last century?

And with this you mock scientists?

Do you not even slightly perceive the irony?

Keith: if you want to get mentioned on PZ's blog, you'll have to try harder. Only the most frothing nutcases get that honour. Try mixing in some bad logic and capital letters with the lies, it's funnier. :>

Although Phu cannot be calculated exactly, its value approaches zero asymptotically.

Thanks for giving me another reason to have a beer. In remembrance, I'll plan to have another one tomorrow. Cheers.

So what is wrong with the concept of a number that can’t be calculated? The “Omega” number of algorithmic complexity cannot be calculated, even in theory. It measures the probability that a given program with a given input will eventually halt. (See Greg Chaitin, “Meta Math,” Pantheon, 2005)

— Olorin

Scott Fanetti said:

“Evolution, the pseudoscience curse on progress and innovation, and the sink hole of wasted research dollars.” – keith Are you kidding?

Just Bob: Chain, who got the Prize in 1945? One Nobelist out of how many over the last century? And with this you mock scientists? Do you not even slightly perceive the irony?

James F:

Scott Fanetti said:

“Evolution, the pseudoscience curse on progress and innovation, and the sink hole of wasted research dollars.” – keith Are you kidding?

“Intelligent design, the pseudoscience curse on progress and innovation, and the sink hole of wasted research dollars.” Fixed.

So what is wrong with the concept of a number that can’t be calculated? The “Omega” number of algorithmic complexity cannot be calculated, even in theory.

Scott Fanetti: "Evolution, the pseudoscience curse on progress and innovation, and the sink hole of wasted research dollars." -- keith Are you kidding?

What's Ernst Chain got to do with it?

He was an excellent biochemist and carried on from where my father left off in 1936. My father isaolated Lysozyme for Florey and found it was NBG as an antibiotic. Chain then tried Fleming's other finding - a mould and with Florey Heatley et al found it worked. Evolution was hardly needed in his or my fathers's work and he was probalbly looking down on the messiness of field biology in contrast to an ordered lab - despite the crude biochemical procedures (My dad once ninked my meccano set to make some apparatus in the 50s)

Years later my parents shared a house with him and he blasted out on his piano while I was supposed to be sleeping in my pram.

Despite the fact I got all the lowdown on Florey Chain etc as a youngster I never heard that despite the agnosticism of my father.

I doubt if there is much in the story

Michael

What's Ernst Chain got to do with it?

He was an excellent biochemist and carried on from where my father left off in 1936. My father isaolated Lysozyme for Florey and found it was NBG as an antibiotic. Chain then tried Fleming's other finding - a mould and with Florey Heatley et al found it worked. Evolution was hardly needed in his or my fathers's work and he was probalbly looking down on the messiness of field biology in contrast to an ordered lab - despite the crude biochemical procedures (My dad once nicked my meccano set to make some apparatus in the 50s)

Years later my parents shared a house with him and he blasted out on his piano while I was supposed to be sleeping in my pram.

Despite the fact I got all the lowdown on Florey Chain etc as a youngster I never heard that despite the agnosticism of my father.

I doubt if there is much in the story

Michael

Fellas, I appreciate the responses to Keith's "Ernest B. Chain, Nobel Laurate, dissented from 'Darwinism'" comments... but several especially productive types of replies seem to have been overlooked.

1) What is your evidence that he rejected evolution? I didn't search in depth, but his biographical blurb at http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1945/chain-bio.html
didn't mention anything about it, and his work in anti-biotics would seem to indicate that evolutionary principles would be required for him to acheive anything meaningful.

2) You do realize that his work was done rather early in the the life of Modern Evolutionary Theory, right? MET has come a long way, particularly with regard to molecular bio and genomics--given these areas were primitive when he was working, his alleged doubts about them would have little bearing on todays state of the art.

3) Science is not done by argument from authority; any authority could be wrong. The ultimate arbiter of scientific truth is nature itself; poor models get weeded out. No matter how prestigeous EBC may seem, if he holds an incorrect opinion about science, then the science doesn't even need to respond--much less change to conform to the misguided opinion of some arbitrary 'authority' figure.

4) To discard or modify a scientific theory requires a better model to replace it with. Such a model has to be able to independantly explain all the results explained by the old theory; it also has to make testable predictions about new results which the old theory could not explain; and it needs to serve as a guide for further research and expanded investigation of nature. If MET is wrong, how do you explain its' success? What alternative model do you propose to replace it with? Where are the research articles, the predictions, the tests?

I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but I couldn't resist... especially since these near-boilerplate replies always give IDC creos such trouble. Sorry for the unpolished presentation; I'm certain it suffered from the rushed manner in which I wrote it.

I know I shouldn’t feed the troll, but I couldn’t resist… especially since these near-boilerplate replies always give IDC creos such trouble. Sorry for the unpolished presentation; I’m certain it suffered from the rushed manner in which I wrote it.

"To explain the historical origin of any animal species (and arguably the same is true for plants), one must give an account of how that species’ respective ontogenetic network – i.e., its process of differentiation – was constructed.”

It's basically nothing but collecting paper credentials, though, since they don't actually learn anything and never do anything with the knowledge they should have acquired, other than use it to razzle-dazzle the rubes.

It would seem Dr. Chain, (inconsequential Nobel winner LOL!) was perfectly consistent in his position of opposition to the darwin dogma for dullards on purely scientific grounds through his death in the late 70's.

"The August 17-24, 1998, issue of the U.S. News & World Report had a long piece on the great inventions of the twentieth century. The story of penicillin started with Fleming in 1922 and continued with Florey and Chain 13 years later. Fleming, who had a cold, sneezed on a culture plate (3). He observed that when bacteria later formed on the plate, none developed in the spots of mucus. Thus, Fleming discovered lysozyme -- a substance found in body fluids and body tissues that dissolves bacteria." Fleming...how curious!

As for hypotheses and theories they often coexist and compete for perhaps decades until one is proven by observation and experimentation to be considerably more explanatory, highly predictive, more confirmed with increasing data, and attract the preponderance of scientific scholarship and support. Of course one would only realize this if they has studied the History of Science in some detail. Otherwise one would adopt the evolutionary, dogmatic, true believer mentality and seek to silence any and all critics by whatever tactics fit the model,"the end justifies the means"...where have we heard that before.

"This mechanistic concept of the phenomena of life in its infinite varieties of manifestations which purports to ascribe the origin and development of all living species, animals, plants and micro-organisms, to the haphazard blind interplay of the forces of nature in the pursuance of one aim only, namely, that for the living systems to survive, is a typical product of the naive 19th century euphoric attitude to the potentialities of science which spread the belief that there were no secrets of nature which could not be solved by the scientific approach given only sufficient time."

"These classic evolutionary theories are a gross oversimplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they were swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."

"There is no doubt that such variants do arise in nature and that their emergence can and does make some limited contribution towards the evolution of species. The open question is the quantitative extent and significance of this contribution."

"evolution willfully neglects the principle of teleological purpose which stares the biologist in the face wherever he looks, whether he be engaged in the study of different organs in one organism, or even of different subcellular compartments in relation to each other in a single cell, or whether he studies the interrelation and interactions of various species."

Clark, R. W. 1985. The Life of Ernst Chain: Penicillin and Beyond. New York: St. Martin's Press, 147.
Chain, E. 1970. Social Responsibility and the Scientist in Modern Western Society. London: The Council of Christians and Jews, 24-25.
Chain, Social Responsibility and the Scientist, 25.

The inconsequential Dr. Chain.

Professor Chain is author or co-author of many scientific papers and contributor to important monographs on penicillin and antibiotics. He was in 1946 awarded the Silver Berzelius Medal of the Swedish Medical Society, the Pasteur Medal of the Institut Pasteur and of the Societé de Chimie Biologique, and a prize from the Harmsworth Memorial Fund. In 1954 he was awarded the Paul Ehrlich Centenary Prize; in 1957 the Gold Medal for Therapeutics of the Worshipful Society of Apothecaries of London; and in 1962 the Marotta Medal of the Società Chimica Italiana. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1949. He holds honorary degrees of the Universities of Liège, Bordeaux, Turin, Paris, La Plata, Cordoba, Brasil, and Montevideo, and is a member or fellow of many learned societies in several countries: these include the Societé Philomatique, Paris; the New York Academy of Medicine; the Accademia dei Lincei and the Accademia dei XL, Rome; the Académie de Médicine, Académie des Sciences, Paris; the Real Academia de Ciencias, Madrid; the Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovoth, Israel; the National Institute of Sciences, India; the Società Chimica Italiana; and the Finnish Biochemical Society.

Students of true rhetoric understand that an appeal to an authority is perfectly logical and not fallacious if the person is a recognized expert in the subject area (antibiotics and resistance).

So Brown having been soundly refuted (don't worry I do that consistently with evolander dullards) can take solace in the fact that I welcome additional opportunities to shred your posts like a head of wet lettuce in a rod mill.

The amusing aspect of the subject writ large is that the bacteria in the dish have infinitely more intellect than the evos observing them.

As for hypotheses and theories they often coexist and compete for perhaps decades until one is proven by observation and experimentation to be considerably more explanatory, highly predictive, more confirmed with increasing data, and attract the preponderance of scientific scholarship and support.

Students of true rhetoric understand that an appeal to an authority is perfectly logical and not fallacious if the person is a recognized expert in the subject area (antibiotics and resistance).

In summary, can we all agree that ontological depth is a shallow concept?

Then we can move on to "baramin distance," which measures the separation of species according to Biblical kinds. This number is interesting in that, although there are (non-unique) methods of calculating it, any value can be trumped by scripture if it shows that the species are too close to each other.

--“These classic evolutionary theories are a gross oversimplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they were swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.”--

The only oversimplification being done is by Creationists, so why don't you stop reading their dribble, Keith. If you claim to like science, just remember that "God Did It" is a science stopper.

Keith said: It would seem Dr. Chain, (inconsequential Nobel winner LOL!) was perfectly consistent in his position of opposition to the darwin dogma for dullards on purely scientific grounds through his death in the late 70’s.

keith...

Eaton?

need more be said?

Please notice, lurkers, the complete lack of a superceding or even competing theory from either Chain or KE. Arguments from authority, meet arguments from incredulity.

PZ & Associates: We don't need the inflamatory wordfest, heard through the clouds of high velocity bull dust, to learn about the evolution (unrolling) of things. Which, I am certain, from one approach at least, tells us why bovine males go plowing when indicating a territorial contest. What you need to account for the Cambrian bizzo is a clear minded person with the sense to consult the opinions of others, sift the evidence, consult the latest relevant research of all the relevant disciplines, and draw conclusions under the laws of physical chemistry. Then we could go on to the flowering plants, and even on to turkeys, geese, bovines (special attention to the male) ..... the horizons are wide open.

Any time, right here, bring all the associates. En route, duck over to PvM's APRIL FOOLS AT UCD page, suggest you read it all, and you might wish to consult www.creationtheory.com . I'm waiting. The rules are mainstrem, conventional Science. Begin where you choose, and the Cambrian is as good as any. But before getting up too much obfuscation dust on that topic, check the CAMBRIAN/PRECAMBRIAN UNCONFORMITY, along with the side-linked addend, in the EXPLANATORIUM, at www.creationtheory.com I value every bit of criticism I can get and I would be pleased to know if any details are innacurate.

One can only be encouraged by the fact that a free speech publication such as PANDA'S THUMB, is maintained. It must be at considerable cost, in time and in money. The standard of science and of behaviour displayed on it is certainly the opposite to encouraging: but that needn't remain static, need it?. P.B.H..

One has to accept common descent. Philip Bruce Heywood and Keith Eaton were clearly descended from a common scientifically illiterate clown.

Keith blabbered: "Students of true rhetoric understand that an appeal to an authority is perfectly logical and not fallacious if the person is a recognized expert in the subject area (antibiotics and resistance)."
Sooo, it would come down to how many authorities one can appeal to to win the argument? How many recognized authorities for ID v. how many for MET? How many in the past 30 years?
On the other hand, Isaac Newton was involved in alchemy and spent time trying to discover the Philosopher's Stone. He's a recognized authority, should we continue the quest to find a mysterious stone that can change base metals into gold?

"I value every bit of criticism I can get and I would be pleased to know if any details are innacurate [sic]."

If you continue to post bafflegab, Heywood, at least use spell check.

Philip , you said you were leaving! Did you lie to me?

Paul Nelson: “To explain the historical origin of any animal species (and arguably the same is true for plants), one must give an account of how that species’ respective ontogenetic network – i.e., its process of differentiation – was constructed.”

wikipedia lobotomy: The Portuguese physician and neurologist António Egas Moniz pioneered a surgery called prefrontal leucotomy in 1935. The procedure involved drilling holes in the patient's head and destroying tissue in the frontal lobes by injecting alcohol. He later improved the technique using a surgical instrument called a leucotome that cut brain tissue with a retractable wire loop.[2] Moniz won the Nobel Prize for medicine in 1949 for this work.[3]

Students of true rhetoric understand that an appeal to an authority is perfectly logical and not fallacious if the person is a recognized expert in the subject area (antibiotics and resistance).

Raven,

You're a bold faced liar and his biographer and his son have testified that his views were based on his lifelong scientific pursuits and observations and not his religion.

Your stupid attempt to equate two totally unrelated Nobel winners is a freshman logical fallacy and laughable.

So you claim that people understand life in totality eh! Then you may be the one to elucidate the first replicator with all that exclusive knowledge. Oh! Gosh I'll bet your butt shrivels up like a mustard seed and you keep your dead silence like the rest of these dodos.

Crok boy the subject was antibiotic resistance and Chain pioneered the work finding penicillinase as an existing molecular mechanism having zippo to to with RM and NS as is the case in the great majority of resistance examples.

And I leave fallacies to your team so I never would argue from popularity...being a true rhetorician and true intellect rather than a darwin hack.

Avenger, is that a cape or are you still cross dressing in mommies clothes. What is your replacement for E=mc**2 since it's still quoted a lot after 75 plus years. Still working on your science merit badge?

B. Gargoyle one theory might be the cosmology of Aristotle which lasted for about 1,000 plus years.

1704 to 1887 the aether theory flourished.

Oh and a little math help..both of these are more than 150 years..doodoo head.

Happy Paul Nelson day.

Philip,

The insubstantiated confabulation of post-reductio absurdities is transcendental to the tangential perpiphery. I am sure that you will agree that no amount of estimated languiosity will ever predate the inconformity that is evidenced by the many cofactual existentialists. Your antiquated and marginalized verbiosity is superceded only by your lack of eloquent demeanor and intestinal fortitude. Please pay special attention to the female mongoose.

That having been said, what in the world are you talking about? Why is it that you can never make a single statement that is cmprehensible? How can anyone agree with anything you say when you never say anything? How can I have more tea when I haven't had any tea yet?

obfuscation dust

is that like pixie dust?

Is it my imagination, or is PBH more illucid than usual these days?

The insubstantiated confabulation of post-reductio absurdities is transcendental to the tangential perpiphery.

good, but you misspelled periphery.

:p

Arguments to authority hold no weight in science. Whether or not people use them in a rhetorical sense is irrelevant. There was no logical error in using the example of other Nobel winners to demonstrate why argument to authority is pointless in science Keith. We could fill volumes of expert testimony from the 20th century alone about incorrect statements and beliefs from scientists. Einstein disagreeing with the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Ernst Mach not believing atoms we're real. Most 1930's or earlier biologists believing protein contained the genetic information. Your very assertion that somehow Chain not using the best theoretical model to date in his work invalidates it is silly. Scientists have advanced with all kinds of incorrect models, and then we get better ones. For example the addition of Neutral theory and horizontal gene transfer as important mechanisms. It's quite interesting when creationists argue they always try and oversimplify by confounding natural selection, evolution, and Darwinism into one big term, and then when they define it they try to pigeonhole it as pure neutral evolution! Then they pretend that no one is doing research in these areas and turning up reams of data measuring all kinds of interesting fitness affects and simple mutations like the heart example from a couple of weeks ago.

Note that Keith has just disproven Ben Stein:

If Darwin-doubters win the Nobel Prize, they are obviously not being expelled from the scientific community.

DAn ,

If Chain were elucidating the molecular structure of penicillin today , among other great works, and holding his anti-evolutionary stance he would have been denied tenure, ostracized in the literature, denied any grant funds, and insulted by the entire pygmy dwarf evo community and we would likely have been denied his further discoveries of such as penicillinase, for example.

There was a time when scientists could hold views and hypotheses different than the herds of illiterate lemmings and brainwashed sycophants that today hold science hostage and block any opportunity for debate of ideas.

But no doubt the season of the darwin dwarfs will pass and new giants of true intellect will emerge and real progress will then be possible.

raven: Has anyone seen Adam's skeleton? The Big Boat of Noah? The pieces of the 10 commandments? Any newspapers from the 3 decades of Jesus's life? His cross, tomb, or sandals?

keith vomitith forth with : DAn , If Chain were elucidating the molecular structure of penicillin today , among other great works, and holding his anti-evolutionary stance he would have been denied tenure, ostracized in the literature, denied any grant funds, and insulted by the entire pygmy dwarf evo community and we would likely have been denied his further discoveries of such as penicillinase, for example.

Avenger, is that a cape or are you still cross dressing in mommies clothes. What is your replacement for E=mc**2 since it’s still quoted a lot after 75 plus years. Still working on your science merit badge? B. Gargoyle one theory might be the cosmology of Aristotle which lasted for about 1,000 plus years. 1704 to 1887 the aether theory flourished. Oh and a little math help..both of these are more than 150 years..doodoo head.

There was a time when scientists could hold views and hypotheses different than the herds of illiterate lemmings and brainwashed sycophants that today hold science hostage and block any opportunity for debate of ideas.

But no doubt the season of the darwin dwarfs will pass and new giants of true intellect will emerge and real progress will then be possible.

Keith,

thank you for your penetrating insights. I am completely convinced.

I was once an atheist darwinist, now I am a Paul Nelsonite.

happy 4/7, Paul Nelson Day!

Students of true rhetoric understand that an appeal to an authority is perfectly logical and not fallacious if the person is a recognized expert in the subject area (antibiotics and resistance).

Why must we be subjected to the mindless ejaculations of morons like Keith? Isn't the Bathroom Wall a more suitable venue?

Henry J:

Students of true rhetoric understand that an appeal to an authority is perfectly logical and not fallacious if the person is a recognized expert in the subject area (antibiotics and resistance).

That presumes that there's nobody with relevant expertise disagreeing with what that authority is saying. Henry

Example of Non-fallacious Appeal to Authority: Placoderm specialist, John Long, says that the aberrant arthrodire placoderm, Holonema ate a certain kind of algae that grew on pebbles because intact fossils of Holonema have been found by Dr Long with pebbles in what was once the fishes' stomaches, and that the location where all of these fossils came from are also crawling with fossil pebbles covered in fossil algae.

Example of Fallacious Appeal to Authority: Movie star, and professional tough guy for God, Chuck Norris does not believe in the Theory of Evolution. Therefore, the Theory of Evolution is false.

Wolfhound, another intellectual midget who races to the back of the action and cowers under the appeal to bannish.

Yes little left behind wannabees, struggling to find some meaning to your pitiful unnoticed existence, whimpering like whipped little mongrel dogs.

See medical school dropouts who struggle into some lab assistant job or associate prof at Igloo Tech in Minnesota are left to post their little bon mots on the web and hope , pray , perhaps that another evo will tell them how neat they are.

How does it feel when it all starts slipping away?

Never got that prize, recognition, tenure denied, no significant research published, watching the clock racing as your past and present merge into gray.

Have a cup at the Sad Cafe.

Yup, that's definitely Eaton alright. He gets carried away with his own self-importance. The trouble is,it's never far enough.

Chain was a devout Jew who freely admitted that his views on evolution were based on his religion. He also said scientists would never understand how life worked much less how it evolved.

“evolution willfully neglects the principle of teleological purpose which stares the biologist in the face wherever he looks, whether he be engaged in the study of different organs in one organism, or even of different subcellular compartments in relation to each other in a single cell, or whether he studies the interrelation and interactions of various species.”

So Brown having been soundly refuted (don’t worry I do that consistently with evolander dullards) can take solace in the fact that I welcome additional opportunities to shred your posts like a head of wet lettuce in a rod mill.

The amusing aspect of the subject writ large is that the bacteria in the dish have infinitely more intellect than the evos observing them.

Avenger, is that a cape or are you still cross dressing in mommies clothes.

Oh and a little math help..both of these are more than 150 years..doodoo head.

Wolfhound, another intellectual midget who races to the back of the action and cowers under the appeal to bannish. Yes little left behind wannabees, struggling to find some meaning to your pitiful unnoticed existence, whimpering like whipped little mongrel dogs. See medical school dropouts who struggle into some lab assistant job or associate prof at Igloo Tech in Minnesota are left to post their little bon mots on the web and hope , pray , perhaps that another evo will tell them how neat they are. How does it feel when it all starts slipping away? Never got that prize, recognition, tenure denied, no significant research published, watching the clock racing as your past and present merge into gray. Have a cup at the Sad Cafe.

James F said:

“Intelligent design, the pseudoscience curse on progress and innovation, and the sink hole of wasted research dollars.”

Actually, if they started wasting some research dollars, it would be a big step up for them.

-RR-

"Dr. Chain, Nobel prize winner and life long opponent of evolution"

Considering his line of work, this would no doubt have come as a surprise to Dr. Chain.
Like so many Jewish scientists, he had no doubt one compartment for science, and another for religion, and never would the twain meet.

Keith is off his meds again. Chewed through the leather leash and crawled back onto the blog spitting insults and abuse, and calling it "scholarship." Somebody should calm him down (maybe a bit of cheese or a pupperoni held out in front of his nose until he calms down), and VEEERRRRRYYY slowly explain in small, easy words that his behavior is doing more harm than good to creationists.

Yes little left behind wannabees

wait...

If we're "left behind wannabees", doesn't that mean we're part of the "144k" that are supposedly saved?

well, thanks, Keith, for giving us your spot in line.

*psst*

take your meds.

PZ & Associates: We don’t need the inflamatory wordfest, heard through the clouds of high velocity bull dust, to learn about the evolution (unrolling) of things. Which, I am certain, from one approach at least, tells us why bovine males go plowing when indicating a territorial contest.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

What you need to account for the Cambrian bizzo is a clear minded person with the sense to consult the opinions of others, sift the evidence, consult the latest relevant research of all the relevant disciplines, and draw conclusions under the laws of physical chemistry.

Then we could go on to the flowering plants, and even on to turkeys, geese, bovines (special attention to the male) ….. the horizons are wide open.

Any time, right here, bring all the associates. En route, duck over to PvM’s APRIL FOOLS AT UCD page, suggest you read it all, and you might wish to consult www.creationtheory.com .

I’m waiting. The rules are mainstrem, conventional Science. Begin where you choose, and the Cambrian is as good as any. But before getting up too much obfuscation dust on that topic, check the CAMBRIAN/PRECAMBRIAN UNCONFORMITY, along with the side-linked addend, in the EXPLANATORIUM, at www.creationtheory.com I value every bit of criticism I can get and I would be pleased to know if any details are innacurate.

However, the technical side of the Bible also has a purpose. Whenever people have made an advance in understanding the scientific meaning of God's Words humanity has benefited.

One can only be encouraged by the fact that a free speech publication such as PANDA’S THUMB, is maintained. It must be at considerable cost, in time and in money. The standard of science and of behaviour displayed on it is certainly the opposite to encouraging: but that needn’t remain static, need it?. P.B.H..

— PBH

keith: But no doubt the season of the darwin dwarfs will pass and new giants of true intellect will emerge and real progress will then be possible.

"I would rather believe in fairy tales than in such wild speculation. I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable. God cannot be explained away by such naive thoughts." --Sir Ernst B. Chain, Nobel Laureate (Medicine, 1945), as quoted by Ronald W. Clark, The Life of Ernst Chain (London: Weidenfield & Nicolson, 1985), pp. 147-148.

Kary Mullis: We have not been able to discover any good reasons why most of the people on earth believe that AIDS is a disease caused by a virus called HIV. There is simply no scientific evidence demonstrating that this is true.

Trolls DO have a positive side.
If there were no trolls like Keith, then there would be no class A smack-downs.
The ones here are excellent examples.
Well done.

Raven you are right. When Chain did his most important work, even the medium of heredity was not known.

Not long after the discoveries of the structure of DNA and its role in carrying the genetic code, the field of molecular biology started exploring the manipulation of DNA as an investigative tool.

Not long after the discoveries of the structure of DNA and its role in carrying the genetic code, the field of molecular biology started exploring the manipulation of DNA as an investigative tool.

It's getting dull here, waiting for the big guns. Perhaps I should have listed chiken in my first entry. But these men have a life to live and can't be watching a computer all day. Personally, I'm seldom here, myself. I'm placing even money that PZ won't enter a serious scientific discussion on the grounds offered to him. He's a smart man, after all, and must maintain appearances.

Nigel, dear fellow, I need you to proof read my publications. In 8yrs, you are the first to advize me of that spelling error, right on the front page. You have a shining future, somewhere. Your literary output is prolific. You have potential. It gives me no pleasure to advize you that science and history goes a little deeper than what you happen to pluck out of the air, as the urge takes you. Physical chemistry provides the parameters within which Nature functions. You know (do you?) - dissolve this much urea in water, and this much heat is absorbed. Stuff like that. Basic to the universe. Even biology has to follow those guidelines. That's one of the things I might ask PZ - does his theory of origins - whatever it is - meet the physics-chemistry requirements that all processes of nature must meet? Physical chemistry is the absolute umpire. And your comments on geology are no better than your comments from the last page, regarding the electricity-life controversy, and hybridization as an engine of speciation. Somehow, you have to learn that scientists and historians can speak with authority, and their authority is just that -technical truth. I am not going to start quoting basic geology and history for you - you must learn it yourself.

You even get domestic - type drama here, in reverse. The girl is being lied to again - the wretched man won't leave! I needed to come back to show that I can spell Stacy.

Here is a question for the experts, whilst we await with baited breath the arrival of the expert Experts. I neglected to mention chicken in my first entry, but I did mention turkeys and bovines, (with attention to the male). It is of course possible to cross a turkey and a bull. The objection people raise is that turkey chicks don't live on milk. But bulls don't have milk. According to common descent theory, species gradually change one to the other, so, if you get a bull that is 2% turkey, and a turkey that is, say, 2% bull, they might just cross. IN VITRO, goes without saying. So what do you get? AH, COUNFOUND IT! I always get these things wrong! Not a turkey- it's supposed to be a f..r..o..(guess what?). Species lock?. No, contrary to www.creationtheory.com, they don't exist. Not for today, anyway. Where are you, Myers & Associates? I literally have to go and chase a bull.

To the Admins: Can we move Philip Heywood to the Bathroom Wall? He's just trolling with his nonsensically dense stupidity now.

There was a time when scientists could hold views and hypotheses different than the herds of illiterate lemmings and brainwashed sycophants that today hold science hostage and block any opportunity for debate of ideas.

Really? When was that? Before or after deranged Religo-nuts put Gallileo on trial for his life? That's when Science really was held hostage.

Perhaps Lynn Margulis and endosymbiotic theory is to far in the past to count as holding a dissenting view?

Mr. Keith cites Ernst Chain as a dissenter from the theory of evolution and points to his Nobel Prize as a measure of the value of his insights. Well, how about the insights of the following Nobel Prize winners.

1. Linus Pauling, Nobel Prize winner in chemistry who claimed that vitamin C would cure cancer. According to the mentality of Mr. Keith, vitamin C must cure cancer because Pauling was a Nobel Prize winner.

2. William Shockley, Nobel Prize winner in Physics who claimed that black Americans were mentally inferior to Caucasian Americans. According to the mentality of Mr. Keith, black Americans must be mentally inferior to Caucasian Americans because Shlockley was a Nobel Prize winner.

3. Brian Josephson, Nobel Prize winner in Physics who maintains that cold fusion, ESP, and PK are scientifically valid proposals. According to the mentality of Mr. Keith, cold fusion, ESP, and PK must be scientifically valid proposals because Josephson is a Nobel Prize winner.

4. Kerry Mullis, Nobel Prize winner in chemistry who maintains that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. According to the mentality of Mr. Keith, HIV doesn't cause AIDS because Mullis is a Nobel Prize winner.

Physical chemistry provides the parameters within which Nature functions. You know (do you?) - dissolve this much urea in water, and this much heat is absorbed. Stuff like that. Basic to the universe. Even biology has to follow those guidelines. That’s one of the things I might ask PZ - does his theory of origins - whatever it is - meet the physics-chemistry requirements that all processes of nature must meet? Physical chemistry is the absolute umpire.

It is of course possible to cross a turkey and a bull. The objection people raise is that turkey chicks don’t live on milk. But bulls don’t have milk. According to common descent theory, species gradually change one to the other, so, if you get a bull that is 2% turkey, and a turkey that is, say, 2% bull, they might just cross. IN VITRO, goes without saying. So what do you get?

In addition to the "bathroom wall", perhaps a "toilet bowl" section should be set up for posters (hi Keith) who fail to rise to bathroom-wall standards...

(My previous post, along with this one, ironically, probably should be sent to the bathroom wall.)

Philip,

When you have successfully crossed a turkey and a bull please publish your results in a scientific peer-reviewed paper and then come back and tell everyone about it. Until then, piss off.

You are an ignorant twit who never makes any sense at all. You make up nonsense without any regard for reality and then demand that everyone else conform to some imagined standard of scientific discourse. Apparently rational English is not your first or even second language. Even if you knew the secrets of the universe, I doubt that you would be able to communicate them in a way that any sane person would understand. You have contributed absolutely nothing to any discussion here and you have failed to convince anyone of anything other than your own mental deficiencies.

If you want to discuss science with real scientists you must at least use the scientific literature to back up your claims. Quoting you own web page as evidence for your delusions will not convince anyone of anything.

And just in case you are open to some small measure of learning, physical chemistry hardly holds all of the answers to biology. You have had sufficient time to investigate the molecular mechanisms of mutation. You should know by now that there are things besides just chemistry involved. And ther is certainly more to evolution that mutations as well.

Now why did the chicken cross the road? To get a way form the bull that you have been spewing out.

It's also worth noting that the same biography that keith cites above has Chain himself discounting the weight of Nobel prizes:

"The Nobel Prize is no guarantee for wisdom in all spheres of knowledge, but is given as a recognition of a particular achievement in a particular field of science. I would value a majority opinion of Nobel laureates on evolution, which is outside the experimental approach, not higher than that of any other group of intelligent educated persons." (Quoted in Clark. p. 175)

It's clear from the bio that Chain didn't think much of evolution, or indeed most other theories. But he was no "scientific creationist". He did say that "It seems to me useless to draw conclusions on the mechanism of events which took place many millions of years ago.... It is irrational and dangerous to believe that the problems of the origin of life and its development are to be investigated in a 'rational' manner." (Also quoted in Clark, p. 175.) Here we see both that Clark accepted an old earth (something that I suspect doesn't appear in creationist quote-mines) and that he preferred to see the origins of species as outside the scope of conclusive scientific investigation, rather than that he felt that some other scientific theory would be more viable than evolution.

On page 147 of the same biography, his son gives a similar evaluation: "I am quite certain that *at no time* did my father believe in a fundamental creationist theory of evolution. I think it would be seriously misinterpreting his views if you did deduce this from his writing. There is no doubt that he did not like the theory of evolution by natural selection - he disliked theories in general, and more especially when they assumed the form of dogma. He also felt that evolution was not really a part of science, since it was, for the most part, not amenable to experimentation - and he was, and is, by no means alone in this view."

SPECIES LOCK?? SPECIES LOCK?? Anyone know what species lock is? Does one has to go to a Creationist website or book to learn that one? Did anyone provide evidence, peer review papers supporting the idea of Species Lock? Keith, Heywood, facts please.

Anyone know what species lock is?

Cedric Katesby (#149916) said: "Trolls DO have a positive side. If there were no trolls like Keith, then there would be no class A smack-downs."

Similarly, if there were no heart disease, there would be no world-class heart surgeons.

Oh---sorry, Cedric, my sarcasm hearing-aid must have been turned off.

keith wrote: So you claim that people understand life in totality eh! Then you may be the one to elucidate the first replicator with all that exclusive knowledge. Oh! Gosh I'll bet your butt shrivels up like a mustard seed and you keep your dead silence like the rest of these dodos.

mplavcan sited the following: Claudia Huber, Günter Wächtershäuser Peptides by Activation of Amino Acids with CO on (Ni,Fe)S Surfaces: Implications for the Origin of Life Science 31 July 1998:Vol. 281. no. 5377, pp. 670 - 672 S. D. Senanayake, and H. Idriss Photocatalysis and the origin of life: Synthesis of nucleoside bases from formamide on TiO2(001) single surfaces PNAS | January 31, 2006 | vol. 103 | no. 5 | 1194-1198 Claudia Huber,1 Wolfgang Eisenreich,1 Stefan Hecht,1 Günter Wächtershäuser2 A Possible Primordial Peptide Cycle Science 15 August 2003: Vol. 301. no. 5635, pp. 938 - 940

And I leave fallacies to your team so I never would argue from popularity...being a true rhetorician and true intellect rather than a darwin hack.

raven: Having a Nobel prize doesn't make anyone infallible.

John Mark Ockerbloom: It's also worth noting that the same biography that keith cites above has Chain himself discounting the weight of Nobel prizes:

Mr. Heywood,

Before Nigel slams another typo on you...please let me beat him to the punch. The correct spelling for "baited" breath is "bated" breath.

I know baited breath might smell a lot worse than your arguments about MET, but the term bated means:

"Bated here is a contraction of abated through loss of the unstressed first vowel (a process called aphesis); it has the meaning “reduced, lessened, lowered in force." So bated breath refers to a state in which you almost stop breathing through terror, awe, extreme anticipation, or anxiety."

(sorry...lost the URL I'm supposed to cite)

(Dang...I sure hope there are no typos in my post...I hate it when that happens.)

Philip Bruce Heywood: It's getting dull here, waiting for the big guns.

Physical chemistry provides the parameters within which Nature functions. You know (do you?) - dissolve this much urea in water, and this much heat is absorbed.

Here is a question for the experts, whilst we await with baited breath the arrival of the expert Experts. I neglected to mention chicken in my first entry, but I did mention turkeys and bovines, (with attention to the male). It is of course possible to cross a turkey and a bull. The objection people raise is that turkey chicks don't live on milk. But bulls don't have milk.

Did you hear about the mad scientist who crossed a dance floor with a pretty girl and got engaged?

It’s getting dull here, waiting for the big guns.

PBH:
...whilst we await with baited breath..

Would that be red wigglers, live shrimp, or perhaps catfish stink bait?

Me, I occasionally wait with BATED breath.

"Baited breath"...there has to be a Freudian slip in there somewhere...something like "deep down I know the stuff I'm saying is just so much stinking fisbait."

Oops: fishbait

(Mine's a typo. Yours is just dumb. So there.)

How does it feel when it all starts slipping away?

"I agree, when will we see someone drop by who is capable of defending Intelligent Design and/or present a coherent argument against evolutionary theory?"

Not to put him in that category, but I didn't even see Paul Nelson himself drop by this anniversary. He didn't get expelled, did he?

slang: Not to put him in that category, but I didn't even see Paul Nelson himself drop by this anniversary. He didn't get expelled, did he?

Elzinger,

If you get off your drugs long enough please spell out where anyone thwarted my thermodynamic arguments other than in your pompus imagination.

1) Your team talks in silly terms about open systems with the sun's energy as though that had some efficacious meaning in and of itself when anyone who ever studied the subject realizes that systems are most often defined by arbitrary boundaries for problem solving simplification. You can't even define open, closed, isolated, and flow-through in context, (maybe now that I have kindly explained in several forums you could come close).

2) I fully understand the chemical and purely heat and material balance aspects of the highly integrated biosphere is a flowthrough system fed by the sun's energy transduced by photosynthesis and by metabolism of organic material much of which is sourced back to same. That of course is not the critical issue. Rather it is the issue of how all the critical elements came into being, progressed from first being and how in particular photosysnthetic processes developed and just happen to be particularly compatible with 99.9999% of all lifeforms extinct and extant needs.

3) This of course is the crux that remains unanswered that no one can even dare to offer a detailed proposal for how the first replicator was structured molecularly to achieve the state of life , to evolve by RM and NS into every lifeform and to effect all the processes required to sustain such life.

4)And although the subject material is completely over the heads of evos the extended second law which deals exclusively with the information aspects of all biomolecular activity is a well established theoretical construct which remains completely incompatible with the concept of genome building, natural genetic engineering, integrated information storage and retrieval and manufacturing processes that are so clearly displayed in the simplest lifeforms , bacteria. (James Shapiro and peers are a good source here)

5) YOur answers consist of: Abiogenesis (oh we don't answer that question its defined away) First replicator (you're asking to much of us its not fair) Photosynthesis ( it's just chemistry, no problem) Information ( information is best generated by magical random processes including codes, algorithms, and problem solving)

6) I have no anger management issues, I just enjoy seeing how flimsy and inadequate the evo hypothesis is and to shine a bright light on the outlier personalities, egos, and psychologically disturbed nature of the hard core evo cultists.

Claudia Huber, Günter Wächtershäuser Peptides by Activation of Amino Acids with CO on (Ni,Fe)S Surfaces: Implications for the Origin of Life Science 31 July 1998:Vol. 281. no. 5377, pp. 670 - 672

The experiments with L-phenylalanine and L-tyrosine produced both epimeric dipeptides as a result of racemization. In the case of L-tyrosine, racemization was extensive after 4 days. These results mean that in an origin of life on (Fe,Ni)S at elevated temperatures, amino acids would be racemic. In a chemo-autotrophic origin of life (3) with a catalytic feedback of amino acids or short oligopeptides as ligands for catalytic metal centers homochirality of the amino acids or of their peptides is not essential. Homochirality becomes increasingly important with increasing chain lengths of the peptides

Meaning: So long as we propose hypothetical environments and limit our results to the shortest possible peptides totally unrelated to anything resembling precursors to actual molecules of life as we observe it in the simplest possible form we can ignore the levo/dextro/ chirility problem which has, does, and will render our and all other work totally meaningless as life always exhibits this property.

Our result supports the theory of a thermophilic origin of life with a primordial surface metabolism on transition metal sulfide minerals. It means that a continuously recycling library of peptides was generated on the surfaces of a library of (Fe,Ni)S structures. It raises the possibility that CO and Ni had a much greater role in the primordial metabolism than in any of the known extant metabolisms. All known extant organisms are found in habitats with low activities of CO and Ni. This could explain why they resorted to the formation of CO from CO2 and to the elimination of nickel from many enzymes (16).

Although no one observes past, present, and future in any context the form of metabolism suggested in our work and there is no reason to imagine it ever was extant we assume without evidence, logic or cause that it must have been so because we are superior evo ludites.

Please don't waste more of my valuable time with such superficial BS.

"systems are most often defined by arbitrary boundaries for problem solving simplification."

Yeah, simplify thermodynamics 'problems' by ignoring the (by a mindnumbing factor) most powerful energy-source in a 4 lightyear radius. It's like explaining how a car moves, arbitrarily setting the boundary so that any kind of combustion engines are ignored, and then arguing that "The Flintstones" documentary has a sound scientific theory on propulsion of contemporary cars.

Chain was an expert and award winner in the field of antibiotics and resistance thereto as well as the larger field of microbiology. Thus his opinion of how critical evolution was to the resistance experience is quite relevant.

On the other hand the BS comparisons to other Nobel winners in totally unrelated fields, to persons Chain likely never knew and whose excursions into fields outside their expertise led them to err badly are so ignorant, fallacious, and meaningless that is is embarrassing to the American education system that those who consider themselves scientifically literate and intelligent can propose such tripe.

I suppose the good old evo boys who forced Dr. Barbara McClintock underground with her theories for years as an example of the openness to new theories that happen to be at odds with Darwinism has slipped some peoples memories.

Thankfully Dr. Shapiro and others are carrying on the torch and will in time render RM and NS to the trashheap of scientific illiteracy.

I suspect you all would prefer the Bathroom Wall for discussions with me as there your pistol whipping into blubbering incoherence would be less visible.

keith said:

"I suspect you all would prefer the Bathroom Wall for discussions with me as there your pistol whipping into blubbering incoherence would be less visible."

Keith, as a long time lurker and occasional commenter, all the whipping I see is one way: the regulars here are giving and you are receiving. You whine and crow, but I will go out on a limb and hypothesize that most of the lurkers see it the same way.

Apologies to others for feeding the troll.

Please don’t waste more of my valuable time with such superficial BS.

— keith

Ernst Chain was educated as a biochemist, and his work on penicillin was on the isolation and production of the drug. I don't know of any work that he did on antibiotic resistance. Chain's statement about evolution really was outside his area of study.

What about Chain's co-prize winners, Florey and Fleming? Any guesses as to their thoughts on evolution?

Keith, your reply to Elzinger might make some kind of sense, but I can't be bothered trying to figure it out. Your writing is painful.

Bill Gascoyne:

Please don’t waste more of my valuable time with such superficial BS.

— keith

Irony meter pegged...

6) I have no anger management issues, I just enjoy seeing how flimsy and inadequate the evo hypothesis is and to shine a bright light on the outlier personalities, egos, and psychologically disturbed nature of the hard core evo cultists.

Evolution, the pseudoscience curse on progress and innovation, and the sink hole of wasted research dollars.

Students of true rhetoric understand that an appeal to an authority is perfectly logical and not fallacious if the person is a recognized expert in the subject area (antibiotics and resistance).

(don’t worry I do that consistently with evolander dullards)

The amusing aspect of the subject writ large is that the bacteria in the dish have infinitely more intellect than the evos observing them.

Your stupid attempt to equate two totally unrelated Nobel winners is a freshman logical fallacy and laughable.

Oh! Gosh I’ll bet your butt shrivels up like a mustard seed and you keep your dead silence like the rest of these dodos.

And I leave fallacies to your team so I never would argue from popularity…being a true rhetorician and true intellect rather than a darwin hack.

Avenger, is that a cape or are you still cross dressing in mommies clothes.

Oh and a little math help..both of these are more than 150 years..doodoo head.

There was a time when scientists could hold views and hypotheses different than the herds of illiterate lemmings and brainwashed sycophants that today hold science hostage and block any opportunity for debate of ideas.

But no doubt the season of the darwin dwarfs will pass and new giants of true intellect will emerge and real progress will then be possible.

Yes little left behind wannabees, struggling to find some meaning to your pitiful unnoticed existence, whimpering like whipped little mongrel dogs.

See medical school dropouts who struggle into some lab assistant job or associate prof at Igloo Tech in Minnesota are left to post their little bon mots on the web and hope , pray , perhaps that another evo will tell them how neat they are.

suppose the good old evo boys who forced Dr. Barbara McClintock underground with her theories for years as an example of the openness to new theories that happen to be at odds with Darwinism has slipped some peoples memories.

suspect you all would prefer the Bathroom Wall for discussions with me as there your pistol whipping into blubbering incoherence would be less visible.

Yes, we all keep waiting for the tomorrow that will never come (when Paul Nelson will produce his technical summary). Sort of like the Friedman Unit, the 6-month period it will take to determine if progress is being made in Iraq, always measured from the current moment. Perhaps one day Creationists will argue over whether the Nelson Unit was ever intended to be a literal, 24-hour day or if it was really intended to be metaphorical, that day when one comes to the end of the rainbow.

It wasn't a bull that had got out, it was a cow. Female lib.. PZ & CO. are showing some sort of wisdom, by not being here. PvM showed up, with some courage and wit. I suspect this Provider actually has a desire to pursue matters of fact!

Thanks for the bated-baited correction. Keep those corrections flowing in, people.

I see an entry asserting that the laws of science (physical chemistry being an arm of science) are not the final authority. They certainly are not, here a P.T.! That says it all! What can I add?

PvM, the word, evolution, literally means an unrolling, as of a rug. The fossil record proves evolution. (It certainly doesn't prove what a few contributors have been dreaming up for it. I assume the reader does have at least a rudimentary knowledge of the geologic column, as she stands, yes, a final arbiter as to the fact that evolution occurred, but having very little to say about the physics/chemistry involved.) So having established the fact that an unrolling occurred, and whilst waiting for the research results to come in to explain it, we may apply mystical religious leanings to the problem and come up with a rug that magically unfolds of its own power; or we may follow the more prudent course and wait to learn how it was unrolled, not discounting the possibility that it was spring-loaded at the outset.

You know perfectly well, should you have read my previous entries, that I am not associated with nor accepted by this so-called ID movement people keep hollering about. If you have the slightest knowledge of science history, you will know that there are almost as many theories of evolution as there are people to hold them, and the pioneering palaeontologists and many who followed after, deliberately disavowed or at least avoided Common Descent/Darwinism. You will find such facts mentioned at my site. You will also find, right on the front page, at www.creationtheory.com, a link to educational materials -"HOW TO TEACH EVOLUTION 2008".

I am neither attacking evolution - non-mystical evolution, that is - nor suggesting that science become a medium for religious pressurization. I am merely informing you that technologic advance is at a stage where we can glimpse parts of the spring mechanism. We can teach it without denying the facts of physical chemistry, and without overt religion.

I could go on at length about physical chemistry, reactions, dissolving urea in water, the entropy barrier, how modern technology points to ways of overcoming the entopy barrier in the case of complex organic molecules, blah blah. Let's go just one step at a time.

Bruce,

You might give consideration to the fact that Chain discovered and isolated penicillinase as the molecular component that some resistant strains of bacteria possessed that enabled said resistance.

I would venture a guess that PBH has absolutely no idea of what an “entropy barrier” is.

Like William Wallace, PBH is attempting to use Panda’s Thumb to leverage traffic for his own site. However, it isn’t even necessary to go there to know what one will find. PBH provided it all right here.

One has to admit that pseudo-science certainly attempts to be opportunistic.

Keith, you are correct about Ernst Chain identifying penicillinase. Identification of this enzyme was a breakthrough in biochemistry and has been essential in antibiotic research and development as well as in clinical medicine. Chain is obviously a great biochemist. Unfortunately, this still doesn't make him particularly knowledgeable about evolution.

Oh yeah, I'm still waiting for your thoughts on Fleming and Florey...

Keithonics to English translation:

Ernst Chain has credentials, and agrees with me, therefore his word trumps all facts.

You guys just don't get it. It doesn't matter WHO you quote if 99% of their colleagues disagree with them AND they lack solid evidence favoring them (thus dispensing with juvenile comparisons with Einstein).

Keith is just a loonier version of Berlinski: so enamoured with his perception of his own brilliance that he automatically dismisses any point or argument that works against his pet hypotheses and his narrow view of what constitutes evidence.

That and the obviously sorely lacking personal life. Tell me Keith, have you ever even kissed a girl?

Science Avenger: That and the obviously sorely lacking personal life. Tell me Keith, have you ever even kissed a girl?

Man, what I wouldn't give to see Popper's Ghost take these clowns down. Or even Triumph the insult comic dog.

caerbannog: In addition to the "bathroom wall", perhaps a "toilet bowl" section should be set up for posters (hi Keith) who fail to rise to bathroom-wall standards...

the word, evolution, literally means an unrolling, as of a rug.

PBH has just been firing broadsides of bullshit to get attention.

— Mike Elzinga

So having established the fact that an unrolling occurred, and whilst waiting for the research results to come in to explain it,

we may apply mystical religious leanings to the problem and come up with a rug that magically unfolds of its own power; or we may follow the more prudent course and wait to learn how it was unrolled, not discounting the possibility that it was spring-loaded at the outset.

You know perfectly well, should you have read my previous entries, that I am not associated with nor accepted by this so-called ID movement people keep hollering about.

If you have the slightest knowledge of science history, you will know that there are almost as many theories of evolution as there are people to hold them,

and the pioneering palaeontologists and many who followed after, deliberately disavowed or at least avoided Common Descent/Darwinism. You will find such facts mentioned at my site.

You will also find, right on the front page, at www.creationtheory.com, a link to educational materials -“HOW TO TEACH EVOLUTION 2008”.

I am neither attacking evolution - non-mystical evolution, that is -

— Philip Bruce Heywood

nor suggesting that science become a medium for religious pressurization.

I am merely informing you that technologic advance is at a stage where we can glimpse parts of the spring mechanism.

We can teach it without denying the facts of physical chemistry, and without overt religion.

I could go on at length about physical chemistry, reactions, dissolving urea in water,

the entropy barrier, how modern technology points to ways of overcoming the entopy barrier in the case of complex organic molecules, blah blah. Let’s go just one step at a time.

All this chain smoking. Never smoked, myself, I wonder what it's like to be kissed by a chain smoker. Chain might have been o.k., given the attention he's getting?

If there is an argument going on here over which respected scientists were full-on Common Descent-Darwin-o-dudes, the answer is, few, if any. Well, that's according to the actual historical records. Even Crick, who, with Watson, twigged onto DNA, embraced panspermia rather than the other 'correct' option. And he claimed to be atheist.

EVOLUTION: opening out (of roll, bud, etc.. ) THE CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY.

ENTROPY: measure of the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work. AS ABOVE.

ROLF shall now explain how the top definition is not English, and M.ELZINGA shall then turn the bottom definition into English, utilizing less than 1/4 of cyberspace. Fire away, O learned gurus, whilst we await the final proof of why people such as myself are obliged to run our own educational programs on the 'Net --- and turn to open-minded talkbacks such as P.T, to get the message out. Bless them all.

Ah, and Nigel shall explain how matter [or its energy equivalent] can be neither created nor destroyed. The First and Fundamental Law of science -- without which, science, and ourselves, could not exist. How did matter get here, Nige? And tell us, since gravity, relativity, planet formation, the geologic record, the water cycle, personal hygiene, etc. etc., are all in the Bible, how is it that we can learn about them without referring to religion? And, since Common Descent, or MET, or whatever, directly conflict with the Bible, how can we teach them without stirring a religious conflict?

Philip Bruce Heywood: ROLF shall now explain how the top definition is not English

From 1965 Collins dictionary:
evolution: gradual unrolling or unfolding; the development of organization; change; evolving; the scientific theory according to which the higher forms of life have have gradually developed from simple and rudimentary forms; Darwinism; epigenesis; a manoeuvre to change position, order and direction carried out by a body of troops.

My personal opinion: Usage and context are not irrelevant, and may override preconceived notions, or attempts at making something into what it is not.

PBH: EVOLUTION: opening out (of roll, bud, etc.. ) THE CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY.

PBH:
EVOLUTION: opening out (of roll, bud, etc.. ) THE CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY.

Roll? Bud?

You've gotta lay off that stuff, dude. It's obviously affecting your brain...

Ah, I was referring to the literal meaning of evolution, not its mystical/religious meaning. But let's think a moment. If enough people use a word erroneously for a sufficient period of time, that ERRONEOUS meaning gets into the dictionary. When people all thought that dust, given time, produced lice - those sorts of "facts" were embedded in their lingo. Now, people just add a lot more dust and a lot more time, and get humans. After technologic advance corrects the publics' perception of what is meant by this term, the dictionaries might possibly delete the non-literal meanings.

You say, how can I say that there is a mystical/religious aspect to this word's (non-literal) meaning? Tell me, if I had mentioned, say, general relativity - even in a derogatory way - or had said, force does not equal mass by acceleration - would your feelings have been the same, as for when evolution is mentioned? How many debate sites such as this, live off the implications of f=ma?

Philip wrote:

"Chain might have been o.k., given the attention he’s getting?"

Perfect logic. If someone pays attention to you, your views are vindicated no mater how foolish or contrary to reality they may be. This guy is obviously just trolling for attention. He agrees that evolution has occurred but apparently thinks that no one but him knows anything about how. So what? State a testable hypothesis and present evidence. Real scientists will not pay any attention unless you do.

So Philip, or Keith, care to calculate "ontogenetic depth" for us, or does the "species lock" prevent that as well? That was the original topic of this thread you remember. We will wait with baited breath while you tow the line to where you can be shot with the big guns.

D.S.: The big guns know what's going on. That's why they're big guns. It's also why they're not here. A big gun can read, for starters. Go back to PvM's APRIL FOOLS AT UCD page - I think you were there before - read it, and it may assist if you go back to another of PvM'S pages, not far previous to it, where I first come in. Read my entries, including those that were deleted. All the information you claim to seek was always there. Or simply type in my full name, or type in my site's address, and go from there.

I never knew of Chain until just now, and I know that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. You may explain that more fully than I, if you wish. It means that the growth of an organism, tends to be a reflection of the history of life preceding that organism's appearance, here on good old mother earth. The implications are quite interesting. Very interesting topic, geology. If you go farther and read science history, you will discover that evolution in it's proper, purely literal meaning, has been around for a long time and is not the possession of any one world view.

Ah, I was referring to the literal meaning of evolution,

— Philip Bruce Heywood, now severely out to lunch,

not its mystical/religious meaning.

But let’s think a moment.

If enough people use a word erroneously for a sufficient period of time, that ERRONEOUS meaning gets into the dictionary.

When people all thought that dust, given time, produced lice - those sorts of “facts” were embedded in their lingo. Now, people just add a lot more dust and a lot more time, and get humans.

After technologic advance corrects the publics’ perception of what is meant by this term, the dictionaries might possibly delete the non-literal meanings.

You say, how can I say that there is a mystical/religious aspect to this word’s (non-literal) meaning?

Tell me, if I had mentioned, say, general relativity - even in a derogatory way - or had said, force does not equal mass by acceleration - would your feelings have been the same, as for when evolution is mentioned? How many debate sites such as this, live off the implications of f=ma?

But let’s think a moment. If enough people use a word erroneously for a sufficient period of time, that ERRONEOUS meaning gets into the dictionary.

PBH: Being such a stickler for definitions, please enlighten us with the proper definition of the word, "buggy."
I'll use it in a sentence: "PBH is a buggy guy."

Avenger in panty hose,

I have a very nice life, although being widowed after 33 years is not anyone's first choice. I do have two grown kids, five grandkids, and date quite frequently, thank you.

I suspect Stacy has kissed as many girls as anyone I know and you as many boys. She gets cranky when the batteries run down.

Can't chat just now as I have to distribute several copies of Walter Remine's book to several school libraries and the public library downtown. A modest investment in the interest of public education.

If more people could read his book it would hasten the day when the luddites of evoland would be quarantined in Lativa.

Just a few more days until America is awakened to the sad state of science and the tactics of the neo-Nazi's of darwinism.

… and date quite frequently, thank you.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Ah, I was referring to the literal meaning of evolution, not its mystical/religious meaning. But let’s think a moment. If enough people use a word erroneously for a sufficient period of time, that ERRONEOUS meaning gets into the dictionary. When people all thought that dust, given time, produced lice - those sorts of “facts” were embedded in their lingo. Now, people just add a lot more dust and a lot more time, and get humans. After technologic advance corrects the publics’ perception of what is meant by this term, the dictionaries might possibly delete the non-literal meanings.

PBH: You say, how can I say that there is a mystical/religious aspect to this word’s (non-literal) meaning?

Tell me, if I had mentioned, say, general relativity - even in a derogatory way - or had said, force does not equal mass by acceleration - would your feelings have been the same, as for when evolution is mentioned? How many debate sites such as this, live off the implications of f=ma?

Robin:

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Ah, I was referring to the literal meaning of evolution, not its mystical/religious meaning. But let’s think a moment. If enough people use a word erroneously for a sufficient period of time, that ERRONEOUS meaning gets into the dictionary. When people all thought that dust, given time, produced lice - those sorts of “facts” were embedded in their lingo. Now, people just add a lot more dust and a lot more time, and get humans. After technologic advance corrects the publics’ perception of what is meant by this term, the dictionaries might possibly delete the non-literal meanings.

Sorry PBH, but language and definitions do not work the way you seem to think they do. Just because you feel all proud of pointing out the prevailing use of the term prior to 1800 does not mean that it is the "literal meaning" of the term. To put it bluntly, the "literal meaning" of the word "aweful" is not "full of awe; awe inspiring" (even though that *IS* the original definition of the term*), and if you insist such, you might get some change tossed at you in subways, but you're not going to be praised for your lexiconical use of the English language. The fact is, the "literal definition" of any term is the one most prominently recognized *given the context of discussion* in the society or nation establishing the term.

PBH: You say, how can I say that there is a mystical/religious aspect to this word’s (non-literal) meaning?

You mean aside from merely pulling a fallacious claim out of your rear...

Tell me, if I had mentioned, say, general relativity - even in a derogatory way - or had said, force does not equal mass by acceleration - would your feelings have been the same, as for when evolution is mentioned? How many debate sites such as this, live off the implications of f=ma?

Well, seeing as how your example above does not imply a change of the *definitions* of the terms in use, I wouldn't have cared one wit. Since my point was concerning the misuse of *definition*, either you are offering a bad example above or my point flew over that knob between your shoulders. Either way, you haven't explained how you arrived at the (clearly erroneous) conclusion of a "mystical/religious" aspect to the term "evolution". Do tell when you get a brief respite from your otherwise (I'm sure) extraordinary day to deign us with the brilliance of such an insight...[rolls eyes] Oh...and seeing as how Chuckles seems to like terminology so much, here: Merriam-Webster.com Aweful Main Entry: 1aw·ful Pronunciation: \ˈȯ-fəl\ Function: adjective Date: 13th century 1: inspiring awe 2: filled with awe: Let me know how folks around you react when you start telling ladies you meet that they are just "aweful". I'm sure you'll start a trend...

Just a few more days until America is awakened to the sad state of science and the tactics of the neo-Nazi’s of darwinism.

...and I know that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. You may explain that more fully than I, if you wish.

— PBH

It means that the growth of an organism, tends to be a reflection of the history of life preceding that organism’s appearance, here on good old mother earth.

The implications are quite interesting.

Very interesting topic, geology.

If you go farther and read science history, you will discover that evolution in it’s proper, purely literal meaning, has been around for a long time and is not the possession of any one world view.

… entropy barrier …

keith: I suspect Stacy has kissed as many girls as anyone I know and you as many boys. She gets cranky when the batteries run down.

Keith,
are you always such a dirtbag? or only when you're online?

Philip,

I read your entries, they were literally incomprehensible. I asked for explanations, you provided none. Why is that? Don't you want everyone to learn how the magenetic field processes photons to deliver information to DNA?

Exactly what is your problem with modern evolutioanary theory? Exzactly what is it that you think that no one else understands? Where is your evidence for this mysterious thing? Do you only seek attention, even if it is just ridicule? Do you have any real point to make? If so state your case clearly. No one is going to visit your website if all it contains are mindless mumblings such as you post here. Or is it too profound for anyone to understand? Yes, too profound, too profound.

Stacy said: You suffer from libidinous oedipal tendencies. You need to stop fantasizing about me, really.

I read your entries, they were literally incomprehensible.

A modest investment in the interest of public education

you mean public misinformation.

btw, do you know what the library does with your donated books?

they sell them.

don't believe me? go to your local library's next book auction and see.

keith wrote:

citing Claudia Huber, Günter Wächtershäuser Peptides by Activation of Amino Acids with CO on (Ni,Fe)S Surfaces: Implications for the Origin of Life Science 31 July 1998:Vol. 281. no. 5377, pp. 670 - 672 The experiments with L-phenylalanine and L-tyrosine produced both epimeric dipeptides as a result of racemization. In the case of L-tyrosine, racemization was extensive after 4 days. These results mean that in an origin of life on (Fe,Ni)S at elevated temperatures, amino acids would be racemic. In a chemo-autotrophic origin of life (3) with a catalytic feedback of amino acids or short oligopeptides as ligands for catalytic metal centers homochirality of the amino acids or of their peptides is not essential. Homochirality becomes increasingly important with increasing chain lengths of the peptides

Meaning: So long as we propose hypothetical environments and limit our results to the shortest possible peptides totally unrelated to anything resembling precursors to actual molecules of life as we observe it in the simplest possible form we can ignore the levo/dextro/ chirility problem which has, does, and will render our and all other work totally meaningless as life always exhibits this property.

Citing the same paper: Our result supports the theory of a thermophilic origin of life with a primordial surface metabolism on transition metal sulfide minerals. It means that a continuously recycling library of peptides was generated on the surfaces of a library of (Fe,Ni)S structures. It raises the possibility that CO and Ni had a much greater role in the primordial metabolism than in any of the known extant metabolisms. All known extant organisms are found in habitats with low activities of CO and Ni. This could explain why they resorted to the formation of CO from CO2 and to the elimination of nickel from many enzymes (16).

Although no one observes past, present, and future in any context the form of metabolism suggested in our work and there is no reason to imagine it ever was extant we assume without evidence, logic or cause that it must have been so because we are superior evo ludites.

Please don't waste more of my valuable time with such superficial BS.

Biggy Boy,

None of these papers are other than biochemistry experiments under certain guesses at prebiotic environments and have only the most illusory relationship to abiogenesis.

None overcome the racemic issue, few even involve more than 2-3 of the the 20 amino acids relevant to life.

And I ask not the abiogenisis explanation but let you assume it happened and ask simply for a detailed molecular description of the first self sufficient self replicating living organism capable of evolving via RM ans NS ...the ultimate common ancestor.

That’s one of the things I might ask PZ - does his theory of origins

the electricity-life controversy

Rather it is the issue of how all the critical elements came into being, progressed from first being and how in particular photosysnthetic processes developed

the extended second law which deals exclusively with the information aspects of all biomolecular activity is a well established theoretical construct

keith wrote: None of these papers are other than biochemistry experiments under certain guesses at prebiotic environments and have only the most illusory relationship to abiogenesis.

None overcome the racemic issue, few even involve more than 2-3 of the the 20 amino acids relevant to life.

And I ask not the abiogenisis explanation but let you assume it happened and ask simply for a detailed molecular description of the first self sufficient self replicating living organism capable of evolving via RM ans NS ...the ultimate common ancestor.

I ask not the abiogenisis explanation but let you assume it happened

the first self sufficient self replicating living organism capable of evolving via RM ans NS …the ultimate common ancestor

None overcome the racemic issue

Holy Cow. The three headed bible thumping ignoramus Heywood Wallace Eaton never gets a clue, does it?

These. People. Are. Insane.

what it will eventually demonstrate is that abiogenesis can occur and create replicators on which evolution can operate. I’m sure this type of research must be really threatening to you since it will eventually eliminate one more gap in which your God hides.

According to Swain the detection is a milestone on the road to finding true signs of life. "This observation," said Swain, "is proof that spectroscopy can eventually be done on a cooler and potentially habitable Earth-sized planet." The ultimate goal, he added, is to identify such molecules in planets orbiting in the "habitable zones" of their stars, where liquid water is stable. On such worlds, where conditions may resemble those on Earth, it just might be the case that methane and other organic molecules are indeed the telltale signs of extraterrestrial life.

Thanks Mike.

By the way, did you run across anythng that explained how photons could be processed in a magnetic field or how that could create information or how that information could be transmitted to DNA? I really can't figure that one out and Phil doesn't seem to want to explain for some reason.

David Stanton: Thanks Mike. By the way, did you run across anythng that explained how photons could be processed in a magnetic field or how that could create information or how that information could be transmitted to DNA? I really can't figure that one out and Phil doesn't seem to want to explain for some reason.

The Bible implies an interaction between sun, moon, earth, and probably other solar system components – which would class as stars – to impart intelligence. The same assumption sets science free from a non-observable hypothesis – darwinistic Evolution. Conventional electronics scarcely qualifies as the physical process behind the communications medium. Something similar to superconduction brings a realistic communications provider closer to science’s grasp.

Radio is an electro-magnetic process that produced remarkable results, over great distances. Here is something vaguely similar, although deeper and more obscure. Matter is partly electro-magnetic, and superconduction is an atomic electromagnetic event involving sufficient atoms at once to make it a significant aspect of nature. Every element can conceivably react in a unique way to such events. The holy Scriptures matter-of-factly mention some miraculous events that were nevertheless a part of nature. One that springs to mind is temporary opaqueness of air over a specific part of Egypt approximately 3,500 years ago. It happens that oxygen is the only common gas that is strongly magnetic. The behavior of air under the influence of large-scale quantum- magnetic affects such as might conceivably be associated with sudden changes in superconducting circuit(s) underground, in synchronization with radio-type solar emissions, cannot be fully tested. The sun standing still raises even more mystifying issues, but it seems impossible to safely stop a planet spinning other than through magnetic field interactions? These would be pointless questions were it not that the same Book that tells us to wash, but does not investigate bacteria, tells us of some sort of a future recurrence of atmospheric events, without mentioning atomic Physics.

Torbjorn, I will take pity on you. Try reading T.R.Morus, 2004, MICHAEL FARADAY AND THE ELECTRICAL CENTURY. Icon Books, Cambridge, U.K., P.69-72. Of course, when you look it up in summary form in encycloepdias, the idealogically motivated fringe that were ga-ga about the electric animalcules, were dead set, mainstream science. Only time has shown they weren't, and the encycloepedias don't take up space, to give the story. Great-grandfathers to some contributors here, these 'mainstream scientists' were!

So, here we have a page dedicated to stirring dust over some guy of whom I had never heard and of whose ideas I haven't studied. It seems he didn't show for his peer review session. Same complainant is taking a while to get here, for his!

Torbjorn, I will take pity on you.

and not toss him into the same fires of inanity you bathe in constantly?

meds.

take em.

Normally I refer to particular posters but the level of illiterary among the responders is sufficiently equal to just respond to the group.

First Replicator: No where in science except evolution is a "possible pathway" without a scintilla of demonstrated experiemental evidence found to be exceptable as confirming a hypothesis. The "larger state phenomena giving rise to a first replicating population" is unsubstantiated gibberish, without even a logical foundation, making the impossible more impossible is hardly a solution. No RNA nor any polypeptide or virus is alive , self sufficient, and capable of replication in the context of RM and NS. The RNA first hypothesis has been laughed out of discussion for about twenty years.

The raw suns energy without a transducing mechanism is useless for driving any processes related to life. So let's try that photosynthesis by accident one more time.

Good Night we're back to the space devils from planet ork explanation for how to get non-racemic results in abiogenesis work. Energy waves from outer space, 1% excess Dextro forms means what..nothing period.

Of course Shapiro after beating every possible abiogenesis explanation ever proposed to death went with the great universal lifeforce theory, whatever that is. Crick's panspermia etc. on and on all add to one thing ZIPPO NADA.

Evolution.. the dark age of science.

Which you would enlighten with... what? GODDIDIT? That's your science??

Or maybe Phil's Timecube Lite?

Thanks Mike. By the way, did you run across anything that explained how photons could be processed in a magnetic field or how that could create information or how that information could be transmitted to DNA? I really can’t figure that one out and Phil doesn’t seem to want to explain for some reason.

There must be a superior, as yet undetected, signalling capability in Nature.

The signalling system must be able to communicate with living cells. The information carrier almost has to be some sort of waveform. Gravity is sufficiently mysterious to qualify as a candidate, but have we yet exhausted all the possibilities of electro-magnetism? The communications medium has to be more sophisticated than straightforward radio-type transmissions, but for purposes of testing options, let us for current purposes propose an adjunct or an associate of electro-magnetism as the medium, leaving the deep question of gravity in reserve.

Surely this is one realm in which we could search for the information systems that communicate with the living realm? In the realm of today’s scientific advances in quantum technology? Search for them, for instance, in the realm of new technologies such as Magnetic Resonance Imaging, which utilizes quantum effects to look inside the human body?

The storage and transmission of information in the natural realm is always a ‘mechanical’ process. The hidden information systems of nature which communicate with atoms in living cells are mechanical systems. A computer is a machine. A conventional computer functions primarily through conventional mechanics, especially as an application of conventional electronics. A quantum computer functions through quantum mechanics, and is a usage of quantum electronics. At the level of the quantum of foundational energy, electricity and magnetism are "king". An atom is basically organized electro-magnetic energy. Intelligence storage and transmission systems at this level are electro-magnetic. In simplistic terms, magnetism can "talk". Surely it is in this realm that we could search for hidden signalling systems? And it is only logical to assume that if a given communications system can impart some sort of information to living cells, then it may be able to impart information to D.N.A. within cells. So, logical step: what sort of machine could possibly communicate information to D.N.A.?

According to the Tree of Life theory, all physical life evidenced through a process analogous to the functioning of a natural tree — hence a tree-like pattern of species revelation. The tree of life had a physical aspect. The tree of life in its physical aspect was like a quantum-category computer. A tree is a 'quantum computer'. In fact, a tree seems to display two aspects of this super-computation; the food-provision of photosynthesis which we shall call a male aspect; and the bringing forth of new life, as pre-programmed leaves, etc. which we shall call the female aspect. The information transmission and storage processes that cause already-existing new life to suddenly appear on a tree are not conventional electronic processes. We shall find no electrical wiring or microchips within a tree!

The best option to the strained mind may perhaps be superconductivity or some similar, unknown phenomenon?

Superconduction is a quantum effect. "In 1962 the British physicist B. Josephson examined the quantum nature of superconductivity and proposed the existence of oscillations in the electric current flowing through two superconductors separated by a thin insulating layer in a magnetic field. This was subsequently confirmed by experiment ….. ". (Chu, 1996, in Encarta Encyclopedia) The tree of life utilized a super-sophisticated quantum-type computer built into the solar system. A natural tree is in some senses a quantum computer. The sun, the male in a figure, provides the food for a tree through a quantum process — photosynthesis. The breaking forth of new life in a tree — the female or moon analogy — is likely to be another quantum information technology process.

If we possessed a working model of the earth-sun-moon system, and one of a tree — which will doubtless be found to be analogous — we would be in a stronger position. The incoherence that plagues the efforts of quantum-computer builders could well be a weighty matter. If the Bible says what it appears to say, then up until the time when Adam was barred from the tree of life, there were times or there were opportunities when the incoherence became coherence. The quantum computer performed.

And, in passing: if quantum-type computation implicating the solar system is assumed as an aspect of nature, the biblical account of origins and other hitherto mysterious parts of the Bible suddenly become hard fact. We have total correlation with the fossil record. The above deductions are a necessary outcome of taking that Book as the first document of quantum computation. Terms employed in the first chapters of Genesis and elsewhere are "to the manor born" in relation to this branch of science.

Torbjorn; correction for my previous post. I got tangled. People claiming to 'have the goods' about electricity being the essence of animal animation were trumpeting rather loudly. These people claimed the backing of science, (if you like), and there can be no doubt that some who were genuine, were taken in by fraudsters. In time, people such as Faraday clarified the matter - not without some personal pain, on Faraday's part - and the controversy died. But for quite some time, politico-religious feelings ran hot over the electricity question; religion was attacked on the basis that electricity explained life; and some people tried to hitch the car of what we would call, mainstrean science, to fraud and politico-religious posturing. Faraday was attacked by conservatives on one hand, because he was involved in a subversive area - electricity! - and by radicals, because he didn't get electricity to do what they wanted! Hope that's clearer. Morus, for one, explains it well. The encycloepedias can't go into such issues at depth.

keith said: Normally I refer to particular posters but the level of illiterary among the responders is sufficiently equal to just respond to the group.

First Replicator: No where in science except evolution is a “possible pathway” without a scintilla of demonstrated experiemental evidence found to be exceptable as confirming a hypothesis.

The “larger state phenomena giving rise to a first replicating population” is unsubstantiated gibberish, without even a logical foundation, making the impossible more impossible is hardly a solution.

No RNA nor any polypeptide or virus is alive , self sufficient, and capable of replication in the context of RM and NS.

The RNA first hypothesis has been laughed out of discussion for about twenty years.

The raw sun's energy without a transducing mechanism is useless for driving any processes related to life.

So let’s try that photosynthesis by accident one more time.

Good Night we’re back to the space devils from planet ork explanation for how to get non-racemic results in abiogenesis work. Energy waves from outer space, 1% excess Dextro forms means what..nothing period.

Of course Shapiro after beating every possible abiogenesis explanation ever proposed to death went with the great universal lifeforce theory, whatever that is.

Crick’s panspermia etc. on and on all add to one thing ZIPPO NADA.

EvolutionID/creationism .. the dark age of science.

keith: Normally I refer to particular posters but the level of illiterary among the responders is sufficiently equal to just respond to the group. First Replicator: No where in science except evolution is a “possible pathway” without a scintilla of demonstrated experiemental evidence found to be exceptable as confirming a hypothesis.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Ah, I was referring to the literal meaning of evolution, not its mystical/religious meaning. But let’s think a moment. If enough people use a word erroneously for a sufficient period of time, that ERRONEOUS meaning gets into the dictionary. When people all thought that dust, given time, produced lice - those sorts of “facts” were embedded in their lingo. Now, people just add a lot more dust and a lot more time, and get humans. After technologic advance corrects the publics’ perception of what is meant by this term, the dictionaries might possibly delete the non-literal meanings.

You say, how can I say that there is a mystical/religious aspect to this word’s (non-literal) meaning?

Tell me, if I had mentioned, say, general relativity - even in a derogatory way - or had said, force does not equal mass by acceleration - would your feelings have been the same, as for when evolution is mentioned? How many debate sites such as this, live off the implications of f=ma?

Philip Heywood is a textbook example of how semantics games and word-lawyering can never ever ever ever substitute actual science, or be able garner even piddling respect from actual scientists and actual students of science.

keith wrote: Normally I refer to particular posters but the level of illiterary[sic] among the responders is sufficiently equal to just respond to the group.

First Replicator: No where in science except evolution is a “possible pathway” without a scintilla of demonstrated experiemental[sic] evidence found to be exceptable[sic] as confirming a hypothesis.

The “larger state phenomena giving rise to a first replicating population” is unsubstantiated gibberish, without even a logical foundation, making the impossible more impossible is hardly a solution.

No RNA nor any polypeptide or virus is alive , self sufficient, and capable of replication in the context of RM and NS.

The RNA first hypothesis has been laughed out of discussion for about twenty years.

The raw suns energy without a transducing mechanism is useless for driving any processes related to life. So let’s try that photosynthesis by accident one more time.

Good Night we’re back to the space devils from planet ork explanation for how to get non-racemic results in abiogenesis work. Energy waves from outer space, 1% excess Dextro forms means what..nothing period.

Of course Shapiro after beating every possible abiogenesis explanation ever proposed to death went with the great universal lifeforce theory, whatever that is. Crick’s panspermia etc. on and on all add to one thing ZIPPO NADA.

Evolution.. the dark age of science.

were dead set, mainstream science

prof Weird wrote: Shapiro advocates the ‘metabolism first’ view of abiogenesis, so why, EXACTLY, do you whine that he has ‘beaten every possible explanation to death’ ?

No where in science except evolution is a “possible pathway” without a scintilla of demonstrated experiemental evidence found to be exceptable as confirming a hypothesis.

The “larger state phenomena giving rise to a first replicating population” is unsubstantiated gibberish,

No RNA nor any polypeptide or virus is alive , self sufficient, and capable of replication in the context of RM and NS.

1% excess Dextro forms means what..nothing

Mike,

Thanks. Just as I expected, total gibberish. It isn't even English let a alone science. Man, this guy doesn't even seem to know the difference between the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life.

I am beginning to feel a sort of sympathy for Keith - the pleasure of whose acquaintance I do not have, and whose view of these matters I have not studied. So far, on this site, commentators - commentators who surely must make the Page Providers grind their teeth - have denied the authority and veracity of the English Language, History, the fundamental laws of science (natural processes magically, suddenly, no longer are governed by energy requirements a la thermodynamics!), fundamental observations (ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny has been decreed outdated, as of now - yet it is the classic observation used in support of, guess what - yes, Common Descent Evolution!), they have classified the latest developments in science, especially in quantum theory, photonics, and quantum computing, as quackery; they have classified almost everyone associated with the development of science to this point, Einstein included, as corrupters. This is entertainment.

Keep going, Keith; we'll get them to swear that the moon's a balloon, yet. (Er, Keith, I'm assuming you're not a moon- balloon man? I don't think you are.)

Philip Bruce Heywood wrote: I am beginning to feel a sort of sympathy for Keith

… they have classified the latest developments in science, especially in quantum theory, photonics, and quantum computing, as quackery; they have classified almost everyone associated with the development of science to this point, Einstein included, as corrupters.

keith: Normally I refer to particular posters but the level of illiterary among the responders is sufficiently equal to just respond to the group.

I commented on Keith's standard of 'illiterary' before reading later comments. I see Artfulskeptic spotted a couple I missed.

Mike, that was poetry.

Philip,

Perhaps you can explain to us how the tree of life carries on photosynthesis. I'm dying to hear an explanation for that one.

The Provider of this page manifestly practices democracy and free speech, and believes in science - which is more than can be said for many discussion providers in this field - many of whom claim it but don't practice it. My regards. And since there obviously are people who wish to see origins science progress in an harmonious manner, according to 'law' -- shall we do so?.

I invited one of the resident commentators to expound on Entropy for us, but it's much more fun to holler through a stove-pipe. It's a used stove-pipe, I might add. This entropy question is where the new developments throw light, and here is the way forward for Evolution - 'an unrolling'. Owen, Darwin, Huxley - they were all on the right track, in that there is a proven unrolling or unfolding of life. The furore was the result of people inserting a non-rational cause into the gaps in our understanding. The gap is right here - Entropy. You cannot, under conditions existing on any laboratory on Earth, under existing technology, throw a selection of organic molecules into a bucket and get anything like DNA and such like to come out of it. And time doesn't help. Chemical reagents do their best when they are brand new, not after innumerable attempts. (This is why life was sprung into existence almost contemporaneously with the Earth; and why complex life manifested profusely, contemporaneous with the Pre-Cambrian/Cambrian Event. Delay makes it more difficult.)

Entropy is an exceeding difficult topic, but, like all of science, it can be expressed in everyday concepts. We shall consider but one aspect of the topic.

PZ goes camping in the wildlands of Minnesota. After taking careful notes on the mating habits of frogs, some of which seemed to be developing horns, he decides to have lunch. He gathers sticks, clears a break, lights the fire, boils the billy can, smacks down a grisly bear that shows signs of fight, and has a good feed of prawns.
Now think about the boiling of that billy. Ah, you say: this much solid fuel; this much oxygen; this much terrible horrible carbon dioxide produced, plus solid residue. Yes, a straightforward chemical reaction. PZ puts on weight.

O.K.. Now leave out the organization. The stick gathering, the matches carried to the scene, the fending off of the grisly. Our hero waits for the right conditions, gets to a wildfire triggered by lightning, gets his billy full of water, and walks along the fire-line, holding the billy over the fire. A firefighter turns an extinguisher on him, because he thinks his beard is a fire, and then he is arrested on suspicion of starting the fire. Of course,if the fire is a cool one, he may have to run for a kilometer, holding the billy at arms length, merely to get it to boil. He loses weight.

What makes the difference between the two procedures? The gathering together of the fuel. The timely application of the match.

In terms of energy pathways and processes of Nature, an ounce of organization beats a ton of TNT. Speaking in pictorial terms, Entropy has to do with the organizational side of boiling the billy.

So to get all the complex organic molecules to play the game, and go against our everyday observations and the (measurable, real) 'entropy barrier' of getting something to become ordered, such as our pile of firewood, what is needed?

Something carrying information that negates the 'entropy barrier'.

The source of this information or organizational input, is one and the same question as the question of the source of matter. Nothing new.

Modern technology almost every day is pointing to the procedures involved. For instance, it is common knowledge that light can carry information. Quantum computation is theoretically possible. One could go on here, at length.
A suite of internet science news services regularly provide updates. What is very interesting is that complex organic molecules could well have remarkable properties in relation to this new area of quantum physics/chemistry. Some of the discoveries are thought-provoking. Molecules with these properties, interacting with quantum particles/information/energy, may well be enabled to interact in a manner that both overcomes the entropy barrier, and leads to complexity.

Avast with the hollering through the stove pipes, and tell people how the species were revealed, according to the requirements of science and rationality. It could be important.

Avast with the hollering through the stove pipes, and tell people how the species were revealed, according to the requirements of science and rationality. It could be important.

Oh, and by the way, I understood your Outback folksy yarn. It's funny, but it is still bullshit.

What is your issue with the "entropy barrier"?

Science Avenger: Mike, that was poetry.

Philip Bruce Heywood: Crap, crap, crap, and more crap.....ad infinitum.

Er, Keith, I’m assuming you’re not a moon- balloon man? I don’t think you are

— Philip Boring Heywood

PBH: commentators who surely must make the Page Providers grind their teeth - have denied the authority and veracity of the English Language

Crap, crap, crap, and more crap…..ad infinitum.

Besides an irony so massive that it collapses to a black hole, it is a perfect example of an incompetence barrier. PBH is constitutionally unable to observe himself in relation to what we know as reality.

That's a relief. I assumed someone would get out their magic electric box that produces instant maggots and animalcules, and pull maggots out of the Pre-Cambrian. I did note in my previous entry that complex life evidenced contemporaneous with the Pre-Cambrian - Cambrian event.

Darwin-o-dudes are doing their utmost - they think they have worm burrows, from the complex [in my terminology, complex = animal-grade] organisms that of course lived during the Pre-Cambrian. Only they haven't worked up enough charlatanism to actually fake those maggots, just yet.

I see PvM has blown apart another creation myth. Come with me, and see it blow up. Bring those stove pipes.

David Stanton: "The ontogenetic depth of any species measures the developmental distance between the starting point, the egg, and the stage at which organisms in the species can successfully reproduce themselves." Easy. Now all you have to do is estimate the total number of cell divisions required, then multiply by the number of genes that must be properly regulated in order to achieve differentiation. Simple. In fact one could make and estimate for a few species already. As for the rest, I guess Paul better get buzy in the lab and measure the important parameters. Of course that still won't prove that the developmental pathways could not evolve. This is just a nonsensical way of saying that development is complex and that in order to explain evolution you must explain development. Well the field of evo/devo has made an excellent start on that. Maybe Paul should get another degree and learn a thing or two about what is known about developmental genetics before declaring that no one understands it. After all, he can still claim that the pathetic level of detail is just not good enough for him. But then he would have to go into the lab anyway. Oh well.

Since most evolutionists are Sodmites, the role of reproduction often escapes them.

Charlemange,

So if you, (presumably a non-sodomite), are familiar with the prerequisite Biblical presuppositions, perhaps then you could calculate the ontogentic depth of a fruit fly for us. Please state the equation, the assumptions and the Biblical presuppositions involved.

Oh, by the way, claiming that evolutionary biologists don't understand reproduction is probably even more stupid than claiming that most of them are sodomites. And exactly how would you have obtained this knowledge?

I assumed someone would get out their magic electric box that produces instant maggots and animalcules

I did note in my previous entry that complex life evidenced contemporaneous with the Pre-Cambrian - Cambrian event.

And exactly how would you have obtained this knowledge?

My thanks and apologies to Nigel and the board. First, thank you Nigel for correcting my syntax error to a post a made April 9. Somehow I missed that a few days later when I saw my post with the syntax error message. My apologies on reposting essentially the same response.

I will note that PBH has not commented on his misuse of the dictionary. One wonders where this much hyped "Christian honesty and integrity" is these days.

Robin: My thanks and apologies to Nigel and the board. First, thank you Nigel for correcting my syntax error to a post a made April 9. Somehow I missed that a few days later when I saw my post with the syntax error message. My apologies on reposting essentially the same response.

I will note that PBH has not commented on his misuse of the dictionary. One wonders where this much hyped "Christian honesty and integrity" is these days.