https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.
https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in
doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that
your own belief might be from credulity?
In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're
not looking.
https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.
https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.
On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 23:35:18 -0700 (PDT), MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>
wrote:
https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.
<https://youtu.be/ba2h9tqNYAo?t=41>
***************************************
Complexity complexity complexity complexity. Oh look there's a
pathway. It's very complicated.
Complexity complexity complexity complexity complexity. And did you
know that cells are really really complicated. But we're not done.
Complexity complexity complexity complexity. And you're going to be
blown away by the bacterial flagellum. It's like a little machine and
it's really really complicated.
Complexity complexity complexity complexity. We need more cells.
They're really complicated. you just get blown away by these things.
They are so amazingly complicated
Complexity, therefore design.
*****************************************
Thank you, PZ.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 2:35:58?AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:but whatever your goal is, you're more likely to get there if you make an effort to understand your audience.
https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.
First you made the assumption that lots of us had never thought about God or the supernatural. Now you assume lots of us have no idea that cells are complicated. I'm not sure what you're trying to do, since you say you are not trying to evangelize here,
On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 04:05:16 -0700 (PDT), the followinghere, but whatever your goal is, you're more likely to get there if you make an effort to understand your audience.
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com>:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 2:35:58?AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.
First you made the assumption that lots of us had never thought about God or the supernatural. Now you assume lots of us have no idea that cells are complicated. I'm not sure what you're trying to do, since you say you are not trying to evangelize
Too complex; the audience can never be understood. Therefore Goddidtheaudience. See how that works?You are all very good at making assumptions, even if you have to lie about what you are assuming.
--
On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 04:05:16 -0700 (PDT), the followinghere, but whatever your goal is, you're more likely to get there if you make an effort to understand your audience.
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com" <brogers31751@gmail.com>:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 2:35:58?AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.
First you made the assumption that lots of us had never thought about God or the supernatural. Now you assume lots of us have no idea that cells are complicated. I'm not sure what you're trying to do, since you say you are not trying to evangelize
Audience To is _NOT_ a Goddiditaudience. TOisathereisnogodexceptmeaudenceToo complex; the audience can never be understood. Therefore Goddidtheaudience. See how that works?
On 2023-10-05 06:35:18 +0000, MarkE said:
https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?Hardly. There are plenty of things we don't understand, and won't
understand for a long time, but preferring a naturalistic
interpretation over God-did-it has nothing to do with credulity. It has
do with the fact that naturalistic interpretations of many topics have
taken us a long way, whereas God-did-it explanations are based on no evidence whatsoever and have never led to useful new knowledge.
In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we'reYes, but real scientists do look and try to understand.
not looking.
--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016
On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 17:50:09 -0400, the following appeared inhere, but whatever your goal is, you're more likely to get there if you make an effort to understand your audience.
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
TO
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 04:05:16 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com"
<brogers31751@gmail.com>:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 2:35:58?AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.
First you made the assumption that lots of us had never thought about God or the supernatural. Now you assume lots of us have no idea that cells are complicated. I'm not sure what you're trying to do, since you say you are not trying to evangelize
No spaces ~ a stupid, idiotic spelling!WHOOOSHAudience To is _NOT_ a Goddiditaudience. TOisathereisnogodexceptmeaudenceToo complex; the audience can never be understood. Therefore
Goddidtheaudience. See how that works?
A bit slow on analogies?
And learn to read; I wrote "Goddidtheaudience", not
"Goddiditaudience". A subtle difference, to be sure.
TOhere, but whatever your goal is, you're more likely to get there if you make an effort to understand your audience.
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 04:05:16 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com"
<brogers31751@gmail.com>:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 2:35:58?AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.
First you made the assumption that lots of us had never thought about God or the supernatural. Now you assume lots of us have no idea that cells are complicated. I'm not sure what you're trying to do, since you say you are not trying to evangelize
Audience To is _NOT_ a Goddiditaudience. TOisathereisnogodexceptmeaudenceToo complex; the audience can never be understood. Therefore
Goddidtheaudience. See how that works?
On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 23:35:18 -0700 (PDT), MarkE <me22...@gmail.com>
wrote:
https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.<https://youtu.be/ba2h9tqNYAo?t=41>
***************************************
Complexity complexity complexity complexity. Oh look there's a
pathway. It's very complicated.
Complexity complexity complexity complexity complexity. And did you
know that cells are really really complicated. But we're not done.
Complexity complexity complexity complexity. And you're going to be
blown away by the bacterial flagellum. It's like a little machine and
it's really really complicated.
Complexity complexity complexity complexity. We need more cells.
They're really complicated. you just get blown away by these things.
They are so amazingly complicated
Complexity, therefore design.
*****************************************
Thank you, PZ.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
TOhere, but whatever your goal is, you're more likely to get there if you make an effort to understand your audience.
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 04:05:16 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com>:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 2:35:58?AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.
First you made the assumption that lots of us had never thought about God or the supernatural. Now you assume lots of us have no idea that cells are complicated. I'm not sure what you're trying to do, since you say you are not trying to evangelize
Audience To is _NOT_ a Goddiditaudience. TOisathereisnogodexceptmeaudenceToo complex; the audience can never be understood. Therefore Goddidtheaudience. See how that works?
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:55:59 PM UTC+11, jillery wrote:find this cumulative data compelling evidence for design. My frustration is along these lines: okay, you've made your point, but can you convert this into a formal hypothesis and a paper that can be peer reviewed, rather than just popular books and talks
On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 23:35:18 -0700 (PDT), MarkE <me22...@gmail.com>
wrote:
https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.<https://youtu.be/ba2h9tqNYAo?t=41> ***************************************
Complexity complexity complexity complexity. Oh look there's a
pathway. It's very complicated.
Complexity complexity complexity complexity complexity. And did you
know that cells are really really complicated. But we're not done.
Complexity complexity complexity complexity. And you're going to be
blown away by the bacterial flagellum. It's like a little machine and
it's really really complicated.
Complexity complexity complexity complexity. We need more cells.
They're really complicated. you just get blown away by these things.
They are so amazingly complicated
Complexity, therefore design.I watched PZ's video, quite a good effort :) In fact, I share some of his frustration. Creationist material and argument does major on showcasing example after example of complex and amazing features of living things. I'm fine with that, and personally
*****************************************
Thank you, PZ.
This is partly occurring, for example, Behe has done this with his IC ideas, and more recently with his waiting time analysis for multiple dependent mutations, or Douglas Axe's paper estimating the proportion of function sequences for a protein classhere: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15321723/
And there are of course also issues of the different categories of argument and epistemology at play here, and the position of mainstream scientific academia to ID, etc.all: “The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.” (Charles Bukowski)
All that being said, I find it interesting that naturalists here seem almost completing unwilling to acknowledge any doubt regarding naturalistic explanations. The following quote cuts both ways, so not intended as an insult, but rather a prompt to us
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:35:58 PM UTC-7, MarkE wrote:cognitive abilities which provide for adaptation, behavior and purpose, with only a very small percentage having a "brain" as we humans.
https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.Another amazing topic is the rna editing of some organisms, such as octopi. Apparently brain neurons at lightning speed edit rna for many specific purposes. This is cognition, intelligence. In fact, it appears all life is intelligent, and has some
Slime molds, fungus, plants are also quite interesting in that they communicate, cooperate on an intelligent level, on purpose.
Anyone who denies "consciousness", "intelligence", "purpose" in life has to be a few hands short of a deck.
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 5:55:58 PM UTC+11, Glenn wrote:cognitive abilities which provide for adaptation, behavior and purpose, with only a very small percentage having a "brain" as we humans.
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:35:58 PM UTC-7, MarkE wrote:
https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.Another amazing topic is the rna editing of some organisms, such as octopi. Apparently brain neurons at lightning speed edit rna for many specific purposes. This is cognition, intelligence. In fact, it appears all life is intelligent, and has some
article/octopus-squid-rna-editing-dna-cephalopodsSlime molds, fungus, plants are also quite interesting in that they communicate, cooperate on an intelligent level, on purpose.
Anyone who denies "consciousness", "intelligence", "purpose" in life has to be a few hands short of a deck.RNA editing is a surprising extra layer of genetic variability, and an exception to the "central dogma". This article describes RNA editing in humans as well, though a couple of orders of magnitude less than cephalopods: https://www.sciencenews.org/
Bob Casanova wrote:here, but whatever your goal is, you're more likely to get there if you make an effort to understand your audience.
On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 17:50:09 -0400, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
TO
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 04:05:16 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com"
<brogers31751@gmail.com>:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 2:35:58?AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.
First you made the assumption that lots of us had never thought about God or the supernatural. Now you assume lots of us have no idea that cells are complicated. I'm not sure what you're trying to do, since you say you are not trying to evangelize
No spaces ~ a stupid, idiotic spelling!WHOOOSHAudience To is _NOT_ a Goddiditaudience. TOisathereisnogodexceptmeaudence >>>Too complex; the audience can never be understood. Therefore
Goddidtheaudience. See how that works?
A bit slow on analogies?
And learn to read; I wrote "Goddidtheaudience", not
"Goddiditaudience". A subtle difference, to be sure.
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 5:50:59?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:here, but whatever your goal is, you're more likely to get there if you make an effort to understand your audience.
TO
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 04:05:16 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com>:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 2:35:58?AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.
First you made the assumption that lots of us had never thought about God or the supernatural. Now you assume lots of us have no idea that cells are complicated. I'm not sure what you're trying to do, since you say you are not trying to evangelize
Audience To is _NOT_ a Goddiditaudience. TOisathereisnogodexceptmeaudenceToo complex; the audience can never be understood. Therefore
Goddidtheaudience. See how that works?
I cannot speak fro everyone, but I am a "the truth of evolution and a naturalistic explanation tell you absolutely nothing one way or the other about the existence of God" audience.
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:50:59 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:cognitive abilities which provide for adaptation, behavior and purpose, with only a very small percentage having a "brain" as we humans.
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 5:55:58 PM UTC+11, Glenn wrote:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:35:58 PM UTC-7, MarkE wrote:
https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0oAnother amazing topic is the rna editing of some organisms, such as octopi. Apparently brain neurons at lightning speed edit rna for many specific purposes. This is cognition, intelligence. In fact, it appears all life is intelligent, and has some
You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.
article/octopus-squid-rna-editing-dna-cephalopodsSlime molds, fungus, plants are also quite interesting in that they communicate, cooperate on an intelligent level, on purpose.RNA editing is a surprising extra layer of genetic variability, and an exception to the "central dogma". This article describes RNA editing in humans as well, though a couple of orders of magnitude less than cephalopods: https://www.sciencenews.org/
Anyone who denies "consciousness", "intelligence", "purpose" in life has to be a few hands short of a deck.
If you want to see some very bizarre RNA editing, have a look at RNA editing in the mitochondria (also called kinetoplasts) of kinetoplastid protozoa (responsible for a couple of tropical diseases - Leishmaniasis and African Sleeping Sickness). Adifferent mechanism entirely from that in cephalopods.
Here's a review of what happenshaven't really used the phrase for decades.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.4161/rna.7.2.11393
and here's a short paper on a part of the evolution of the editing system
https://kdna.net/simpsonlab/Lab%20publications/maslov%20evol%201994.pdf
Why is anybody still using the phrase "central dogma"? I mean, it seemed nifty back when transcription and translation were first worked out, but reverse transcriptase stuck a knife in it, and, outside of elementary textbooks, most molecular biologists
On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 16:16:26 -0700 (PDT), the followinghere, but whatever your goal is, you're more likely to get there if you make an effort to understand your audience.
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com" <brogers31751@gmail.com>:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 5:50:59?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
TO
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 04:05:16 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com>:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 2:35:58?AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.
First you made the assumption that lots of us had never thought about God or the supernatural. Now you assume lots of us have no idea that cells are complicated. I'm not sure what you're trying to do, since you say you are not trying to evangelize
I cannot speak fro everyone, but I am a "the truth of evolution and a naturalistic explanation tell you absolutely nothing one way or the other about the existence of God" audience.Audience To is _NOT_ a Goddiditaudience. TOisathereisnogodexceptmeaudence >>Too complex; the audience can never be understood. Therefore
Goddidtheaudience. See how that works?
Same here; religious belief has nothing to do with science,
and vice versa. Skew lines in the volume of reality.
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:40:59?AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:here, but whatever your goal is, you're more likely to get there if you make an effort to understand your audience.
On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 04:05:16 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com>:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 2:35:58?AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.
First you made the assumption that lots of us had never thought about God or the supernatural. Now you assume lots of us have no idea that cells are complicated. I'm not sure what you're trying to do, since you say you are not trying to evangelize
You are all very good at making assumptions, even if you have to lie about what you are assuming.Too complex; the audience can never be understood. Therefore
Goddidtheaudience. See how that works?
--
"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
And you're getting you asses kicked hard. The funny thing is that none of you seem to feel anything.
If you want to see some very bizarre RNA editing, have a look at RNA
editing in the mitochondria (also called kinetoplasts) of
kinetoplastid protozoa (responsible for a couple of tropical diseases
- Leishmaniasis and African Sleeping Sickness). A different mechanism
entirely from that in cephalopods.
Hmmm. You may want to read this from Larry Moran's blog. <https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/01/central-dogma-of-molecular-biology.html>
Here's a review of what happens
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.4161/rna.7.2.11393
and here's a short paper on a part of the evolution of the editing system
https://kdna.net/simpsonlab/Lab%20publications/maslov%20evol%201994.pdf
Why is anybody still using the phrase "central dogma"? I mean, it
seemed nifty back when transcription and translation were first worked
out, but reverse transcriptase stuck a knife in it, and, outside of
elementary textbooks, most molecular biologists haven't really used
the phrase for decades.
On 2023-10-05 7:36 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:cognitive abilities which provide for adaptation, behavior and purpose, with only a very small percentage having a "brain" as we humans.
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:50:59 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 5:55:58 PM UTC+11, Glenn wrote:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:35:58 PM UTC-7, MarkE wrote:
https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0oAnother amazing topic is the rna editing of some organisms, such as octopi. Apparently brain neurons at lightning speed edit rna for many specific purposes. This is cognition, intelligence. In fact, it appears all life is intelligent, and has some
You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.
article/octopus-squid-rna-editing-dna-cephalopodsSlime molds, fungus, plants are also quite interesting in that they communicate, cooperate on an intelligent level, on purpose.RNA editing is a surprising extra layer of genetic variability, and an exception to the "central dogma". This article describes RNA editing in humans as well, though a couple of orders of magnitude less than cephalopods: https://www.sciencenews.org/
Anyone who denies "consciousness", "intelligence", "purpose" in life has to be a few hands short of a deck.
different mechanism entirely from that in cephalopods.If you want to see some very bizarre RNA editing, have a look at RNA editing in the mitochondria (also called kinetoplasts) of kinetoplastid protozoa (responsible for a couple of tropical diseases - Leishmaniasis and African Sleeping Sickness). A
biologists haven't really used the phrase for decades.Here's a review of what happens
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.4161/rna.7.2.11393
and here's a short paper on a part of the evolution of the editing system
https://kdna.net/simpsonlab/Lab%20publications/maslov%20evol%201994.pdf
Why is anybody still using the phrase "central dogma"? I mean, it seemed nifty back when transcription and translation were first worked out, but reverse transcriptase stuck a knife in it, and, outside of elementary textbooks, most molecular
Hmmm. You may want to read this from Larry Moran's blog. <https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/01/central-dogma-of-molecular-biology.html>
--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)
Bob Casanova wrote:evangelize here, but whatever your goal is, you're more likely to get there if you make an effort to understand your audience.
On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 16:16:26 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com>:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 5:50:59?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
TO
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 04:05:16 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com>:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 2:35:58?AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.
First you made the assumption that lots of us had never thought about God or the supernatural. Now you assume lots of us have no idea that cells are complicated. I'm not sure what you're trying to do, since you say you are not trying to
Audience To is _NOT_ a Goddiditaudience. TOisathereisnogodexceptmeaudenceToo complex; the audience can never be understood. Therefore
Goddidtheaudience. See how that works?
I cannot speak fro everyone, but I am a "the truth of evolution and a naturalistic explanation tell you absolutely nothing one way or the other about the existence of God" audience.
Belief or disbelief in the existence of God is all a matter of faith -
not evidence!
Same here; religious belief has nothing to do with science,
and vice versa. Skew lines in the volume of reality.
It interesting that many famous scientist were/are religious. Several
or whom were the fathers of scientific disciplines.
https://www.famous scientists.org/great-scientists-christians/
On 06/10/2023 03:20, DB Cates wrote:
Piggybacking, since the original hasn't turned up here.
RNA editing also occurs in plastids (chloroplasts). I can see the pointIf you want to see some very bizarre RNA editing, have a look at RNA
editing in the mitochondria (also called kinetoplasts) of
kinetoplastid protozoa (responsible for a couple of tropical diseases
- Leishmaniasis and African Sleeping Sickness). A different mechanism
entirely from that in cephalopods.
of editing ribozymes, in that incorporating non-canonical bases expands
or improves the catalytic repertoire, but mRNA editing (rather than just have the genome specify the desired mRNA directly) strikes me as
evidence against design. Unnecessary complexity is not a marker of
competent design.
I hadn't thought of mRNA editing as a breach of the central dogma. (SameHmmm. You may want to read this from Larry Moran's blog. <https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/01/central-dogma-of-molecular-biology.html>
Here's a review of what happens
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.4161/rna.7.2.11393
and here's a short paper on a part of the evolution of the editing system >>
https://kdna.net/simpsonlab/Lab%20publications/maslov%20evol%201994.pdf >>
Why is anybody still using the phrase "central dogma"? I mean, it
seemed nifty back when transcription and translation were first worked
out, but reverse transcriptase stuck a knife in it, and, outside of
elementary textbooks, most molecular biologists haven't really used
the phrase for decades.
for DNA repair.)
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 10:20:59 PM UTC-4, DB Cates wrote:cognitive abilities which provide for adaptation, behavior and purpose, with only a very small percentage having a "brain" as we humans.
On 2023-10-05 7:36 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:50:59 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 5:55:58 PM UTC+11, Glenn wrote:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:35:58 PM UTC-7, MarkE wrote:
https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0oAnother amazing topic is the rna editing of some organisms, such as octopi. Apparently brain neurons at lightning speed edit rna for many specific purposes. This is cognition, intelligence. In fact, it appears all life is intelligent, and has some
You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.
article/octopus-squid-rna-editing-dna-cephalopodsSlime molds, fungus, plants are also quite interesting in that they communicate, cooperate on an intelligent level, on purpose.RNA editing is a surprising extra layer of genetic variability, and an exception to the "central dogma". This article describes RNA editing in humans as well, though a couple of orders of magnitude less than cephalopods: https://www.sciencenews.org/
Anyone who denies "consciousness", "intelligence", "purpose" in life has to be a few hands short of a deck.
different mechanism entirely from that in cephalopods.
If you want to see some very bizarre RNA editing, have a look at RNA editing in the mitochondria (also called kinetoplasts) of kinetoplastid protozoa (responsible for a couple of tropical diseases - Leishmaniasis and African Sleeping Sickness). A
biologists haven't really used the phrase for decades.
Here's a review of what happens
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.4161/rna.7.2.11393
and here's a short paper on a part of the evolution of the editing system >>>
https://kdna.net/simpsonlab/Lab%20publications/maslov%20evol%201994.pdf
Why is anybody still using the phrase "central dogma"? I mean, it seemed nifty back when transcription and translation were first worked out, but reverse transcriptase stuck a knife in it, and, outside of elementary textbooks, most molecular
that mostly they don't give it a second thought. Mostly I see the "central dogma" discussed by creationists who want to call science a religion, and are happy to have find a religious sounding phrase about molecular biology.Hmmm. You may want to read this from Larry Moran's blog.
<https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/01/central-dogma-of-molecular-biology.html>
I don't disagree with the blog, I just don't think lots of molecular biologists spend a lot of time thinking about the "central dogma." Sure, people are pretty convinced it's unlikely anyone will discover "reverse translation" ; sufficiently convinced
On 2023-10-06 5:00 AM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:some cognitive abilities which provide for adaptation, behavior and purpose, with only a very small percentage having a "brain" as we humans.
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 10:20:59 PM UTC-4, DB Cates wrote:
On 2023-10-05 7:36 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:50:59 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 5:55:58 PM UTC+11, Glenn wrote:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:35:58 PM UTC-7, MarkE wrote: >>>>>> https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
Another amazing topic is the rna editing of some organisms, such as octopi. Apparently brain neurons at lightning speed edit rna for many specific purposes. This is cognition, intelligence. In fact, it appears all life is intelligent, and has
You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.
org/article/octopus-squid-rna-editing-dna-cephalopodsSlime molds, fungus, plants are also quite interesting in that they communicate, cooperate on an intelligent level, on purpose.RNA editing is a surprising extra layer of genetic variability, and an exception to the "central dogma". This article describes RNA editing in humans as well, though a couple of orders of magnitude less than cephalopods: https://www.sciencenews.
Anyone who denies "consciousness", "intelligence", "purpose" in life has to be a few hands short of a deck.
different mechanism entirely from that in cephalopods.
If you want to see some very bizarre RNA editing, have a look at RNA editing in the mitochondria (also called kinetoplasts) of kinetoplastid protozoa (responsible for a couple of tropical diseases - Leishmaniasis and African Sleeping Sickness). A
biologists haven't really used the phrase for decades.
Here's a review of what happens
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.4161/rna.7.2.11393
and here's a short paper on a part of the evolution of the editing system
https://kdna.net/simpsonlab/Lab%20publications/maslov%20evol%201994.pdf >>>
Why is anybody still using the phrase "central dogma"? I mean, it seemed nifty back when transcription and translation were first worked out, but reverse transcriptase stuck a knife in it, and, outside of elementary textbooks, most molecular
convinced that mostly they don't give it a second thought. Mostly I see the "central dogma" discussed by creationists who want to call science a religion, and are happy to have find a religious sounding phrase about molecular biology.Hmmm. You may want to read this from Larry Moran's blog.
<https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/01/central-dogma-of-molecular-biology.html>
I don't disagree with the blog, I just don't think lots of molecular biologists spend a lot of time thinking about the "central dogma." Sure, people are pretty convinced it's unlikely anyone will discover "reverse translation" ; sufficiently
All true. But... creationists do delight in finding "a religious
sounding phrase about molecular biology" in particular because it is
also FALSE. something that is supported when knowledgeable scientists
use phrases like "reverse transcriptase stuck a knife in it" when they SHOULD know (and note) that it is a strawman version of the "central
dogma" that is being referred to.
--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)
https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.
On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 23:35:18 -0700 (PDT), MarkE <me22...@gmail.com>
wrote:
https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.Here's a link to an article titled "Is the cell really a machine?" by
Daniel Nicholson. It argues persuasively that the machine analogy is misleading and overly simplistic, that proteins work nothing like the
static shapes animations like the above illustrate:
<https://philpapers.org/archive/NICITC.pdf>
From the abstract:
**************************************************
It has become customary to conceptualize the living cell as an
intricate piece of machinery, different to a man-made machine only in
terms of its superior complexity. This familiar understanding grounds
the conviction that a cell’s organization can be explained reductionistically, as well as the idea that its molecular pathways
can be construed as deterministic circuits. The machine conception of
the cell owes a great deal of its success to the methods traditionally
used in molecular biology. However, the recent introduction of novel experimental techniques capable of tracking individual molecules
within cells in real time is leading to the rapid accumulation of data
that are inconsistent with an engineering view of the cell. *************************************************
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 6:51:01 PM UTC+11, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 23:35:18 -0700 (PDT), MarkE <me22...@gmail.com>
wrote:
https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.Here's a link to an article titled "Is the cell really a machine?" by Daniel Nicholson. It argues persuasively that the machine analogy is misleading and overly simplistic, that proteins work nothing like the static shapes animations like the above illustrate:
<https://philpapers.org/archive/NICITC.pdf>
From the abstract:
**************************************************
It has become customary to conceptualize the living cell as an
intricate piece of machinery, different to a man-made machine only in terms of its superior complexity.
This familiar understanding grounds
the conviction that a cell’s organization can be explained reductionistically, as well as the idea that its molecular pathways
can be construed as deterministic circuits. The machine conception of
the cell owes a great deal of its success to the methods traditionally used in molecular biology. However, the recent introduction of novel experimental techniques capable of tracking individual molecules
within cells in real time is leading to the rapid accumulation of data that are inconsistent with an engineering view of the cell. *************************************************
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
Or this: https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/tuZKo8y-AHw
Mark, I'd like to remind you that Martin Harran has responded quite extensively
to a long post by you on another thread. Here is your long post, inquiring about
certain aspects of his religious beliefs:
Re: Tour's 60 day challenge https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/JKnUO3rwKo4/m/Z7pICkYjAQAJ
Sep 25, 2023, 8:10:49 AM
Martin gave two replies, the first one addressing all your questions and statements:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/JKnUO3rwKo4/m/rdUrj8czAQAJ
Sep 27, 2023, 12:55:50 PM
The other went deeper into one part of your last question.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/JKnUO3rwKo4/m/eCPXVOd8AQAJ
Sep 28, 2023, 11:15:51 AM
Have you lost track of this thread, or are you unable to wrap your mind around some of his answers? If the latter is the case, I might be able
to help you out there.
I have a few comments to make below to what you wrote/quoted here.
On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 4:01:01 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 6:51:01 PM UTC+11, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 23:35:18 -0700 (PDT), MarkE <me22...@gmail.com> wrote:
https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.Here's a link to an article titled "Is the cell really a machine?" by Daniel Nicholson. It argues persuasively that the machine analogy is misleading and overly simplistic, that proteins work nothing like the static shapes animations like the above illustrate:
<https://philpapers.org/archive/NICITC.pdf>
This custom is out of place in a forum like talk.origins.From the abstract:
**************************************************
It has become customary to conceptualize the living cell as an
intricate piece of machinery, different to a man-made machine only in terms of its superior complexity.
Cells are too big a unit to be successfully compared to a machine,
and participants want something they can wrap their minds around.
On the other hand, the IC structures that Michael Behe deals with in his first book,
_Darwin's Black Box_ *can* be compared to machines --- Behe even compares the bacterial flagellum to an "outboard motor" although its means of propelling
a bacterium forward are different.
Earlier today, I made similar points in reply to Mark Isaak on that same thread,
Re: Tour's 60 day challenge https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/JKnUO3rwKo4/m/F9k6GouRAwAJ
Also, the protein translation machinery seems to work, over and over and over
again, like a factory assembly line. Ribosomes "read off" individual genes from
mRNA, providing places for tRNA molecules with attached amino acids
to latch onto long enough for their attached aminos to transfer to an ever-growing chain of aminos,
linked by peptide bonds. The end result is a polypeptide which is a vital ingredient
in a protein, or is itself a protein.
This familiar understanding grounds
the conviction that a cell’s organization can be explained reductionistically, as well as the idea that its molecular pathways
can be construed as deterministic circuits. The machine conception of the cell owes a great deal of its success to the methods traditionally used in molecular biology. However, the recent introduction of novel experimental techniques capable of tracking individual molecules
within cells in real time is leading to the rapid accumulation of data that are inconsistent with an engineering view of the cell. *************************************************
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
Or this: https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/tuZKo8y-AHwThis is about a single enzyme that is the subject of this thread.
It's about as far from a complete cell as you can get.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
https://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
Earlier today, I made similar points in reply to Mark Isaak on that same thread,
Re: Tour's 60 day challenge https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/JKnUO3rwKo4/m/F9k6GouRAwAJ
Mark, I'd like to remind you that Martin Harran has responded quite extensively
to a long post by you on another thread. Here is your long post, inquiring about
certain aspects of his religious beliefs:
Re: Tour's 60 day challenge >https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/JKnUO3rwKo4/m/Z7pICkYjAQAJ
Sep 25, 2023, 8:10:49?AM
Martin gave two replies, the first one addressing all your questions and statements:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/JKnUO3rwKo4/m/rdUrj8czAQAJ
Sep 27, 2023, 12:55:50?PM
The other went deeper into one part of your last question.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/JKnUO3rwKo4/m/eCPXVOd8AQAJ
Sep 28, 2023, 11:15:51?AM
Have you lost track of this thread, or are you unable to wrap your mind >around some of his answers? If the latter is the case, I might be able
to help you out there.
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 12:36:03 PM UTC+11, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
I have a few comments to make below to what you wrote/quoted here.
On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 4:01:01 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 6:51:01 PM UTC+11, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 23:35:18 -0700 (PDT), MarkE <me22...@gmail.com> wrote:
https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.
Here's a link to an article titled "Is the cell really a machine?" by Daniel Nicholson. It argues persuasively that the machine analogy is misleading and overly simplistic, that proteins work nothing like the static shapes animations like the above illustrate:
<https://philpapers.org/archive/NICITC.pdf>
From the abstract:
**************************************************
It has become customary to conceptualize the living cell as an intricate piece of machinery, different to a man-made machine only in terms of its superior complexity.
This custom is out of place in a forum like talk.origins.
Cells are too big a unit to be successfully compared to a machine,
and participants want something they can wrap their minds around.
On the other hand, the IC structures that Michael Behe deals with in his first book,
_Darwin's Black Box_ *can* be compared to machines --- Behe even compares the bacterial flagellum to an "outboard motor" although its means of propelling
a bacterium forward are different.
Earlier today, I made similar points in reply to Mark Isaak on that same thread,
Re: Tour's 60 day challenge https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/JKnUO3rwKo4/m/F9k6GouRAwAJ
Also, the protein translation machinery seems to work, over and over and over
again, like a factory assembly line. Ribosomes "read off" individual genes from
mRNA, providing places for tRNA molecules with attached amino acids
to latch onto long enough for their attached aminos to transfer to an ever-growing chain of aminos,
linked by peptide bonds. The end result is a polypeptide which is a vital ingredient
in a protein, or is itself a protein.
This familiar understanding grounds
the conviction that a cell’s organization can be explained reductionistically, as well as the idea that its molecular pathways can be construed as deterministic circuits. The machine conception of the cell owes a great deal of its success to the methods traditionally used in molecular biology.
However, the recent introduction of novel
experimental techniques capable of tracking individual molecules within cells in real time is leading to the rapid accumulation of data that are inconsistent with an engineering view of the cell. *************************************************
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
Or this: https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/tuZKo8y-AHw
This is about a single enzyme that is the subject of this thread.
It's about as far from a complete cell as you can get.
Acknowledging the limits of metaphors and analogies, and the finer points of definitions and semantics, would you agree with these approximations:
flagellum = machine
cell = factory
I note you use both "machinery" and "factory" in this description: "Also, the protein translation machinery seems to work, over and over and over again, like a factory assembly line."
On 10/9/23 6:32 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
Earlier today, I made similar points in reply to Mark Isaak on that same thread,
Re: Tour's 60 day challenge https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/JKnUO3rwKo4/m/F9k6GouRAwAJ
That post has not shown up on my newsreader, and I'm not going to
struggle with Google groups to respond there, so I'll summarize some thoughts here.
You said it is not the job of anti-evolutionists to "Find a system that could evolve more easily than the irreducibly complex bacterial
flagellum Minnich researched, and work just as well or better, and which becomes a bacterial flagellum by losing a bunch of parts."
You opt for the reductionist idea of
"natural selection" in current theory being "competition WITHIN
populations of the same species". I see truly epic forms of competition, like between
birds and pterosaurs, as being more faithful to the fossil record.
On 10/2/23 6:10 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:.
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 12:30:51 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/27/23 11:11 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:35:45 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>> On 9/22/23 2:34 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 4:15:44 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
[big skip for focus]
“Irreducible Complexity” was originally proposed by Herman J. Muller in 1918.
This is one of the most enduring falsehoods in the anti-ID literature. >>>>> Muller only talked about SOME components being essential. Irreducible complexity
says, by definition, that EACH AND EVERY component is essential.
Now you come in, Mark, with a generality and no specific examples, except for
Behe's teaching aid of a mousetrap.
Well, in practice, Behe's IC, like Muller's, says that each and every >>>> one of the *essential* components is essential.
Wrong. Muller's "interlocking complexity" is applicable to the human body,
in which the heart is essential but the individual kidney is not essential.
That's what makes kidney donation such an important part of modern medicine.
And the individual kidney is far from irreducibly complex: you could lose
80% of the parts that make up your kidney, and as long as the rest is working efficiently,
you will be OK.
Behe's actual examples are different. Minnich broke down a bacterial flagellum
into its individual molecules, and found that each and every one of them >>> was essential to the basic function of swimming. Take away molecule X, >>> it doesn't swim; restore molecule X, it swims.
The individual components of the clotting system and the immune
system are molecules.
To take an extreme and
silly example, your ability to alter the company's logo on a mousetrap >>>> does not mean the mousetrap is not IC.
I'm glad you caught on to that much. It spares me from going into
detail on a satire I did a number of years ago about your use
(back then) of the word "part."
Anyway, the mousetrap has always been for educational purposes,
to illustrate the *concept* of irreducible complexity. Smart-alecky
nitpicks miss that point.
And even if Muller's argument
does talk about SOME components (actually, to quote him (p. 464), "very >>>> numerous different elementary parts or factors"), his argument does not >>>> change an iota if ALL components are involved.
I take it you are referring to loss of components making a formerly
nonessential component essential [same page]. That still doesn't
mean that ALL nonessential components suffer the same fate.
So the gulf between Behe and Muller is still there.
Okay, I accept that Muller's interlocking complexity allows some
non-essential parts. However, it does not *require* them. Thus Behe's
(original) irreducible complexity is a subset of Muller's interlocking
complexity.
That's like saying that humans are a subset of Mammalia. Doesn't tell
us much about our fellow humans. [Although Jonathan Swift did try
in Gulliver's Fourth Voyage.]
More like saying that insects are a subset of Hexapoda.
Muller remains significant in that he showed how Behe's IC could evolve >> naturally, indeed that such systems might be expected to evolve.
By armchair theorists who don't look at such things but speculate in airy rhetorical
ways about them, minimizing their difficulty by the same one-size-fits-all generalities
that anti-ID zealots use to minimize the difficulty of OOL.
Find a system that could evolve more easily than the irreducibly complex bacterial flagellum Minnich researched [see above], and work just as well or better, and which becomes
a bacterial flagellum by losing a bunch of parts.
Minnich never tried to find such a system.
Neither have you.
Muller at
least pointed a way past the apparent roadblocks.
Of course, he preceded Behe by decades, so he was not directly addressing >> Behe's claims, and he did not (as far as I know) mention the other ways >> that Behe's IC could evolve gradually.
For example, possible ambiguity
in what may be regarded as a "part", which Peter thinks he can ignore
now that he has made up a lampoon about it.
Not a lampoon. A challenge for you to fix your thinking about the definition of "part"
to where you realize that the relevant parts of Behe's serious examples are MOLECULES.
How is that relevant?
Do you know enough chemistry to know how different chemical bonds are from physical
attachments? Or chemical reactions are from physical ones?
I'm sure you know that molecules can be created, destroyed, and, most importantly, altered, right?
In particular, you know that such changes
of molecules are *essential* to the life of a cell?
To consider molecules as the relevant "parts" is absurd.
Vol 3, No 5: 422-499, Sept 1918.He called it "interlocking complexity," and showed how it was supporting evolutionary theory. That original paper was, "Genetic Variablity, Twin Hybrids and Constant Hybrids, in a Case of Balanced Lethal Factors", Hermann J. Muller, Genetics,
Google was my friend, as usual. Bing betrayed me by sending me to a specific
webpage that was flagged as suspicious by my anti-virus software.
Bing has started using ChatGPT, so that might account for the difference.
What say you to that, Mark?
Why do you ask?? Did you forget to "skip for focus"?
What's the point of this snarky evasion? I am genuinely interested in the answer. If this
is the way search engines are to be in the AI-controlled future, it will be the nanny state
to end all nanny states.
I thought you were a *professional* computer scientist. Which better talk.origins
regular to turn to than you?
Okay. I suggest in the future you signal such changes in topic (e.g., "Drastic subject change coming").
I have never worked with or on AI; I have never (knowingly) used
ChatGPT; and I have not used Bing in many years. Whereof I cannot
speak, thereof I must be silent.
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 7:31:04 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 12:36:03 PM UTC+11, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:[snip of issues on a different thread, not relevant here]
I have a few comments to make below to what you wrote/quoted here.
On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 4:01:01 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 6:51:01 PM UTC+11, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 23:35:18 -0700 (PDT), MarkE <me22...@gmail.com> wrote:
https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
I was rushed for time when I made my earlier reply to you, Mark,In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.
and did not address the following quote:
Here's a link to an article titled "Is the cell really a machine?" by
Daniel Nicholson. It argues persuasively that the machine analogy is misleading and overly simplistic, that proteins work nothing like the
static shapes animations like the above illustrate:
"static shapes" is something of a straw man in this context.<https://philpapers.org/archive/NICITC.pdf>
The real issue is whether a reductionist attitude towards
whatever the protein molecules do, is adequate to account for what happens.
And "materialistic reductionist" is at the heart of the issue.
It may use the buzz words "emergent properties" or
"a fluid, self-organizing process" [1] but these will
be interpreted as being ultimately reducible to the action of
subatomic particles according to physical laws [2].
[1] See the last paragraph on page 110 of the article.
[2] like Brownian motion, *ibid*. It's usually described
on the molecular level, but the motions of the molecules
are in turn governed ultimately by the protons and electrons and
neutrons that they are made up of.
From the abstract: **************************************************
It has become customary to conceptualize the living cell as an intricate piece of machinery, different to a man-made machine only in
terms of its superior complexity.
This custom is out of place in a forum like talk.origins.
Cells are too big a unit to be successfully compared to a machine,
and participants want something they can wrap their minds around.
On the other hand, the IC structures that Michael Behe deals with in his first book,
_Darwin's Black Box_ *can* be compared to machines --- Behe even compares
the bacterial flagellum to an "outboard motor" although its means of propelling
a bacterium forward are different.
Earlier today, I made similar points in reply to Mark Isaak on that same thread,
Re: Tour's 60 day challenge https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/JKnUO3rwKo4/m/F9k6GouRAwAJ
Also, the protein translation machinery seems to work, over and over and over
again, like a factory assembly line. Ribosomes "read off" individual genes from
mRNA, providing places for tRNA molecules with attached amino acids
to latch onto long enough for their attached aminos to transfer to an ever-growing chain of aminos,
linked by peptide bonds. The end result is a polypeptide which is a vital ingredient
in a protein, or is itself a protein.
This familiar understanding grounds
the conviction that a cell’s organization can be explained reductionistically, as well as the idea that its molecular pathways can be construed as deterministic circuits. The machine conception of
the cell owes a great deal of its success to the methods traditionally
used in molecular biology.
I think this data is consistent with a deterministic view of the cellHowever, the recent introduction of novel
experimental techniques capable of tracking individual molecules within cells in real time is leading to the rapid accumulation of data
that are inconsistent with an engineering view of the cell. *************************************************
that ignores quantum uncertainty. I don't think we can go further
without the reductionists clamoring in protest.
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
Or this: https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/tuZKo8y-AHw
This is about a single enzyme that is the subject of this thread.
It's about as far from a complete cell as you can get.
Acknowledging the limits of metaphors and analogies, and the finer points of definitions and semantics, would you agree with these approximations:
flagellum = machineIt's an improvement, that's for sure. But I think "machinery" makes an intermediate
cell = factory
step in the case of the flagellum:
I note you use both "machinery" and "factory" in this description: "Also, the protein translation machinery seems to work, over and over and over again, like a factory assembly line."The cell itself might be called a factory, but that seems to fall in line with
the reductionist method. What do you think of the following idea:
cell = nano-biosphere
That is consistent with reductionism, but it also gives full scope to Gaia enthusiasts
and those who talk about "emergent properties," etc.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
Is "emergent properties" effectively a euphemism for "deterministic
behaviour with causality pathways we don't understand"?
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 8:56:04 AM UTC-4, Ernest Major wrote:
On 11/10/2023 12:49, MarkE wrote:
Is "emergent properties" effectively a euphemism for "deterministic behaviour with causality pathways we don't understand"?I would say no. Water molecules don't have melting points, boiling
points, viscosities, surface tension, and so on, but water does. I would define an emergent property as something which is a property of a
system, but not of the components (making even temperature and pressure emergent properties). This definition has no restriction as to whether
we do or don't understand how the behaviour of the components gives rise to the property. (I'd drop the deterministic since in many cases the behaviour involved is stochastic.)
Because of our repeated success in accounting for many properties of systems as emerging from the interactions of the systems' components, it is a reasonable working hypothesis (and in accordance with Occam's
Razor) that properties of systems of unknown origin are also emergent properties.
--Thank you for that. I was recoiling in horror at the prior comments on Brownian
alias Ernest Major
motion as emergent from the behavior of subatomic particles but anticipated any corrections devolving into who knows what. My one thought was that if
we took a bunch of bowling balls up into a zero G environment, put then in a container with some helium, we'd get Brownian motion of the bowling balls. That's a perfectly predictable stochastic process. It would be rather subtle of
course.
Emergence is a rather touchy subject. Consideration of ensembles helps to anticipate stochastic properties of collections. I don't think it's teleological at all.
Many things often labeled as emergent are like that.
The most fraught aspect to me seems to be the distinctions between I couldn't
have anticipated, "we" couldn't have anticipated, and it's impossible to anticipate
property X of some form of collection or connection of parts. That could be about anticipating the boiling point of water from quantum mechanics, or the folded structure of a protein from its amino acid sequence. Calling it emergent
just because I can't anticipate it is obviously ridiculous. Calling it emergent
because "we" can't do it is arrogance. Calling something emergent because it is impossible to anticipate it in concept (rather than in practice) seems the most
sensible meaning --- other than the difficulty around knowing what is impossible.
Thus, it is a very fraught concept.
On 11/10/2023 12:49, MarkE wrote:
Is "emergent properties" effectively a euphemism for "deterministic behaviour with causality pathways we don't understand"?I would say no. Water molecules don't have melting points, boiling
points, viscosities, surface tension, and so on, but water does. I would define an emergent property as something which is a property of a
system, but not of the components (making even temperature and pressure emergent properties). This definition has no restriction as to whether
we do or don't understand how the behaviour of the components gives rise
to the property. (I'd drop the deterministic since in many cases the behaviour involved is stochastic.)
Because of our repeated success in accounting for many properties of
systems as emerging from the interactions of the systems' components, it
is a reasonable working hypothesis (and in accordance with Occam's
Razor) that properties of systems of unknown origin are also emergent properties.
--
alias Ernest Major
Thank you for that. I was recoiling in horror at the prior comments on Brownian motion as emergent from the behavior of subatomic particles but anticipated any corrections devolving into who knows what. My one
thought was that if we took a bunch of bowling balls up into a zero G environment, put then in a container with some helium, we'd get Brownian motion of the bowling balls. That's a perfectly predictable stochastic process. It would be rather subtle of course.
I agree. I also do not think that saying that some property of a system
is "emergent" tells you anything useful about that property. It could
mean it's inefficient to try to calculate it from first principles, it
could mean we don't know how to calculate it from first principles, it
could mean we think we can prove that it is inherently not possible to calculate it from first principles, but whatever it means, it does not
tell you anything much new or interesting about the system.
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 1:41:04 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
[focus]
You opt for the reductionist idea of
"natural selection" in current theory being "competition WITHIN populations of the same species". I see truly epic forms of competition, like between
birds and pterosaurs, as being more faithful to the fossil record.
It is axiomatic that the greatest competitor an individual organism has is usually
its own siblings.
How fossil evidence could even begin to address that is a puzzlement.
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 1:56:04 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 1:41:04 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
[focus]
You opt for the reductionist idea of
"natural selection" in current theory being "competition WITHIN populations of the same species". I see truly epic forms of competition, like between
birds and pterosaurs, as being more faithful to the fossil record.
It is axiomatic that the greatest competitor an individual organism has is usuallyThat runs up against the theory, if it deserves to be called that, of
its own siblings.
the "Selfish Gene" a la Richard Dawkins.
Part of that theory is that, by protecting one's siblings, one is protecting those with the most
alleles in common with them. I dimly recall a "calculus" that postulates
a number N such that saving the lives of N siblings more than makes
up for sacrificing one's own life.
Can you take your thesis and Dawkins's antithesis and arrive at a higher synthesis?
Population geneticists, for the most part, unthinkingly adopt Darwin's 19th century hypothesis,
which is as I stated above. But this hypothesis is no longer entrenched
in the nascent Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, which is trying break out of such
reflexive thinking about competition.
How fossil evidence could even begin to address that is a puzzlement.By its one-sidedness. Most data that supports Darwin's hypothesis is not available
to us in the foreseeable future:
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record
persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary
trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and
nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable,
not the evidence of fossils."
--Stephen J. Gould - "Evolution's Erratic Pace," _Natural History_,
vol. 86(5) (May 1987): pp. 12-16, at p. 14
Reprinted in _The Panda's Thumb_, pp. 181-182. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html#quote3.2
The above quote continued:
"Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory
on a denial of this literal record:
The geological record is extremely imperfect and
this fact will to a large extent explain why we
do not find interminable varieties, connecting
together all the extinct and existing forms of life
by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views
on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject
my whole theory.
"Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show
so little of evolution [directly]. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential
validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots).
I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks."
Turnabout is fair play: you deleted my link to a sci.bio.paleontology thread where
mega-competition is discussed, and now I delete the rest of your text.
However, I will address it in a later post, should you so wish.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
Univ. of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer-- http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 3:51:04 AM UTC+11, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 7:31:04 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 12:36:03 PM UTC+11, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:[snip of issues on a different thread, not relevant here]
I have a few comments to make below to what you wrote/quoted here.
On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 4:01:01 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 6:51:01 PM UTC+11, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 23:35:18 -0700 (PDT), MarkE <me22...@gmail.com> wrote:
https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
I was rushed for time when I made my earlier reply to you, Mark,In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.
and did not address the following quote:
Here's a link to an article titled "Is the cell really a machine?" by
Daniel Nicholson. It argues persuasively that the machine analogy is
misleading and overly simplistic, that proteins work nothing like the
static shapes animations like the above illustrate:
"static shapes" is something of a straw man in this context.<https://philpapers.org/archive/NICITC.pdf>
The real issue is whether a reductionist attitude towards
whatever the protein molecules do, is adequate to account for what happens.
Note that the article Daniel Nicholson was quoted by jillery (which you may realise).
And "materialistic reductionist" is at the heart of the issue.
It may use the buzz words "emergent properties" or
"a fluid, self-organizing process" [1] but these will
be interpreted as being ultimately reducible to the action of
subatomic particles according to physical laws [2].
[1] See the last paragraph on page 110 of the article.
[2] like Brownian motion, *ibid*. It's usually described
on the molecular level, but the motions of the molecules
are in turn governed ultimately by the protons and electrons and
neutrons that they are made up of.
Is "emergent properties" effectively a euphemism for "deterministic behaviour with causality pathways we don't understand"?
From the abstract: **************************************************
It has become customary to conceptualize the living cell as an intricate piece of machinery, different to a man-made machine only in
terms of its superior complexity.
This custom is out of place in a forum like talk.origins.
Cells are too big a unit to be successfully compared to a machine,
and participants want something they can wrap their minds around.
On the other hand, the IC structures that Michael Behe deals with in his first book,
_Darwin's Black Box_ *can* be compared to machines --- Behe even compares
the bacterial flagellum to an "outboard motor" although its means of propelling
a bacterium forward are different.
Earlier today, I made similar points in reply to Mark Isaak on that same thread,
Re: Tour's 60 day challenge https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/JKnUO3rwKo4/m/F9k6GouRAwAJ
<snip for focus>Also, the protein translation machinery seems to work, over and over and over
again, like a factory assembly line. Ribosomes "read off" individual genes from
mRNA, providing places for tRNA molecules with attached amino acids
to latch onto long enough for their attached aminos to transfer to an ever-growing chain of aminos,
linked by peptide bonds. The end result is a polypeptide which is a vital ingredient
in a protein, or is itself a protein.
This familiar understanding grounds
the conviction that a cell’s organization can be explained reductionistically, as well as the idea that its molecular pathways
can be construed as deterministic circuits. The machine conception of
the cell owes a great deal of its success to the methods traditionally
used in molecular biology.
I think this data is consistent with a deterministic view of the cellHowever, the recent introduction of novel
experimental techniques capable of tracking individual molecules within cells in real time is leading to the rapid accumulation of data
that are inconsistent with an engineering view of the cell. *************************************************
that ignores quantum uncertainty. I don't think we can go further
without the reductionists clamoring in protest.
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
Or this: https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/tuZKo8y-AHw
This is about a single enzyme that is the subject of this thread.
It's about as far from a complete cell as you can get.
Acknowledging the limits of metaphors and analogies, and the finer points of definitions and semantics, would you agree with these approximations:
flagellum = machine
cell = factory
The cell itself might be called a factory, but that seems to fall in line with
the reductionist method. What do you think of the following idea:
cell = nano-biosphere
That is consistent with reductionism, but it also gives full scope to Gaia enthusiasts
and those who talk about "emergent properties," etc.
The cell does function as a busy autonomous enclosed-but-permeable system - nano-biosphere works.
If "factory" can be used to describe a major cellular susbsystem (the protein translation machinery), then by extension is the cell in toto a city? And to further overextend the metaphor, a city with central planning and autonomous but predictablecitizens?!
On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 13:39:57 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>here, but whatever your goal is, you're more likely to get there if you make an effort to understand your audience.
wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:40:59?AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 04:05:16 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com>:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 2:35:58?AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.
First you made the assumption that lots of us had never thought about God or the supernatural. Now you assume lots of us have no idea that cells are complicated. I'm not sure what you're trying to do, since you say you are not trying to evangelize
You are all very good at making assumptions, even if you have to lie about what you are assuming.Too complex; the audience can never be understood. Therefore
Goddidtheaudience. See how that works?
--
"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."The veracity of the above uncited quote depends very much on the
criteria used to identify "best explained".
And you're getting you asses kicked hard. The funny thing is that none of you seem to feel anything.Really? Perhaps that's because the ass-kicking to which you allude is
a figment of your imagination.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 499 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 35:21:11 |
| Calls: | 9,832 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 13,761 |
| Messages: | 6,192,822 |