Exploring Life's Origins

AWESOME. Very nice. Superb. Lab + Media. That's just how I like it. :)

Any bets on how long before some of the graphics / video show up in a creationist movie?

Thanks PvM.

Doubleplus good.

The site says that photosynthesis only evolved once? Is that accurate?

The geologic record thus offers strong evidence for the evolution of oxygenic photosynthesis before 2800 Ma. There are, however, hints of even earlier origins. The microfossil record of cyanobacteria may extend to 3300 to 3500 Ma (22), although the evidence for these early Archean occurrences is controversial (23).

Abstract Between 1 and 1.5 billion years ago [1 and 2], eukaryotic organisms acquired the ability to convert light into chemical energy through endosymbiosis with a Cyanobacterium (e.g., [3, 4 and 5]). This event gave rise to “primary” plastids, which are present in green plants, red algae, and glaucophytes (“Plantae” sensu Cavalier-Smith [6]). The widely accepted view that primary plastids arose only once [5] implies two predictions: (1) all plastids form a monophyletic group, as do (2) primary photosynthetic eukaryotes. Nonetheless, unequivocal support for both predictions is lacking (e.g., [7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12]). In this report, we present two phylogenomic analyses, with 50 genes from 16 plastid and 15 cyanobacterial genomes and with 143 nuclear genes from 34 eukaryotic species, respectively. The nuclear dataset includes new sequences from glaucophytes, the less-studied group of primary photosynthetic eukaryotes. We find significant support for both predictions. Taken together, our analyses provide the first strong support for a single endosymbiotic event that gave rise to primary photosynthetic eukaryotes, the Plantae. Because our dataset does not cover the entire eukaryotic diversity (but only four of six major groups in [13]), further testing of the monophyly of Plantae should include representatives from eukaryotic lineages for which currently insufficient sequence information is available.

For the uninitiated, casual observer I offer the pdf file of the Thaxton Bradley exposition on the various theories of abiogenesis, including the RNA World, protocells, et al that successfully reduces these arguments to fanciful fairy tales regurgitated every decade or so by the grasping at straws evos.

http://www.themysteryoflifesorigin.org/

One must realize that these illusions and fabrications have no bearing on reality, actual primal conditions, and are reflective of the other-world of academics so well presented by Tom Wolfe in his essay "The Intelligent Coed's guide to America", that I heartily recommend as a companion piece to the scientific material.

Oh and for the quite curious who need a paper to pull the flush handle on this regurgitation there's Kenyon and Mills paper: http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/rnaworld171.htm

and in 1993, Schopf produced evidence of microscopic cellular organisms nearly 3.5 billion years old, opening the floodgates to research that is filling in the holes in how and when life evolved on Earth. "Everyone had expected that early organisms would be smaller, simpler, perhaps less varied, but they were universally thought to have evolved in the same way and at the same pace as later life," Schopf writes. "This turned out not to be true. That evolution itself evolved is a new insight." The pivotal point in evolution's own evolution was the advent of sex about 1.1 billion years ago. The first organisms to engage in sexual activity were single-cell floating plankton, which, unlike organisms that reproduced by asexual division, like human body cells, had a pore-like mechanism that permitted the release of sex cells into the environment. Data from the fossil record clearly show that at about that time there appeared many new types of species. Sex increased variation within species, diversity among species and the speed of evolution and genesis of new species - bringing about not only the rise of organisms specially adapted to particular settings but also the first appearance of life-destroying mass extinctions. "The pre-sex world was monotonous, dull, more or less static," Schopf explains. "But every organism born from sexual reproduction contained a genetic mix that never existed before."

keith said: For the uninitiated, casual observer I offer the pdf file of the Thaxton Bradley exposition on the various theories of abiogenesis, including the RNA World, protocells, et al that successfully reduces these arguments to fanciful fairy tales regurgitated every decade or so by the grasping at straws evos.

What a grand intellectual our troll Keith is. . . . .
Single handedly, he has bought down all of modern science.

All that, without any demonstrated knowledge whatever of biology, chemistry, geology, or physics.

What a guy!

... I offer the pdf file of the Thaxton Bradley exposition on the various theories of abiogenesis....

... Kenyon and Mills paper...

The site says that photosynthesis only evolved once? Is that accurate?

wikipedia: Photosynthetic bacteria do not have chloroplasts (or any membrane-bound organelles). Instead, photosynthesis takes place directly within the cell. Cyanobacteria contain thylakoid membranes very similar to those in chloroplasts and are the only prokaryotes that perform oxygen-generating photosynthesis. In fact, chloroplasts are now considered to have evolved from an endosymbiotic bacterium, which was also an ancestor of and later gave rise to cyanobacterium. The other photosynthetic bacteria have a variety of different pigments, called bacteriochlorophylls, and do not produce oxygen. Some bacteria, such as Chromatium, oxidize hydrogen sulfide instead of water for photosynthesis, producing sulfur as waste. Evolution Plant cells with visible chloroplasts.The ability to convert light energy to chemical energy confers a significant evolutionary advantage to living organisms. Early photosynthetic systems, such as those from green and purple sulfur and green and purple non-sulfur bacteria, are thought to have been anoxygenic, using various molecules as electron donors. Green and purple sulfur bacteria are thought to have used hydrogen and sulfur as an electron donor. Green nonsulfur bacteria used various amino and other organic acids. Purple nonsulfur bacteria used a variety of non-specific organic molecules. The use of these molecules is consistent with the geological evidence that the atmosphere was highly reduced at that time.[citation needed] Fossils of what are thought to be filamentous photosynthetic organisms have been dated at 3.4 billion years old.[8]

What a grand intellectual our troll Keith is. … . Single handedly, he has bought down all of modern science.

— waldtufel

Since the topic is early life (plants) it may interest some people - SCIENCEDAILY today has an article, "... Fundamental Building Block in Flowering Plants ........". "Biologists have discovered that a fundamental building block in the cells of flowering plants evolved independently, ... on a separate branch of the evolutionary tree - in an ancient group called lycophytes that originated at about 420 m.yrs ago."

Hard line darwinistic evolutionary theory along the lines of random mutations and natural selection, makes the flowering plants (angiosperms) the genetic descendants of the gymnosperms (seeds, no flowers -e.g., conifers).

It turns out that a "fundamental building block in the cells" was in the lycophytes 420 m. yrs ago, and it got involved in building flowering plants, some 300 m. yrs later. (Lycophytes as I dimly recall were about the level of club mosses). Standard Darwinism had these "fundamental building blocks" getting put together over time, courtesy of the gymnosperms. Turns out, it looks like it happened independent of the gymnosperms, although something very similar is in the gymno's. Forgive the rough terminology. Genetics isn't my major.

More "toolkits", waiting to be activated by environmental triggering. See HOX genes in paddlefish, and so on.

That's Owen's information transforming Archtype, 1850, pre THE ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES.

Regarding the origin of life, suggest following along the same line. Information, marrying with organic structures. Same for photosynthesis. It only involves quantum level info.tech. so sophisticated it is not yet fully understood. Cheers.

PBH:
That article refers to lignin, and a different form of lignin, albeit similar in general structure and function. It means that a similar hard-to-break-down plant chemical arose independently in two plant lineages, which argues for a similar base. Eyespots and photoreceptors form the base of a lot of chemical reactions in later metozoans, but it doesn't imply that the photoreactive chemicals as a base were "planned" so eyes could develop. It means that making parts from other parts you have is easier, and sometimes results in the same thing happening twice - accidentally.

Applying an anthropomorphic "direction" template went out with Lamarckism in the late 19th century. Reading intent doesn't prove intent - it proves you see intent by deriving from effect to cause. It also doesn't preclude a non-intent driven cause as well.

PvM said:

Abstract Between 1 and 1.5 billion years ago [1 and 2], eukaryotic organisms acquired the ability to convert light into chemical energy through endosymbiosis with a Cyanobacterium (e.g., [3, 4 and 5]). This event gave rise to “primary” plastids, which are present in green plants, red algae, and glaucophytes (“Plantae” sensu Cavalier-Smith [6]). The widely accepted view that primary plastids arose only once [5] implies two predictions: (1) all plastids form a monophyletic group, as do (2) primary photosynthetic eukaryotes. Nonetheless, unequivocal support for both predictions is lacking (e.g., [7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12]). In this report, we present two phylogenomic analyses, with 50 genes from 16 plastid and 15 cyanobacterial genomes and with 143 nuclear genes from 34 eukaryotic species, respectively. The nuclear dataset includes new sequences from glaucophytes, the less-studied group of primary photosynthetic eukaryotes. We find significant support for both predictions. Taken together, our analyses provide the first strong support for a single endosymbiotic event that gave rise to primary photosynthetic eukaryotes, the Plantae. Because our dataset does not cover the entire eukaryotic diversity (but only four of six major groups in [13]), further testing of the monophyly of Plantae should include representatives from eukaryotic lineages for which currently insufficient sequence information is available.

Monophyly of Primary Photosynthetic Eukaryotes: Green Plants, Red Algae, and Glaucophytes, Current Biology , Volume 15 , Issue 14 , Pages 1325 - 1330

Extremely nice. Should take time to go through it at leisure from home.

But it does look possible that evolution snail paced for 2 billion years, picked up with the eukaryotes

But the site does not say the endosymbiotic event occured once, it says the chemical process evolved only once.

wikipedia cyanbacteria: The biochemical capacity to use water as the source for electrons in photosynthesis evolved once, in a common ancestor of extant cyanobacteria. The geological record indicates that this transforming event took place early in our planet's history, at least 2450-2320 million years ago (Ma), and possibly much earlier. Geobiological interpretation of Archean (>2500 Ma) sedimentary rocks remains a challenge; available evidence indicates that life existed 3500 Ma, but the question of when oxygenic photosynthesis evolved continues to engender debate and research. A clear paleontological window on cyanobacterial evolution opened about 2000 Ma, revealing an already diverse biota of blue-greens. Cyanobacteria remained principal primary producers throughout the Proterozoic Eon (2500-543 Ma), in part because the redox structure of the oceans favored photautotrophs capable of nitrogen fixation. Green algae joined blue-greens as major primary producers on continental shelves near the end of the Proterozoic, but only with the Mesozoic (251-65 Ma) radiations of dinoflagellates, coccolithophorids, and diatoms did primary production in marine shelf waters take modern form. Cyanobacteria remain critical to marine ecosystems as primary producers in oceanic gyres, as agents of biological nitrogen fixation, and, in modified form, as the plastids of marine algae.[7]

Hard line darwinistic evolutionary theory along the lines of random mutations and natural selection, makes the flowering plants (angiosperms) the genetic descendants of the gymnosperms (seeds, no flowers -e.g., conifers).

It turns out that a “fundamental building block in the cells” was in the lycophytes 420 m. yrs ago, and it got involved in building flowering plants, some 300 m. yrs later. (Lycophytes as I dimly recall were about the level of club mosses). Standard Darwinism had these “fundamental building blocks” getting put together over time, courtesy of the gymnosperms. Turns out, it looks like it happened independent of the gymnosperms, although something very similar is in the gymno’s.

Hard line darwinistic evolutionary theory

Is anyone here able to field a really stupid question?

I'm looking at the picture of the "Formation of the moon" - the website states that it probably happened as a result of the earth and theia.

The picture looks like the impact created "round" planets. OK -here's the dumb question ... How is the "roundness" supposed to have happened? (Stop laughing OK - normally I would ask my husband, but he's at work):-)

PvM,

The problem is that all the laws of chemistry and physics that obviate the recycled arguments presented by the phlogistonites haven't changed. Further the referenced papers deal with each of the supposed elements of evidence in rather devastating ways.

See in critical thinking one doesn't obscure or invalidate evidence based on its popularity, its age unless fully discredited with evidence, its newness, its adherents unless they have demonstrated experimental evidence.

Thaxton Bradley Laxton,,,I see we have some real intellects represented. LOL!

Charles B. Thaxton is a Fellow of the Discovery Institutes Center for Science and Culture. He has a doctorate in physical chemistry from Iowa State University. He went on to complete post-doctorate programs in the history of science at Harvard University and the molecular biology laboratories of Brandeis University.

Dr. Bradley is PhD Material Science prof retire d from Texas A&M while Olsen is a Geo-chemist. The concept of using multidisciplinary collaborators may be new to evos , but it's really quite the norm.

As for peer review, the book was reviewed prior to publication by Dr. Dean Kenyon, one of the foremost researchers and authors in the field who wrote the foreword.

You people need some new material.

Stacy:

Gravity and heat. Of course they weren't round right away, they settled into that shape. But I think that image is supposed to be of the actual colliding bodies, not the result.

The picture looks like the impact created “round” planets. OK -here’s the dumb question … How is the “roundness” supposed to have happened?

So were they solid at the time of impact?

P.S. - I forgot to say Thank you to both of you. :-)

Stacy S. said: So were they solid at the time of impact?

OK - LoL! That explains it! Thank you!

Stacy S. said: Is anyone here able to field a really stupid question? I'm looking at the picture of the "Formation of the moon" - the website states that it probably happened as a result of the earth and theia. The picture looks like the impact created "round" planets. OK -here's the dumb question ... How is the "roundness" supposed to have happened? (Stop laughing OK - normally I would ask my husband, but he's at work):-)

So were they solid at the time of impact?

Flint said:

So were they solid at the time of impact?

...Here's the general principle: any object large and massive enough for its gravity to pull it into a sphere, is not "solid". That's a misleading word. Its shape is simply determined by gravity, which overcomes the force of atomic bonds holding together what we usually think of as being "solid".

@Keith! Some kook who believes in the veracity of a collection of ancient goat herder myths and accepts the mythology contained therein as valid history tells scientists that they "need new material"? Bwah-hah-hah-hah!!

Crap! Sorry 'bout that, guys.

Wolfhound said: LOL @Keith! Some kook who believes in the veracity of a collection of ancient goat herder myths and accepts the mythology contained therein as valid history tells scientists that they "need new material"? Bwah-hah-hah-hah!!

David vun Kannon, FCD said: But the site does not say the endosymbiotic event occured once, it says the chemical process evolved only once. Even before reading Wikipedia (thanks, raven!), I knew there were different ways of doing photosynthesis. This site seems to claim that they all evolved from one process.

Oxygenic photosynthesis appears to have evolved only once. The photosystem II water-oxidizing complex, which is the core of the enzymatic reaction responsible, appears to have remained unchanged over billions of years (Dismukes et al., 2001). This is despite the fact that it is tremendously useful metabolically (utilizing as it does sunlight and the 2 most abundant volatiles on the planet, both to fix carbon and provide energy). The conservative nature of the basic chemistry has been ascribed to the complexity of the system required to catalyze this thermodynamically very unfavorable process, which involves a 4-electron, 4-proton coupled reaction with the absorption of 8 photons per molecule of oxygen released (Dismukes et al., 2001). As such, the sequence of changes that began with the origin of oxygenic photosynthesis is a candidate for an intrinsically unlikely, critical step. [My bold.]

Stacy,

In no way are your questions "silly." They are great questions. Marvelous questions. And what a great forum of scientists, engineers, naturalists of many disciplines willing and eager to contribute their knowledge. The "silly" questions are the real puzzlers.

Stacy S. said: How is the "roundness" supposed to have happened?

The IAU therefore resolves that planets and other bodies in our Solar System, except satellites, be defined into three distinct categories in the following way: (1) A "planet" is a celestial body that: (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit. (2) A "dwarf planet" is a celestial body that: (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite. (3) All other objects except satellites orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as "Small Solar System Bodies". [My bold.]

Hydrostatic equilibrium occurs when compression due to gravity is balanced by a pressure gradient which creates a pressure gradient force in the opposite direction.

That's why I love this blog -- you guys (and gals) are awesome. Thank you!

Btw, since I'm going to read Watson's paper I would be interested in hearing biologists opinion on his description of a "critical step".

My spontaneous questions is that if indeed oxygenating photosynthesis is "thermodynamically very unfavorable", wouldn't it be first be difficult to compete with organisms using other metabolic processes? Then if the vast ecological niche opens up (latest at the oxygenation of Earth) wouldn't it be a likely case of conservation of a major success story, like the homeobox conserving the homeodomain motif?

And I'm a bit skeptic of claims of complexity as the main reason for uniqueness. [Probably an occupational hazard on PT.] Couldn't competition going against and later for a complex solution be a more likely recurrent reason?

I might also note that current models see nearly all the asteroids as the current result of billions of years of repeated collisions. Nearly none of them are solid rocks as we know them anymore, but are rather aggregates of pulverized stone held together by vacuum welding with only tiny gravitational fields. Observed collisions between asteroids are not elastic like billiard balls, but rather more like collisions between bean bags. They don't bounce off one another like we think rocks should, but rather merge, while some of the material wanders off to collide with something else later.

Flint said: ...aggregates of pulverized stone held together by vacuum welding...

Stacy S. said: Is anyone here able to field a really stupid question? I'm looking at the picture of the "Formation of the moon" - the website states that it probably happened as a result of the earth and theia. The picture looks like the impact created "round" planets. OK -here's the dumb question ... How is the "roundness" supposed to have happened? (Stop laughing OK - normally I would ask my husband, but he's at work):-)

Paul Burnett said: Are you sure "vacuum welding" works with stone? I thought it only worked with metals...?

Vacuum cementing or vacuum welding is the natural process of solidifying small objects in a hard vacuum. The most notable example is dust on the surface of the moon.

Explosion Welding (EXW) is a solid state process where welding is accomplished by accelerating one of the components at extremely high velocity through the use of chemical explosives. This process is most commonly utilized to clad carbon steel plate with a thin layer of corrosion resistant material (e.g., stainless steel, nickel alloy, titanium, or zirconium). Explosion welding can produce a bond between two metals that cannot necessarily be welded by conventional means. The process does not melt either metal, instead it plasticizes the surfaces of both metals, causing them to come into intimate contact sufficient to create a weld.

Tanks Gary, that was an interesting read! Good to know; the details of dynamics and material differentiation has taken a new (and apparently final) iteration since I last heard a description.

keith said: PvM, The problem is that all the laws of chemistry and physics that obviate the recycled arguments presented by the phlogistonites haven't changed. Further the referenced papers deal with each of the supposed elements of evidence in rather devastating ways.

You people need some new material.

The origin of life is one of Huston Smith's three miracles the myopia of science will never be able to explain. The others are the origin of the universe and the origin of morality. The tunnel vision of science blinds us to the spiritual truths all around us.

the myopia of science

Might also note that Michael Shermer wrote an entire book (The Science of Good and Evil) about the origin of morality. Nor are any of his ideas particularly original, he's just packaging them in one place.

As for the origin of the universe, cosmologists have been honing in on this for decades now, and with better (space-based) observation and instrumentation, progress is accelerating.

Like most people who hide their gods in the gaps of our knowledge, Huston Smith is becoming rapidly obsolete. He'll have to pick three new gaps soon. He gambled on where evidence would be hard to collect, and he is losing badly.

Laura Branigan said: The origin of life is one of Huston Smith's three miracles the myopia of science will never be able to explain. The others are the origin of the universe and the origin of morality. The tunnel vision of science blinds us to the spiritual truths all around us.

Yes, Mr Hurd - and when I came along to PT and called for objective criticism of the (mainstream) Common Donor - Capture Theory, you suddenly were nowhere to be found.

Just as my thanks to Stacy S. for directing me to the BW on another thread,(different Provider) were sent to the BW.

The moon, of course, is not fully internally symmetrical, suggesting it coalesced under the influence of a gravitational field whilst not spinning, or was partially melted and re-solidified under the influence of a gravitational field whilst not spinning. Well there may be other ways to explain it? Prof. S. Ross-Taylor, Principal Investigator for the NASA moon missions, gives as an explanation for Mercuy's current structure a collision in which several moon-volumes of objects smaller than a centimeter were produced. The current giant impact hypothesis has merit but cannot be rationally applied to our earth-moon system for a whole battery of published and obvious reasons. The latest disproof of it has to do with silicon isotopes. Theories other than it get sent to the BW in some quarters. Result: paralysis.

The point of the SCIENCEDAILY article I quote above, and that PvM, acting professionally, didn't send to the BW, is pre-existence of a toolkit, with the inherent possibility of subsequent activation. That's not pure NS. But where did I overtly mention intent? From the science perspective, it calls on info.tech., not intent. Intent has to do with religion. Religion and science go side-by-side; they don't chafe. Regarding the origin of life, photosynthesis, and what-have-you: leave the intent to itself, decipher the physics of the design, and peace will ensue. Cease using the pyhsics to attempt to deny the intent and the design. Treat people according to the First Amendment or whatever amendment you have there.

The point of the SCIENCEDAILY article I quote above, and that PvM, acting professionally, didn’t send to the BW, is pre-existence of a toolkit, with the inherent possibility of subsequent activation.

Clean up cycle initiated. Reminder, avoid content-less postings especially when they invoke ad homs

Laura Branigan said: The origin of life is one of Huston Smith's three miracles the myopia of science will never be able to explain. The others are the origin of the universe and the origin of morality. The tunnel vision of science blinds us to the spiritual truths all around us.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Yes, Mr Hurd - and when I came along to PT and called for objective criticism of the (mainstream) Common Donor - Capture Theory, you suddenly were nowhere to be found.

PANDA'S THUMB, page hosted by you, titled, "What Else Could I Have Done?" Something like the 8th entry of a 9 entry thread. I re-invited you again at a thread you ran introducing a Dr. Verhasy or some name like that. Search picks them both up in a jif. Are you willing to do a peer review on the latest in moon origin?

Question addressed to the air: What part of rubbishing someone's personal career and religion is not "ad homs"?

And I am mystified about how quoting mainstream science papers that employ the term, "toolkit", in all its full meaning and implications, is not applicable.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: And I am mystified about how quoting mainstream science papers that employ the term, "toolkit", in all its full meaning and implications, is not applicable.

PvM said: Seems that Huston Smith may be batting a 0 for 3. In other words, he has 'struck out'

Laura Branigan said: The origin of life is one of Huston Smith's three miracles the myopia of science will never be able to explain. The others are the origin of the universe and the origin of morality. The tunnel vision of science blinds us to the spiritual truths all around us.

So Laura you honestly believe that all scientists are completely or nearly completely devoid of emotion? If you do that is truly saddening from my perspective, since it represents the worst kind of human category thinking. The sort of thinking that leads to bloodshed and other such atrocities. On the other hand if you are merely going for hyperbole what is your point? There are plenty of scientists investigating behaviors of all kinds including emotions. Or you hoping that by saying something offensive people will lose their cool?

The top story on SCIENCEDAILY 5mins ago is titled, "Common Aquatic Animal's Genome Can Capture Foreign DNA" I suspect this title is slightly misleading, because it makes an assumption about the true nature of this organism's genome. But the remarkable fact about these dessicatable critters that continue in dry dust between rain showers - Bdelloid rotifers - is that they are sexless. Unless I read it incorrectly, these organisms (of which I had never heard) break up when they dessicate, and re-unite when it rains. They re-unite as anything, genetics-wise, that will re-unite. The DNA is capable of segmenting, then re-forming - not necessarily the same segments re-form.

A totally primitive form of totally advanced genetic engineering?

This paper is instructive on at least two counts.

1) It's authors attribute all this remarkable genetic engineering/whathaveyou to the brilliance of the Bdelloid rotors themselves. They designed it; they set it up; they do it themselves, of themselves.

That's a direct denial of religious freedom, should such teachings be passed off as fact in any official way. (It might also indicate why some technicians come in for labels such as 'white coated pinheads').

2) More significantly for the mechanisms of evolution, it suggests that DNA conceivably could be re-arranged in some fundamental way, outside asexual reproduction, outside sexual reproduction - i.e., without common descent. If DNA is designed to do that for Bdelloids, why can't it be designed so that under special conditions - the conditions prevailing at speciation - it gets fundamentally re-arranged?

This article doesn't prove that hypothesis, but it is suggestive. Other considerations prove that hypothesis.

Looking at Nature via the laws of Nature gives clear indicators as to how Nature functioned. That's what science should be doing.

Question addressed to the air: What part of rubbishing someone’s personal career and religion is not “ad homs”?

Laura Branigan said: ... science will never be able to explain ... the origin of morality.

Laura Branigan said: ... science will never be able to explain ... the origin of morality.

They should put you on the High Court.

Yep: it's called survival of the fittest. Darwin helped initiate the idea. Don't waste your time telling me that communal conscience preserves the weak and is therefore good for the community and is therefore an evolved trait. Communal conscience protects the weak. Darwinism is about survival of the fittest. Protecting the weak kills out the community.

I breed cattle.

I note you aren't actually insulting someone's person.

Laura Branigan said: The origin of life is one of Huston Smith's three miracles the myopia of science will never be able to explain. The others are the origin of the universe and the origin of morality. The tunnel vision of science blinds us to the spiritual truths all around us.

1. An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God [...] 2. One that excites admiring awe. [...]

Laura Branigan said: Why can't they manufacture a robot capable of love, hate, compassion, greed, anger, or sadness.

ARGGGGHHH. "Fit" as in "best suited", not "strongest", Phil! How many friggin' times does this have to be spelled out?

You think slugs are 'fit'? Yet here they come, every spring.

Protecting the weak enlarges the population, diversifying the available gene pool. There's one possible explanation, I'm sure there are tons more.

Laura: The scientists have become so estranged to their own emotions they are not even aware of their existence.

They become so estranged because they are terrified of the dark forces they can not see, but deep down, they know they are powerless against.

The inability of their feeble minds to correlate all of their contents is truly their greatest blessing; without this they would surely lose those minds and become like the apes they claim are no different from ourselves.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: emotional states

Protecting the weak enlarges the population, diversifying the available gene pool. There’s one possible explanation, I’m sure there are tons more.

Laura Branigan said: Why can’t they manufacture a robot capable of love, hate, compassion, greed, anger, or sadness.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Yep: it's called survival of the fittest. Darwin helped initiate the idea. Don't waste your time telling me that communal conscience preserves the weak and is therefore good for the community and is therefore an evolved trait. Communal conscience protects the weak. Darwinism is about survival of the fittest. Protecting the weak kills out the community. I breed cattle. I note you aren't actually insulting someone's person.

raven said:

Laura Branigan said: Why can’t they manufacture a robot capable of love, hate, compassion, greed, anger, or sadness.

That is a silly question. Not enough money right now. NIH cut the budget for Android research. On another level it is even sillier. H. sapiens spent 100,000 + years in the stone age and a little over a century in the age of electricity, a few decades in the era of cheap PCs. Who is to say that in another century, we won't have AIs that are self aware or uploaded copies of human minds. The creos would just move the goal posts again being immune to reason. OK, you've created life, created self aware AI's, but you haven't created a universe. Sure, and the first lab created Big Bang would be the last for another 14 billion years. The god of the gaps strategy is a loser. God used to control the weather, keep the planets in their orbits, and send the occasional calamity to keep things stirred up. Lately, he has been demoted to producing images of the Virgin Mary on tortillas and hiding fossils for paleontologists to find.

Laura,
What would a robot, computer, or other system, have to do to convince you that it is "capable of love, hate, compassion, greed, anger, or sadness"?

Along the same line, how do you KNOW that any humans other than yourself have those emotions? They say they do? They behave in certain ways? I can get my computer to do most of those things. It would be trivial to get it to shed tears if we hooked it up to the appropriate mechanical systems. I could even get it to intentionally commit suicide.

My point is that you can judge whether something has emotions only by its observable behavior--and then you have to make the assumption that the behavior arises from a mental state similar to one that you "feel." My assumption about you is that no matter what we got a robot to do or say, you would never grant that it is "capable of love, hate, compassion, greed, anger, or sadness," simply because, by your definition, it isn't human, and only humans are "capable of love, hate, compassion, greed, anger, or sadness."

Laura Branigan wrote: So the corporate and government white-coated pinheads have manged to unlock the secret of morality? Really? Science fiction can't even seem to do that very well. (Star Trek's Commander Data is good college try.) .

Laura Branigan wrote: Why can't they manufacture a robot capable of love, hate, compassion, greed, anger, or sadness.

Laura Branigan wrote: The scientists have become so estranged to their own emotions they are not even aware of their existence.

Laura Branigan wrote: They become so estranged because they are terrified of the dark forces they can not see, but deep down, they know they are powerless against. The inability of their feeble minds to correlate all of their contents is truly their greatest blessing; without this they would surely lose those minds and become like the apes they claim are no different from ourselves.

Pardon my French - and if this comment is removed, I'll completely understand - but Laura seems like a total bitch.

They should put you on the High Court

Yep: it’s called survival of the fittest. Darwin helped initiate the idea.

Don’t waste your time telling me that communal conscience preserves the weak and is therefore good for the community and is therefore an evolved trait. Communal conscience protects the weak.

Darwinism is about survival of the fittest.

Protecting the weak kills out the community.

I breed cattle.

Laura seems like a total bitch.

MememicBottleneck said:

Stacy S. said: So were they solid at the time of impact?

No, in fact the earth is still primarily molten. Near earth space was sprayed with debris from the impact. This debris collected to form the moon or fell back to earth, or escaped the local gravity, or impacted the earth or moon during subsequent orbits. The planets crust is very thin compared to its radius. If a large impact occured today, it would still reform into a sphere. The earths core contains a nuclear furnace that heats the mantle, which gives us the magnetic field, which protects the atmosphere and oceans from being stripped by the solar wind. Should the earth become solid, most if not all higher forms of life would perish. Disclaimer: I'm not a geologist nor have I played one on TV. However, I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night :)

Laura Branigan said: They become so estranged because they are terrified of the dark forces they can not see, but deep down, they know they are powerless against. The inability of their feeble minds to correlate all of their contents is truly their greatest blessing; without this they would surely lose those minds and become like the apes they claim are no different from ourselves.

If that first replicator had not come about, we. would. not. be. here.

Q.E.D.

Isn’t it interesting that after all this hand waving there is still not a single published paper delineating the first replicator capable of being called life as in self contained, capable of extracting energy from its environment, and making viable copies of itself without recourse to other entities.

Of course the evos are so sure it did come into being…except they can’t decide how, can’t demonstrate it’s coming about, can’t even describe what it was in any detail.

Since they can’t demonstrate the event although every capability imaginable is readily available to them it must require some laws of the universe now extinct that when present sprouted cells like popcorn.

Of course if some form of life were to be synthesized in a lab just how would that occur. Why it would be the product of Intelligent Design, cognitive thought, planning, physical implementation by embodied intelligences called scientists and technicians.

And since one of the arguments about information, intellect, messages etc. of the last century by people like Wiener, Von Neumann, Shannon, MacKay, and McCulloch was to establish the fact that intellect/intelligence/messages/information is independent of any material or substrate, the concept of both CSI and disembodied intelligence was accepted decades ago by real intellects and thinkers as above (in contrast to the nobody weenies of cyberlab that bluster their regurgitated ignorance ad finitum on these evo sites).

Shrike said:

Laura Branigan said: They become so estranged because they are terrified of the dark forces they can not see, but deep down, they know they are powerless against. The inability of their feeble minds to correlate all of their contents is truly their greatest blessing; without this they would surely lose those minds and become like the apes they claim are no different from ourselves.

(bolded emphasis added) "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents" -H.P. Lovecraft, The Call of Cthulhu. Is a Lovecraft-paraphrasing troll a first for PT?

keith said: And since one of the arguments about information, intellect, messages etc. of the last century by people like Wiener, Von Neumann, Shannon, MacKay, and McCulloch was to establish the fact that intellect/intelligence/messages/information is independent of any material or substrate, the concept of both CSI and disembodied intelligence was accepted decades ago by real intellects and thinkers as above (in contrast to the nobody weenies of cyberlab that bluster their regurgitated ignorance ad finitum on these evo sites).

And Laura, I would be careful around Stacy, she's known as the only girl to take on 14 football squads in one week and still make night rounds at the zoo. Where bitches are concerned, she's nonpareil.

I would hate to drag this back to the original topic, but I have earlier posted a
rough outline for abiogenesis.

Overall, I cannot say that I was very impressed with "Exploring Life’s Origins." The serious omissions began with their avoidance of the Late Hadean and Early Archaen atmospheric chemistry. The much better understood oxygen, sulfate, iron and carbonate levels for the later Archaen are not even mentioned. Nor did the "Links to Learn More" lead to well rounded sources.

The eye-candy was very nice.

Now they should add science content.

Laura Branigan said: So the corporate and government white-coated pinheads have manged to unlock the secret of morality? Really? Science fiction can't even seem to do that very well. (Star Trek's Commander Data is good college try.) .

jk said: can NONE of you people look at the rest of the social animals, study their behavior, and see that human 'morality' is simply a natural outcropping of sophisticated social behavior? can you not see that if, say, BEES were to suddenly become as intelligent as we are, they would almost certainly develop a 'morality' of their own(you could make an argument that they have one already)? i don't see what there is to 'explain' really, or why creos constantly harp on this. and this business of insisting that EVERY tendency an animal must be explained in terms of Natural Selection is lame...any good Evo Biologist will tell you that NS is only ONE factor in Evolutionary development...ever heard of 'Emergence'? no, it's not a nightcluub :p

Laura Branigan said: So the corporate and government white-coated pinheads have manged to unlock the secret of morality? Really? Science fiction can't even seem to do that very well. (Star Trek's Commander Data is good college try.) .

GvlGeologist, FCD said: Picking nits...

4th, there have been many times in the Earth's past, each time the magnetic field reverses (about every 1/4th to 1 million years on average) when there was no world-wide magnetic field, and life has persisted quite well.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Just as my thanks to Stacy S. for directing me to the BW on another thread,(different Provider) were sent to the BW.

Flint said: And at best, regardless of how it were done, this experiment would only show that self-booting life is possible; not how it actually happened. We'll never know that.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Yep: it's called survival of the fittest. Darwin helped initiate the idea.

Charles Darwin said: I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to mans power of selection. But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer of the Survival of the Fittest is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient.

Yourself and M. Bottleneck as far as I know are both somewhere near the realms of possibility, given all that isn't known about the planet. I hope you take it kindly when I suggest you have overlooked something. By assuming that the trigger for your discussion - Giant Impact Moon Origin (as applied specifically to the earth-moon system) is correct, without questioning it, you inadvertently reinforce what amounts to yet another standing joke being foisted on the Public, by people who have lost the plot. Perhaps you didn't overlook it? I invite you to do something to help this embarrassing predicament, check it out, and do a bit for science whenever the opportunity presents.

You can see how far down the wrong track Biology has got, simply because people couldn't wait to get on the lemming cart.

Sylvilagus said:

keith said: And since one of the arguments about information, intellect, messages etc. of the last century by people like Wiener, Von Neumann, Shannon, MacKay, and McCulloch was to establish the fact that intellect/intelligence/messages/information is independent of any material or substrate, the concept of both CSI and disembodied intelligence was accepted decades ago by real intellects and thinkers as above (in contrast to the nobody weenies of cyberlab that bluster their regurgitated ignorance ad finitum on these evo sites).

This is so unbelievably, stupidly wrong. Your posts are generally so full of technobabble and bluster, I wouldn't have believed it possible for them to be any worse, but this one manages it. It is so obvious to all here that you really don't understand any of what you claim to and, sadder still, I think you must realize that too.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: You can see how far down the wrong track Biology has got, simply because people couldn't wait to get on the lemming cart.

Of course, to a large extent the blame for the fallacious claims of ID creationists should be on the shoulders of the ID 'giants' who have chosen not to clarify and inform but rather to obfuscate

Gary Hurd said: I would hate to drag this back to the original topic, but I have earlier posted a rough outline for abiogenesis.

Rosing, Minik T. and Robert Frei 2003 "U-rich Archaean sea-floor sediments from Greenland – indications of >3700 Ma oxygenic photosynthesis" Earth and Planetary Science Letters, online 6 December 03 presents data that suggest there were very early oxygenic life forms in marine basins that most likely (to me anyway) were wiped out.

Gary Hurd said: Overall, I cannot say that I was very impressed with "Exploring Life’s Origins." The serious omissions began with their avoidance of the Late Hadean and Early Archaen atmospheric chemistry. The much better understood oxygen, sulfate, iron and carbonate levels for the later Archaen are not even mentioned. Nor did the "Links to Learn More" lead to well rounded sources.

You grow on me.

Who was the excited pollen gatherer buzzing about on the other thread? Spelled it the same as my surname.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: You grow on me. Who was the excited pollen gatherer buzzing about on the other thread? Spelled it the same as my surname.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: The top story on SCIENCEDAILY 5mins ago is titled, "Common Aquatic Animal's Genome Can Capture Foreign DNA" I suspect this title is slightly misleading, because it makes an assumption about the true nature of this organism's genome. But the remarkable fact about these dessicatable critters that continue in dry dust between rain showers - Bdelloid rotifers - is that they are sexless. Unless I read it incorrectly, these organisms (of which I had never heard) break up when they dessicate, and re-unite when it rains. They re-unite as anything, genetics-wise, that will re-unite. The DNA is capable of segmenting, then re-forming - not necessarily the same segments re-form. A totally primitive form of totally advanced genetic engineering? This paper is instructive on at least two counts. 1) It's authors attribute all this remarkable genetic engineering/whathaveyou to the brilliance of the Bdelloid rotors themselves. They designed it; they set it up; they do it themselves, of themselves. That's a direct denial of religious freedom, should such teachings be passed off as fact in any official way. (It might also indicate why some technicians come in for labels such as 'white coated pinheads').

2) More significantly for the mechanisms of evolution, it suggests that DNA conceivably could be re-arranged in some fundamental way, outside asexual reproduction, outside sexual reproduction - i.e., without common descent. If DNA is designed to do that for Bdelloids, why can't it be designed so that under special conditions - the conditions prevailing at speciation - it gets fundamentally re-arranged? This article doesn't prove that hypothesis, but it is suggestive. Other considerations prove that hypothesis. Looking at Nature via the laws of Nature gives clear indicators as to how Nature functioned. That's what science should be doing.

Earth and Planetary Science Letters, online 6 December 03

presents data that suggest there were very early oxygenic life forms in marine basins that most likely (to me anyway) were wiped out.

Yes, by a body at least as big as Mars - they aren't certain - perhaps twice the size of Mars - striking the earth, removing the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, and the biosphere. Leaving the Earth in its observably normal, stable orbit.

OM; I couldn't do systematic biology or hard core maths oriented geophysics to save my life. Some people here could. But I hope, by the grace of God, I can apply logic and think laterally. Some people in Science can't think laterally, to save their own lives. That doesn't mean they aren't essential to doing the real, systematic stuff. They see the trees, others see the forest.

Life began as soon as, or soon after, mother Earth coalesced. It began in the presence of H2O or something similar, and very probably complex clay or clay-like minerals. Organic compounds were abundant in the waters-slash -'atmospheric' fluids. Conditions were severe, falling objects were yet adding materials to the earth, the earliest simple simple organisms could survive what we think of as outer Space. Free oxygen may have been present, perhaps courtesy of intense electrical activity breaking down oxygen compounds, or, more probably, through the effect of (charged) metallic particles falling through the early environs of the Earth. The organization of the organic structures was facilitated by signalling/information control, atom-arranging or quantum category, courtesy of the Earth and celestial objects in Space. Life itself is a vivifying impartation/message, beyond technology.

That's a leg start for you, courtesy of geology, the Bible, and deduction. Send me any additions/corrections you might come up with.

And there was no moon as we know it, here, until the Cambrian, and no giant impact wiped everything out and got rid of water and (if any were present), oxygen. That doesn't mean we didn't have some sort of satellite(s), before the Cambrian. Oh yes - and light for photosynthesis, early on, was mostly or entirely not sourced from our sun. You sort out the detail, I'll give you some scenarios that at least aren't science fiction. I hope.

One to you.

Laura Branigan said: The totalitarian implications of state "science" are elucidated in detail by Paul Feyerebend. Phil, if you have not read him you need to. Look at the persecution of traditional witches and healers by the medical establishment or the similar persecution of astrologers by the astronomy party despite the so-called guarantee of "freedom of religion" in the Constitution. Feyerebend explained why we need to have "freedom of science" as well if we are to be free as a people. The arbitrary, unaccountable power of the scientific community must be challenged if we are to have a society based on human rights.

Laura Branigan said: The totalitarian implications of state "science" are elucidated in detail by Paul Feyerebend. Phil, if you have not read him you need to. Look at the persecution of traditional witches and healers by the medical establishment or the similar persecution of astrologers by the astronomy party despite the so-called guarantee of "freedom of religion" in the Constitution. Feyerebend explained why we need to have "freedom of science" as well if we are to be free as a people. The arbitrary, unaccountable power of the scientific community must be challenged if we are to have a society based on human rights.

Kieth,

How did your prediction of the success of the movie Expelled work out?

Not so well I believe.

I find you a very sad and deeply troubled case.

So, Keith, tell us again how you predicted that "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" was going to motivate the American public to hunt down and murder "evolanders" with dogs.

Laura the kook: Look at the persecution of traditional witches and healers by the medical establishment or the similar persecution of astrologers by the astronomy party despite the so-called guarantee of “freedom of religion” in the Constitution.

wikipedia: The Salem witch trials were a series of hearings before local magistrates followed by county court trials to prosecute people accused of witchcraft in Essex, Suffolk, and Middlesex Counties of colonial Massachusetts, between February 1692 and May 1693. Over 150 people were arrested and imprisoned, with even more accused who were not formally pursued by the authorities. The two courts convicted twenty-nine people of the capital felony of witchcraft. Nineteen of the accused, fourteen women and five men, were hanged. One man who refused to enter a plea was crushed to death under heavy stones in an attempt to force him to do so. At least five more of the accused died in prison.

similar persecution of astrologers by the astronomy

But was your comment, "ad hom?"

wikipedia Religious Discrimination of Neopagans. Wicca According to Gerald Gardner, who popularised Wicca in the twentieth century, the religion is a survival of a European witch-cult that was persecuted during the witch trials (sometimes called the Burning Times), and the strong element of secrecy that traditionally surrounds the religion was adopted as a reaction to that persecution. Since then, Margaret Murray's theory of an organised pan-European witch-cult has been discredited, and doubts raised about the age of Wicca; many Wiccans no longer claim this historical lineage. However, it is still common for Wiccans to feel solidarity with the victims of the witch trials and, being witches, to consider the witch-craze to have been a persecution against their faith.[19] There has been confusion that Wicca is a form of Satanism, despite important differences between these religions.[20] Due to negative connotations associated with witchcraft, many Wiccans continue the traditional practice of secrecy, concealing their faith for fear of persecution. Revealing oneself as Wiccan to family, friends or colleagues is often termed "coming out of the broom-closet".[21] Wiccans have also experienced difficulties in administering and receiving prison ministry, although not in the UK of recent times.[22] In 1985, as a result of Dettmer v. Landon [617 F. Supp. 592 (D.C. Va 1985)], the District Court of Virginia ruled that Wicca is a legally recognised religion and is afforded all the benefits accorded to it by law. This was affirmed a year later by Judge John D. Butzner, Jr. of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit [Dettmer v. Landon, 799 F. 2d 929 (4th Cir. 1986)]. Nevertheless, Wiccans are sometimes still stigmatised in America, and many remain secretive about their beliefs. In September 1985, Jesse Helms introduced legislation designed to take away the tax-exempt status of Wiccan religious institutions. This ultimately died with the close of the 99th session of Congress in December 1986.[23] Also in 1985, conservative legislators in the United States introduced three pieces of legislation designed to take away the tax-exempt status of Wiccans. The first one was House Resolution (H.R.) 3389, introduced on 19 September 1985 by Congressman Robert S. Walker (R-Pennsylvania), which would have amended to the United States Internal Revenue Code that any organisation which promotes witchcraft would not be exempt from taxation. On the other side of Congress, Senator Jesse Helms (R-North Carolina ) added Amendment 705 to H.R. 3036, "The Treasury, Postal, and General Government Appropriations Bill for 1986", which similarly stated that organisations promoting witchcraft would not be eligible for tax-exempt status. After being ignored for a time, it was attached to H.R. 3036 by a unanimous voice vote of the senators. Congressman Richard T. Schulze (R-Pennsylvania) introduced substantially the same amendment to the Tax Reform Bill of 1985. When the budget subcommittee met on 30 October, the Helms Amendment was thrown out as it was not considered germane to the bill. Following this, Schulze withdrew his amendment from the Tax Reform Bill, leaving only H.R. 3389, the Walker Bill. Joe Barton (R-Texas) was attracted to become a co-sponsor of this bill on 14 November 1985. The Ways and Means Committee set aside the bill and quietly ignored it, and the bill was allowed to die with the close of the 99th session of Congress in December 1986.[24][25] In 2002, Cynthia Simpson of Chesterfield County, Virginia submitted an application to be invited to lead prayer at the local Board of Supervisors meetings, but in a response was told that because the views of Wicca were not "consistent with the Judeo-Christian tradition," her application had been denied. After the Board reviewed and affirmed their policy, Simpson took the case to the U.S. District Court of Virginia, which held that the Board had violated the Establishment Clause by advancing limited sets of beliefs.[26] The Board appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2005 reversed the ruling based in part on the Board having modified its policy, directing clerics to avoid invoking the name of Jesus.[27] On October 11, 2005, the United States Supreme Court rejected an appeal by Simpson,[28] effectively ending the debate.[29][30][31]

keith yammers some more... ... fails to comprehend that Shannon sought and succeeded in defining information as dimensionless, a statistically determined entity tied more to surprise effects than factual interpretable messages. He fought tooth and nail to hold to its complete independence from any physical substrate... ...I now see clearly why Dembski’s work on CSI is so far over your and your weenie peer groups collective head, you don’t even have the historical background in hand to grasp the concepts.

Besides making grotesquely inaccurate claims, grotesque insults, and acting as Ben Stein's cheerleader, what is your point here?

Philip Bruce Heywood said: But was your comment, "ad hom?"

Philip Bruce Heywood said: But was your comment, "ad hom?"

Abstract Forty years after its formulation, the hypothesis of the RNA-World remains rather controversial even though studies of RNA catalysis in cellular processes (for example, in the ubiquitous ribosomal peptide-bond formation) have clearly lent increased plausibility to the idea that an RNA-World existed at some point in the evolution leading to the emergence of cellular life. Indeed, several issues remain that weaken the concept: the synthesis of the RNA monomers under prebiotic conditions, their subsequent, efficient polymerization to yield ribozymes that specifically catalyze their own replication. This communication summarizes existing studies of the RNA polymerization from monomers. In our opinion, the recent developments show that given time plausible answers to some of the issues facing the RNA-World hypothesis will be found.

Abstract Forty years after its formulation, the hypothesis of the RNA-World remains rather controversial even though studies of RNA catalysis in cellular processes (for example, in the ubiquitous ribosomal peptide-bond formation) have clearly lent increased plausibility to the idea that an RNA-World existed at some point in the evolution leading to the emergence of cellular life. Indeed, several issues remain that weaken the concept: the synthesis of the RNA monomers under prebiotic conditions, their subsequent, efficient polymerization to yield ribozymes that specifically catalyze their own replication. This communication summarizes existing studies of the RNA polymerization from monomers. In our opinion, the recent developments show that given time plausible answers to some of the issues facing the RNA-World hypothesis will be found.

raven said:

Laura: The scientists have become so estranged to their own emotions they are not even aware of their existence.

You've never met any. Scientists are just people, live in houses, go to the store, have families, complain about the high price of gasoline, feed the dog and cat. 40% of biologists self describe themselves as religious, mostly Xian. Including some prominent evolutionary biologists. The equation science=atheism is demonstrably false. In their day job, they brought about a Hi Tech 21st century, lengthened our life spans by 30 years in a century, and fed 6.7 billion people.

They become so estranged because they are terrified of the dark forces they can not see, but deep down, they know they are powerless against.

This is a meaningless statement that sounds good after too much wine. If we can't see those Dark Forces, why would we be terrified of them? What and where are these Dark Forces anyway? And why don't we even know that we are terrified?

The inability of their feeble minds to correlate all of their contents is truly their greatest blessing; without this they would surely lose those minds and become like the apes they claim are no different from ourselves.

Laura, biologically we are classified as apes. No one claims humans are no different from the other apes. It is a matter of common knowledge that we are the dominant species on the planet, the first really intelligent tool users to develop a science based material civilization. As a jumped up ape, I'm impressed with what humans have done in just a few centuries, probes around Saturn and on Mars, sequencing the human genome, inventing the internet, and so on ad infinitum. We could be extinct in 10 millenia or traveling to other star systems. Humans make choices but who knows the future? But either way, it was a great adventure.

raven said:

wikipedia Religious Discrimination of Neopagans. Wicca According to Gerald Gardner, who popularised Wicca in the twentieth century, the religion is a survival of a European witch-cult that was persecuted during the witch trials (sometimes called the Burning Times), and the strong element of secrecy that traditionally surrounds the religion was adopted as a reaction to that persecution. Since then, Margaret Murray's theory of an organised pan-European witch-cult has been discredited, and doubts raised about the age of Wicca; many Wiccans no longer claim this historical lineage. However, it is still common for Wiccans to feel solidarity with the victims of the witch trials and, being witches, to consider the witch-craze to have been a persecution against their faith.[19] There has been confusion that Wicca is a form of Satanism, despite important differences between these religions.[20] Due to negative connotations associated with witchcraft, many Wiccans continue the traditional practice of secrecy, concealing their faith for fear of persecution. Revealing oneself as Wiccan to family, friends or colleagues is often termed "coming out of the broom-closet".[21] Wiccans have also experienced difficulties in administering and receiving prison ministry, although not in the UK of recent times.[22] In 1985, as a result of Dettmer v. Landon [617 F. Supp. 592 (D.C. Va 1985)], the District Court of Virginia ruled that Wicca is a legally recognised religion and is afforded all the benefits accorded to it by law. This was affirmed a year later by Judge John D. Butzner, Jr. of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit [Dettmer v. Landon, 799 F. 2d 929 (4th Cir. 1986)]. Nevertheless, Wiccans are sometimes still stigmatised in America, and many remain secretive about their beliefs. In September 1985, Jesse Helms introduced legislation designed to take away the tax-exempt status of Wiccan religious institutions. This ultimately died with the close of the 99th session of Congress in December 1986.[23] Also in 1985, conservative legislators in the United States introduced three pieces of legislation designed to take away the tax-exempt status of Wiccans. The first one was House Resolution (H.R.) 3389, introduced on 19 September 1985 by Congressman Robert S. Walker (R-Pennsylvania), which would have amended to the United States Internal Revenue Code that any organisation which promotes witchcraft would not be exempt from taxation. On the other side of Congress, Senator Jesse Helms (R-North Carolina ) added Amendment 705 to H.R. 3036, "The Treasury, Postal, and General Government Appropriations Bill for 1986", which similarly stated that organisations promoting witchcraft would not be eligible for tax-exempt status. After being ignored for a time, it was attached to H.R. 3036 by a unanimous voice vote of the senators. Congressman Richard T. Schulze (R-Pennsylvania) introduced substantially the same amendment to the Tax Reform Bill of 1985. When the budget subcommittee met on 30 October, the Helms Amendment was thrown out as it was not considered germane to the bill. Following this, Schulze withdrew his amendment from the Tax Reform Bill, leaving only H.R. 3389, the Walker Bill. Joe Barton (R-Texas) was attracted to become a co-sponsor of this bill on 14 November 1985. The Ways and Means Committee set aside the bill and quietly ignored it, and the bill was allowed to die with the close of the 99th session of Congress in December 1986.[24][25] In 2002, Cynthia Simpson of Chesterfield County, Virginia submitted an application to be invited to lead prayer at the local Board of Supervisors meetings, but in a response was told that because the views of Wicca were not "consistent with the Judeo-Christian tradition," her application had been denied. After the Board reviewed and affirmed their policy, Simpson took the case to the U.S. District Court of Virginia, which held that the Board had violated the Establishment Clause by advancing limited sets of beliefs.[26] The Board appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2005 reversed the ruling based in part on the Board having modified its policy, directing clerics to avoid invoking the name of Jesus.[27] On October 11, 2005, the United States Supreme Court rejected an appeal by Simpson,[28] effectively ending the debate.[29][30][31]

A bit off topic but this is another blood libel against scientists. Not only did they kill the Jews in Germany according to Expelled and Stein but now they are persecuting the witches. According to Laura B.. Well, really, I don't know any witches or anyone who does. Or have even seen one knowingly. The modern version is Wicca and Wiccans. The only persecution they claim is the usual, fundie Death Cult bigots from the south central USA.

raven said:

wikipedia Religious Discrimination of Neopagans. Wicca According to Gerald Gardner, who popularised Wicca in the twentieth century, the religion is a survival of a European witch-cult that was persecuted during the witch trials (sometimes called the Burning Times), and the strong element of secrecy that traditionally surrounds the religion was adopted as a reaction to that persecution. Since then, Margaret Murray's theory of an organised pan-European witch-cult has been discredited, and doubts raised about the age of Wicca; many Wiccans no longer claim this historical lineage. However, it is still common for Wiccans to feel solidarity with the victims of the witch trials and, being witches, to consider the witch-craze to have been a persecution against their faith.[19] There has been confusion that Wicca is a form of Satanism, despite important differences between these religions.[20] Due to negative connotations associated with witchcraft, many Wiccans continue the traditional practice of secrecy, concealing their faith for fear of persecution. Revealing oneself as Wiccan to family, friends or colleagues is often termed "coming out of the broom-closet".[21] Wiccans have also experienced difficulties in administering and receiving prison ministry, although not in the UK of recent times.[22] In 1985, as a result of Dettmer v. Landon [617 F. Supp. 592 (D.C. Va 1985)], the District Court of Virginia ruled that Wicca is a legally recognised religion and is afforded all the benefits accorded to it by law. This was affirmed a year later by Judge John D. Butzner, Jr. of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit [Dettmer v. Landon, 799 F. 2d 929 (4th Cir. 1986)]. Nevertheless, Wiccans are sometimes still stigmatised in America, and many remain secretive about their beliefs. In September 1985, Jesse Helms introduced legislation designed to take away the tax-exempt status of Wiccan religious institutions. This ultimately died with the close of the 99th session of Congress in December 1986.[23] Also in 1985, conservative legislators in the United States introduced three pieces of legislation designed to take away the tax-exempt status of Wiccans. The first one was House Resolution (H.R.) 3389, introduced on 19 September 1985 by Congressman Robert S. Walker (R-Pennsylvania), which would have amended to the United States Internal Revenue Code that any organisation which promotes witchcraft would not be exempt from taxation. On the other side of Congress, Senator Jesse Helms (R-North Carolina ) added Amendment 705 to H.R. 3036, "The Treasury, Postal, and General Government Appropriations Bill for 1986", which similarly stated that organisations promoting witchcraft would not be eligible for tax-exempt status. After being ignored for a time, it was attached to H.R. 3036 by a unanimous voice vote of the senators. Congressman Richard T. Schulze (R-Pennsylvania) introduced substantially the same amendment to the Tax Reform Bill of 1985. When the budget subcommittee met on 30 October, the Helms Amendment was thrown out as it was not considered germane to the bill. Following this, Schulze withdrew his amendment from the Tax Reform Bill, leaving only H.R. 3389, the Walker Bill. Joe Barton (R-Texas) was attracted to become a co-sponsor of this bill on 14 November 1985. The Ways and Means Committee set aside the bill and quietly ignored it, and the bill was allowed to die with the close of the 99th session of Congress in December 1986.[24][25] In 2002, Cynthia Simpson of Chesterfield County, Virginia submitted an application to be invited to lead prayer at the local Board of Supervisors meetings, but in a response was told that because the views of Wicca were not "consistent with the Judeo-Christian tradition," her application had been denied. After the Board reviewed and affirmed their policy, Simpson took the case to the U.S. District Court of Virginia, which held that the Board had violated the Establishment Clause by advancing limited sets of beliefs.[26] The Board appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2005 reversed the ruling based in part on the Board having modified its policy, directing clerics to avoid invoking the name of Jesus.[27] On October 11, 2005, the United States Supreme Court rejected an appeal by Simpson,[28] effectively ending the debate.[29][30][31]

A bit off topic but this is another blood libel against scientists. Not only did they kill the Jews in Germany according to Expelled and Stein but now they are persecuting the witches. According to Laura B.. Well, really, I don't know any witches or anyone who does. Or have even seen one knowingly. The modern version is Wicca and Wiccans. The only persecution they claim is the usual, fundie Death Cult bigots from the south central USA.

Laura Branigan said: Do you like to walk through cemetaries? If not, why not? What is there to be afraid of? Everybody's dead, right? Are you sure? What is that cold churchyard shadow? That thing that can not be, but somehow is. The fear of openness to those things in Heaven and Earth of which scientific tunnel vision dreams not causes many to close their souls, which are their third eye.

Laura Branigan said: I admit all of this. If you read Feyerabend you would know he explicity compares the establishment of science today to the establishment of religion of yesteryear, and derision of alternatives perspectives with labels like "woo-woo" and the kind of religious bigotry discussed above.

If it is bigotry for Christians to disallow a Wiccan to pray at a public gathering, then why is it not bigotry for Medicare and private insurers to not re-emburse witches who cast spells to treat illness at the same rate as doctors?

Why is it not bigotry to exclude Creationism from science class? What makes those examples any less exclusionary than the ones you discussed?

Science Avenger said: Do you actually know any scientists, or do you just make shit up about them to give fake credence to your outdated views?

If it is bigotry for Christians to disallow a Wiccan to pray at a public gathering, then why is it not bigotry for Medicare and private insurers to not re-emburse witches who cast spells to treat illness at the same rate as doctors? Why is it not bigotry to exclude Creationism from science class? What makes those examples any less exclusionary than the ones you discussed?

Do you like to walk through cemetaries? If not, why not? What is there to be afraid of? Everybody’s dead, right? Are you sure? What is that cold churchyard shadow? That thing that can not be, but somehow is. The fear of openness to those things in Heaven and Earth of which scientific tunnel vision dreams not causes many to close their souls, which are their third eye.

Do you like to walk through cemetaries [sic]?

If it is bigotry for Christians to disallow a Wiccan to pray at a public gathering, then why is it not bigotry for Medicare and private insurers to not re-emburse witches who cast spells to treat illness at the same rate as doctors? Why is it not bigotry to exclude Creationism from science class? What makes those examples any less exclusionary than the ones you discussed?

Do you like to walk through cemetaries? If not, why not? What is there to be afraid of? Everybody’s dead, right? Are you sure? What is that cold churchyard shadow? That thing that can not be, but somehow is. The fear of openness to those things in Heaven and Earth of which scientific tunnel vision dreams not causes many to close their souls, which are their third eye.

Laura Branigan said: The totalitarian implications of state "science" are elucidated in detail by Paul Feyerebend. Phil, if you have not read him you need to. Look at the persecution of traditional witches and healers by the medical establishment or the similar persecution of astrologers by the astronomy party despite the so-called guarantee of "freedom of religion" in the Constitution. Feyerebend explained why we need to have "freedom of science" as well if we are to be free as a people. The arbitrary, unaccountable power of the scientific community must be challenged if we are to have a society based on human rights.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, online 6 December 03 presents data that suggest there were very early oxygenic life forms in marine basins that most likely (to me anyway) were wiped out. Yes, by a body at least as big as Mars - they aren't certain - perhaps twice the size of Mars - striking the earth, removing the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, and the biosphere. Leaving the Earth in its observably normal, stable orbit.

Here’s the general principle: any object large and massive enough for its gravity to pull it into a sphere, is not “solid”. That’s a misleading word. Its shape is simply determined by gravity, which overcomes the force of atomic bonds holding together what we usually think of as being “solid”.

Laura Branigan said: Do you like to walk through cemetaries? If not, why not? What is there to be afraid of? Everybody's dead, right? Are you sure? What is that cold churchyard shadow? That thing that can not be, but somehow is. The fear of openness to those things in Heaven and Earth of which scientific tunnel vision dreams not causes many to close their souls, which are their third eye.

Science/medicine is not a religion. Wicca and creationism are religions.

DaveH said:

Laura Branigan said: Do you like to walk through cemetaries? If not, why not? What is there to be afraid of? Everybody's dead, right? Are you sure? What is that cold churchyard shadow? That thing that can not be, but somehow is. The fear of openness to those things in Heaven and Earth of which scientific tunnel vision dreams not causes many to close their souls, which are their third eye.

I actually do a lot of my professional work in cemeteries. Yes, I am quite sure that they're all dead, and often they died horribly of preventable conditions.I am sometimes emotionally affected by it, especially when I see young women buried with foetal skeletons in their pelvis, having died in childbirth, or young children's skeletons. It's usually impossible to determine a cause of death for the latter, but the most likely explanation is usually infectious diseases. I'm glad that the evil, soulless scientists have managed to reduce those causes of mortality. Smallpox, at least, will never cause terror again.

Laura Branigan said: Do you like to walk through cemetaries? If not, why not? What is there to be afraid of? Everybody's dead, right? Are you sure? What is that cold churchyard shadow? That thing that can not be, but somehow is.

Mike,

Thanks for quantifying what I described in very hazy qualitative terms. Above a certain mass, no solid can hold to a non-spherical shape.

As for Laura, she's helped me finally understand what Sagan's "Demon Haunted World" is all about. Though maybe (donning my magical-thinking cap for a momemt) if she spelled cemetery correctly, she wouldn't fear one so much?

Torbjorn writes... The Moon was created 4.527 ± 0.010 billion years ago, long

Laura Branigan wrote: Do you like to walk through cemetaries?

Laura Branigan wrote: If not, why not? What is there to be afraid of?

Laura Branigan wrote: Everybody's dead, right?

Laura Branigan wrote: Are you sure?

Laura Branigan wrote: What is that cold churchyard shadow?

Laura Branigan wrote: That thing that can not be, but somehow is.

Laura Branigan wrote: The fear of openness to those things in Heaven and Earth of which scientific tunnel vision dreams not causes many to close their souls, which are their third eye.

DaveH said: Smallpox, at least, will never cause terror again.

DaveH said: Smallpox, at least, will never cause terror again.

stevaroni said:

Torbjorn writes... The Moon was created 4.527 ± 0.010 billion years ago, long

Am I the only one who thinks that age feels suspiciously precise ( ±0.2%! ) whenever they see it?

Shebardigan said:

DaveH said: Smallpox, at least, will never cause terror again.

Unless evil, soulless politicians see fit to release it into the world again (perhaps with several competing sets of suitable improvements in infectiousness).

Stevaroni raises a legitimate point. The radiometric dating just might be as accurate as they suggest - we'll leave that to one side. Now if you'll get out from under that bed and dunk the noggin in some cold water: What is your basis for assuming that the dated meteorites are precisely the same age as the earth? They are now discovering that meteorites aren't all of the same origin. They assume that a certain class of meteorite formed from fairly hot particles somewhere in the solar system, just when good old Earth started to coalesce. That means, if the meteorite-Earth-coincidence hypothesis is incorrect, we fall back on broader dating estimates - which are far from strict- unless you know something I don't - which could put the earth hundreds of millions of years older than the published date. This is certainly not impossible.
Applying logic to the moon dating tells us that if the moon got surfaced with material that was floating about in Space before moon coalescence, and this material wasn't sufficiently heated upon impact to re-set the radiometric clock, the bulk of the moon could be younger than the published date. I'll grant you, that's highly unlikely.

Farther up this page, you seem to say that giant impact wouldn't take out our hydrosphere and atmosphere. Presumably you mean that some water and atmospheric gases might not be lost, forever. That's certainly the best outcome that could be hoped for, especially since the mildest postulated impact necessary to moon ejection calls for at least partial melting of the Earth's mantle.
Under which scenario all free water would quit the scene, for quite some time. Which scarcely concurs with the observation that the Earth's oldest mineral grains formed in the presence of free water. Neither does it concur with a battery of other facts, none of which you or the Giant Impact Theorists seem capable of acknowledging. For example, you make no attempt to explain how a giant impact left us in a near-circular orbit, near slap bang in the plane of the solar system, nor do you account for the oxygen and the silicon isotope results, nor for an earth that shouldn't be spinning as fast as it is, after 4 thou. mill. yrs tidal drag courtesy of the moon.

You are correct in that there were oxygenic life forms substantially later then postulated giant impact. It is unlikely that oxygenic life was the oldest variety. First life is getting pushed back closer towards the time of planetary formation, quite regularly. Add, towards that impact that would have destroyed everything that life requires.

What is the purpose of this web site? Is it used by the semi-intellectuals as some form of social experiment? An attempt in creating an army of mind numb robots that will do their bidding. These robots must be a bunch of ignorant high school, and college drop outs. Maybe some go to some liberal arts college, and take poetry, or female studies. Some might be junior high school science teachers, that have degrees in music.

I’m sorry! But what am I to think.

I went to that web site advertised above, and what did I find? Drivel! No. Stupid drivel!

This Darwinist natural selection of random mutated molecules, that came out nothing, is crazy. You guys are really a religion. Dawkins, Myers, and Musgrave are your high Priests. You all swallow camels, but strain at gnats.

I remember way back in the 70s, I also swallowed that lie. I went to the University of Michigan. But we were all supposedly more ignorant back then. I took cell biology, histology, genetics, zoology, micro- biology, mammalian physiology, human anatomy, chemistry etc. Back then I had a few doubts, but what student is going to go against their instructor. Besides there was still so more discover about the cell.

Thirty years have passed, and the cell has proved to be even more complex then imagined.

The simplest cell is so so complex! The smartest amongst us are still trying to unravel it’s secrets.

Take Bacteria which has millions of genes. The genes not only contain info for replicating the cell. But the genes also control the function of the cell. The gene must be turned on by another gene. The DNA within the gene is unzipped by an enzyme. Three types of RNA read it, and help reproduce it. The synthesis of which is done in an specific organelle within the cell. To get there the info has to travel a specifically provided path way. The info ( Amino acid) gets to the organelle, where it gets attached to another amino acid. It takes the break down of three ATPs, in order to attach these amino acids by peptide bonds. It might take thousands of amino acids to make a protein. Proteins are absolutely necessary for life. For instance the enzyme that unzipped the gene, was a protein that had to be already present before the reaction took place.

The cells operate by the energy that is a product of ATP break down. After the ATP is broken down it has to be built back up. This process is very complex. ATP energy is needed for the mechanic work, transport, and synthesis of everything in the cell. ATP had to be already present when the first work, or thing that was made by the cell. The complex system for making ATP had to be already present before anything was done. Even before ATP is made is built back up from ADP, two ATPs are required to start the chemical reaction. You need ATP to make ATP. Where did come from? Maybe it came from some deep sea heat vent?

The machinery of life must be present before the work of life is performed. The energy of life must be present before the work of life is performed. The energy of life is required to make the machinery of life. The machinery of life is required to make the energy. A impossible paradox. These hurdles can not be overcome. The motions that atheists go through to try and justify their belief system, is paramount to chasing ones tale. A short tale to boot. May I suggest a different course? Sign up for a theology course next semester!

Thinking outside the box, and not accepting what goes for conventional wisdom allowed me to come up with two proofs against Darwinism just this month. Maybe I’ll reveal them later.

Alveno said: What is the purpose of this web site? Is it used by the semi-intellectuals as some form of social experiment? An attempt in creating an army of mind numb robots that will do their bidding. These robots must be a bunch of ignorant high school, and college drop outs. Maybe some go to some liberal arts college, and take poetry, or female studies. Some might be junior high school science teachers, that have degrees in music. I’m sorry! But what am I to think.

Alveno: These robots must be a bunch of ignorant high school, and college drop outs. [and further down.] Take Bacteria which has millions of genes.

Alveno the death cult troll: The motions that atheists go through to try and justify their belief system, is paramount to chasing ones tale.

"Take Bacteria which has millions of genes". Note the capital B, and the verb in the singular. I read that sentence as, "Take [the] Bacteria [the division of life] which has millions of genes".

How totally unscientific, to say something like that.

Not my war: Can't even find Torbjorn in the cellar.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Don't waste your time telling me that communal conscience preserves the weak and is therefore good for the community and is therefore an evolved trait. Communal conscience protects the weak. Darwinism is about survival of the fittest. Protecting the weak kills out the community.

PBH wrote ...

Alveno said: Thinking outside the box, and not accepting what goes for conventional wisdom allowed me to come up with two proofs against Darwinism just this month. Maybe I’ll reveal them later.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: "Take Bacteria which has millions of genes". Note the capital B, and the verb in the singular. I read that sentence as, "Take [the] Bacteria [the division of life] which has millions of genes". How totally unscientific, to say something like that.

Alveno said: I’m sorry!

Stanton said:

Laura Branigan said: I admit all of this. If you read Feyerabend you would know he explicitly compares the establishment of science today to the establishment of religion of yesteryear, and derision of alternatives perspectives with labels like "woo-woo" and the kind of religious bigotry discussed above.

So, then, please give us some examples of where the scientific community burned dissenting scientists, witches and astrologers at the stake after torturing them for their beliefs,

just like the Churches used to do during the Dark Ages.

If it is bigotry for Christians to disallow a Wiccan to pray at a public gathering, then why is it not bigotry for Medicare and private insurers to not re-emburse witches who cast spells to treat illness at the same rate as doctors?

Because casting spells is not medicine. Casting spells is not even alternative medicine, like acupuncture or herbalism. You fail to understand or realize that the majority of medical practitioners, including the schools of Western and Oriental Medicine, have rejected supernatural cause and supernatural cures because supernatural causes evade both treatment and diagnosis, while supernatural cures are, at best, extremely unreliable.

Why is it not bigotry to exclude Creationism from science class? What makes those examples any less exclusionary than the ones you discussed?

Because Creationism is not science, it never was science, and it never will be science because its adherents do not want to do science, not even with Creationism. And you, especially, are not interested in doing any science whatsoever.

Laura B writes... Only becuase the state-supported scientific community has monopolized “truth” for its own benefit.

Flint said: Mike, Thanks for quantifying what I described in very hazy qualitative terms. Above a certain mass, no solid can hold to a non-spherical shape. As for Laura, she's helped me finally understand what Sagan's "Demon Haunted World" is all about. Though maybe (donning my magical-thinking cap for a momemt) if she spelled cemetery correctly, she wouldn't fear one so much?

Alveno said: Thinking outside the box, and not accepting what goes for conventional wisdom allowed me to come up with two proofs against Darwinism just this month. Maybe I’ll reveal them later.

Laura Branigan said: Spelling, math, and other linear subjects with only one "right" answer were never my favorites in school. I always liked art, creative writing, and of course music much better.

Spelling, math, and other linear subjects with only one “right” answer were never my favorites in school. I always liked art, creative writing, and of course music much better.

Well, do we even need to discuss the crimes against humanity whose rationale was based on science? The racial science of Nazis; the “scientific socialism” of the Communists, and the Tuskegee experiments right here in the USA are three examples. There are many more.

philip Bruce Heywood said: Stevaroni raises a legitimate point.

philip Bruce Heywood said: Now if you'll get out from under that bed and dunk the noggin in some cold water:

philip Bruce Heywood said: Farther up this page, you seem to say that giant impact wouldn't take out our hydrosphere and atmosphere.

philip Bruce Heywood said: Which scarcely concurs with the observation that the Earth's oldest mineral grains formed in the presence of free water.

Laura Branigan said: Only becuase the state-supported scientific community has monopolized "truth" for its own benefit. This is no different from a state church. That is why we need freedom of science to go right along with freedom of religion.

Laura Branigan said: Spelling, math, and other linear subjects with only one "right" answer were never my favorites in school.

Laura B says... Spelling, math, and other linear subjects with only one “right” answer were never my favorites in school. I always liked art, creative writing, and of course music much better.

Laura the polykook: The medical establishment is not perfect either; how reliably have dealt with AIDS? They think they know what causes it, and try to crush all dissenters from the orthodoxy, but what else have they done about it?

wikipedia Martin Luther: His main works on the Jews were his 60,000-word treatise Von den Juden und Ihren Lügen (On the Jews and Their Lies), and Vom Schem Hamphoras und vom Geschlecht Christi (On the Holy Name and the Lineage of Christ) — reprinted five times within his lifetime — both written in 1543, three years before his death.[77] He argued that the Jews were no longer the chosen people, but were "the devil's people." They were "base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth."[78] The synagogue was a "defiled bride, yes, an incorrigible whore and an evil slut ..."[79] and Jews were full of the "devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine."[80] He advocated setting synagogues on fire, destroying Jewish prayerbooks, forbidding rabbis from preaching, seizing Jews' property and money, smashing up their homes, and ensuring that these "poisonous envenomed worms" be forced into labor or expelled "for all time."[81] He also seemed to sanction their murder,[82] writing "We are at fault in not slaying them."[83]

Torbjörn Larsson Btw, some mathematicians like Chaitin likes to call math “quasiempirical”.

Laura Branigan said: I am comfortable with the creatures of the night visible through the third eye

Laura Branigan said: I am comfortable with the creatures of the night visible through the third eye

I, I live among the creatures of the night I haven't got the will to try and fight Against a new tomorrow, so I guess I'll just believe it That tomorrow never knows

Like Larry Boy, above you, who refreshingly says he doesn't know everything - no siree; you're giving the impression of possibly being a wise man. If you are, you're ahead of me.

You can find out about me via my site.

Abiogenesis doesn't enter the equation, being technically impossible. But the Almighty sure didn't strike a match in the middle of a howling desert: things were ripe for life. Perhaps under water; certainly water was about. To get the necessary complex organic molecules together, a technology capable of doing it was initiated. That's the quantum category info.tech.. You theoretically can re-arrange atoms in molecules utilizing things like magnetically adjusted light photons. Way out there stuff.

Charged metallic particles falling through fluid such as water might just trigger electrolysis, producing free oxygen and hydrogen. Hydrogen is light enough to escape the atmosphere: oxygen remains. Again, hypothetical.

Wolfhound said:

Laura Branigan said: I am comfortable with the creatures of the night visible through the third eye

Well, folks, we needn't pay any more attention to Laura. The Woo-Woo is strong with this one and any further attempt to deal with her rationally and present anything scientific will have no effect.

similar persecution of astrologers by the astronomy

More wacko babbling. I'm unaware of any persecution of astrologers by astronomers or anyone for that matter. I can get a dozen horoscopes off the internet and in the newspapers every day. Do you have a source for your delusions or did you just make them up yourself?

while stargazers who follow the astrological paradigm are excluded.

... and the Flat Earthers! Why are the Flat Earthers being excluded from university geology departments???
Exponents of phlogiston can't teach their theory in high school chem class.

It's all a big conspiracy. These people couldn't just be wrong, and proven wrong, could they???

Alveno said: What is the purpose of this web site? Is it used by the semi-intellectuals as some form of social experiment? An attempt in creating an army of mind numb robots that will do their bidding. These robots must be a bunch of ignorant high school, and college drop outs. Maybe some go to some liberal arts college, and take poetry, or female studies. Some might be junior high school science teachers, that have degrees in music. I’m sorry! But what am I to think. I went to that web site advertised above, and what did I find? Drivel! No. Stupid drivel! This Darwinist natural selection of random mutated molecules, that came out nothing, is crazy. You guys are really a religion. Dawkins, Myers, and Musgrave are your high Priests. You all swallow camels, but strain at gnats. I remember way back in the 70s, I also swallowed that lie. I went to the University of Michigan. But we were all supposedly more ignorant back then. I took cell biology, histology, genetics, zoology, micro- biology, mammalian physiology, human anatomy, chemistry etc. Back then I had a few doubts, but what student is going to go against their instructor. Besides there was still so more discover about the cell. Thirty years have passed, and the cell has proved to be even more complex then imagined. The simplest cell is so so complex! The smartest amongst us are still trying to unravel it’s secrets. Take Bacteria which has millions of genes. The genes not only contain info for replicating the cell. But the genes also control the function of the cell. The gene must be turned on by another gene. The DNA within the gene is unzipped by an enzyme. Three types of RNA read it, and help reproduce it. The synthesis of which is done in an specific organelle within the cell. To get there the info has to travel a specifically provided path way. The info ( Amino acid) gets to the organelle, where it gets attached to another amino acid. It takes the break down of three ATPs, in order to attach these amino acids by peptide bonds. It might take thousands of amino acids to make a protein. Proteins are absolutely necessary for life. For instance the enzyme that unzipped the gene, was a protein that had to be already present before the reaction took place. The cells operate by the energy that is a product of ATP break down. After the ATP is broken down it has to be built back up. This process is very complex. ATP energy is needed for the mechanic work, transport, and synthesis of everything in the cell. ATP had to be already present when the first work, or thing that was made by the cell. The complex system for making ATP had to be already present before anything was done. Even before ATP is made is built back up from ADP, two ATPs are required to start the chemical reaction. You need ATP to make ATP. Where did come from? Maybe it came from some deep sea heat vent? The machinery of life must be present before the work of life is performed. The energy of life must be present before the work of life is performed. The energy of life is required to make the machinery of life. The machinery of life is required to make the energy. A impossible paradox. These hurdles can not be overcome. The motions that atheists go through to try and justify their belief system, is paramount to chasing ones tale. A short tale to boot. May I suggest a different course? Sign up for a theology course next semester! Thinking outside the box, and not accepting what goes for conventional wisdom allowed me to come up with two proofs against Darwinism just this month. Maybe I’ll reveal them later.

Laura Branigan wrote: While astrologers are not being imprisoned and killed, there does exist an element of privilege in astronomy relative to astronomy.

Laura Branigan wrote: Why do astronomers get all of the good academic jobs and government advisory positions while stargazers who follow the astrological paradigm are excluded.

Laura Branigan wrote: What would you think of an America that excluded all non-Christians from positions of power but nevertheless allowed them to practice unmolested?

Laura Branigan wrote: Why can't science be free like religion?

Laura Branigan wrote: Our ancestors believed the sky (Jove) and the sea (Neptune) had intentionality. This might have lead them down some wrong paths but there is much we have lost from the abandonment of this perspective.

While astrologers are not being imprisoned and killed, there does exist an element of privilege in astronomy relative to astronomy. Why do astronomers get all of the good academic jobs and government advisory positions while stargazers who follow the astrological paradigm are excluded.

What would you think of an America that excluded all non-Christians from positions of power but nevertheless allowed them to practice unmolested? Why can’t science be free like religion?

Laura Branigan said: While astrologers are not being imprisoned and killed, there does exist an element of privilege in astronomy relative to astronomy. Why do astronomers get all of the good academic jobs and government advisory positions while stargazers who follow the astrological paradigm are excluded.

Our ancestors believed the sky (Jove) and the sea (Neptune) had intentionality. This might have lead them down some wrong paths but there is much we have lost from the abandonment of this perspective.

Laura Branigan said:

similar persecution of astrologers by the astronomy

More wacko babbling. I'm unaware of any persecution of astrologers by astronomers or anyone for that matter. I can get a dozen horoscopes off the internet and in the newspapers every day. Do you have a source for your delusions or did you just make them up yourself?

While astrologers are not being imprisoned and killed, there does exist an element of privilege in astronomy relative to astronomy. Why do astronomers get all of the good academic jobs and government advisory positions while stargazers who follow the astrological paradigm are excluded.

Laura Branigan said: What would you think of an America that excluded all non-Christians from positions of power but nevertheless allowed them to practice unmolested?

Laura Branigan said: Why can't science be free like religion?

Laura Branigan said: The problem is anybody who challenges their paradigm leads them into hyperscreech.

Laura Branigan put on her tinfoil hat:

Alveno babbled: [bunch of worthless crap cut for length]

The problem is anybody who challenges their paradigm leads them into hyperscreech. The mystery of the life force lies beyond the constraints of the Darwinian paradigm that treats all things as matter in motion with no room for goals and purposes.

Laura Branigan babbled: Our ancestors believed the sky (Jove) and the sea (Neptune) had intentionality. This might have lead them down some wrong paths but there is much we have lost from the abandonment of this perspective.

Alveno said: Thinking outside the box, and not accepting what goes for conventional wisdom allowed me to come up with two proofs against Darwinism just this month. Maybe I’ll reveal them later.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: You can see how far down the wrong track Biology has got, simply because people couldn't wait to get on the lemming cart.

sylvilagus said:

Laura Branigan said: The problem is anybody who challenges their paradigm leads them into hyperscreech.

Laura - Seriously, this just isn't true.

sylvilagus said: I'm not a scientist but have been lurking around here for years educating myself. I find most of the scientists here to be extremely patient with honest open-minded questions.

sylvilagus said: Most even respond nicely when they are challenged, so long as the challenger is willing to listen, to present evidence, and to at least consider the possibility that he/she might be wrong.

sylvilagus said: Your problem is that from the beginning you began pontificating... loudly telling everyone how wrong they are and refusing to even listen when others tried, politely, to point out your mistakes. It is clear from your post that you have strong feelings about this topic; its too bad that you don't have equally strong morals... a truly moral open-minded person would be more polite than you have been, would be willing to learn rather than always tell others they are wrong.

sylvilagus said: It is obvious from your posts that despite your strong feelings, you actually have very little knowledge or understanding of the issues involved.

sylvilagus said: Yet you feel justified in ranting at those who have spent they lives learning and investigating subjects that you have only just begun to grasp. I know its hard to admit ignorance, but the fact is, the scientists here are truly much better informed than you are. I would recommend just listening in and learning for a while. Who knows, you might even find that you learn how to ask polite questions rather than just attack everything that runs against your preconceived, and rather uninformed, ideas. I sincerely wish you Good Luck with furthering your scientific and moral education.

Laura Branigan said: Only becuase the state-supported scientific community has monopolized "truth" for its own benefit.

neo-anti-luddite: Like human sacrifice. Damn, I miss human sacrifice.…

On the efficacy of Astrology:

Many decades ago, upon my late Uncle's decease, I was permitted to loot his personal library. Amongst the treasures I took home was Max Heindel's immortal classic work, Simplified Scientific Astrology. (Those in the Gallery will kindly restrain their guffaws.)

Since my Uncle had obtained the work as part of a correspondence course in Astrology, there was included a set of worksheets and copies of correspondence attendant upon his submitting the monthly packet of exercises for grading and correction.

I spent a couple of weeks during one summer vacation looking through the book; I learned enough to cast simple horoscopes. My mistake at that point was deviating toward the "Scientific" side and attempting to correlate the results with observable reality.

The outcome was about as promising as using a dime for a roadmap, as Donald Duck once did when he became a "Flippist".

Those who wish to recreate this refreshing experience can find the online updated version of the work here.

Henry J said:

neo-anti-luddite: Like human sacrifice. Damn, I miss human sacrifice.…

Does that mean you used to live in a place where that was practiced? ;)

Oddly enough, folks like Laura wallow comfortably in the scientific paradigm even while snapping ignorantly at every hand that feeds her. You’d think if she hates the tree so violently, she wouldn’t gobble its fruits so greedily. I suppose this is one of many reasons why creationists cannot be honest.

Shebardigan said: On the efficacy of Astrology: ... Those who wish to recreate this refreshing experience can find the online updated version of the work here.

The problem is anybody who challenges their paradigm leads them into hyperscreech.

Laura - Seriously, this just isn't true. I'm not a scientist but have been lurking around here for years educating myself. I find most of the scientists here to be extremely patient with honest open-minded questions. Most even respond nicely when they are challenged, so long as the challenger is willing to listen, to present evidence, and to at least consider the possibility that he/she might be wrong. Your problem is that from the beginning you began pontificating... loudly telling everyone how wrong they are and refusing to even listen when others tried, politely, to point out your mistakes. It is clear from your post that you have strong feelings about this topic; its too bad that you don't have equally strong morals... a truly moral open-minded person would be more polite than you have been, would be willing to learn rather than always tell others they are wrong. It is obvious from your posts that despite your strong feelings, you actually have very little knowledge or understanding of the issues involved. Yet you feel justified in ranting at those who have spent they lives learning and investigating subjects that you have only just begun to grasp. I know its hard to admit ignorance, but the fact is, the scientists here are truly much better informed than you are. I would recommend just listening in and learning for a while. Who knows, you might even find that you learn how to ask polite questions rather than just attack everything that runs against your preconceived, and rather uninformed, ideas. I sincerely wish you Good Luck with furthering your scientific and moral education.

Laura Branigan said: The problem is anybody who challenges their paradigm

Laura Branigan said: The mystery of the life force lies beyond the constraints of the Darwinian paradigm that treats all things as matter in motion with no room for goals and purposes.

I have also learned quantum physics from the documentary “What the Bleep don’t we know.”

Dan said: the lemming myth

Laura Branigan wrote: Well, I am not completely unschooled. I have read the works of science experts across the religious and political spectrum such as Paul Feyerabend, Michael Foucault, Phil Johnson, and Deepak Chopra, and I have also learned quantum physics from the documentary "What the Bleep don't we know." If I seem rude I'm sorry. For a long time I was locked in a small room and force fed foul-tasting pills and nobody paid any other attention to me unless I got really, really angry.

I thought so too. I think Laura is getting OJT in the operation of Poe's Law.

Laura Branigan said: Well, I am not completely unschooled. I have read the works of science experts across the religious and political spectrum such as Paul Feyerabend, Michael Foucault, Phil Johnson, and Deepak Chopra, and I have also learned quantum physics from the documentary "What the Bleep don't we know." If I seem rude I'm sorry. For a long time I was locked in a small room and force fed foul-tasting pills and nobody paid any other attention to me unless I got really, really angry.

I have read the works of science experts across the religious and political spectrum such as Paul Feyerabend, Michael Foucault, Phil Johnson, and Deepak Chopra, and I have also learned quantum physics from the documentary “What the Bleep don’t we know.”

Laura Branigan said: Well, I am not completely unschooled. I have read the works of science experts across the religious and political spectrum such as Paul Feyerabend, Michael Foucault, Phil Johnson, and Deepak Chopra, and I have also learned quantum physics from the documentary "What the Bleep don't we know." If I seem rude I'm sorry.

One of the most important experiments in evolution is going on right now in a laboratory in Michigan State University. A dozen flasks full of E. coli are sloshing around on a gently rocking table. The bacteria in those flasks has been evolving since 1988--for over 44,000 generations. And because they've been so carefully observed all that time, they've revealed some important lessons about how evolution works.

He kept each of these 12 lines in its own flask. Each day he and his colleagues provided the bacteria with a little glucose, which was gobbled up by the afternoon. The next morning, the scientists took a small sample from each flask and put it in a new one with fresh glucose. And on and on and on, for 20 years and running.

To gauge the flukiness of the citrate-eaters, Blount and Lenski replayed evolution. They grew new populations from 12 time points in the 33,000-generations of pre-citrate-eating bacteria. They let the bacteria evolve for thousands of generations, monitoring them for any signs of citrate-eating. They then transferred the bacteria to Petri dishes with nothing but citrate to eat. All told, they tested 40 trillion cells.

Zimmer: After 33,127 generations Lenski and his students noticed something strange in one of the colonies. The flask started to turn cloudy. This happens sometimes when contaminating bacteria slip into a flask and start feeding on a compound in the broth known as citrate. Citrate is made up of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen; it's essentially the same as the citric acid that makes lemons tart. Our own cells produce citrate in the long chain of chemical reactions that lets us draw energy from food. Many species of bacteria can eat citrate, but in an oxygen-rich environment like Lenski's lab, E. coli can't. The problem is that the bacteria can't pull the molecule in through their membranes. In fact, their failure has long been one of the defining hallmarks of E. coli as a species.

Genetica. 2003 Jul;118(2-3):143-56. Links The EBG system of E. coli: origin and evolution of a novel beta-galactosidase for the metabolism of lactose.Hall BG. Biology Department, Hutchinson Hall, River Campus, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627-0211, USA. The EBG system of E. coli has served as a model for the evolution of novel functions. This paper reviews the experimental evolution of the catabolism of beta-galactoside sugars in strains of E. coli that carry deletions of the classical lacZ beta-galactosidase gene. Evolution of the ebgA encoded Ebg beta-galactosidase for an expanded substrate range, evolution of the ebgR encoded Ebg repressor for sensitivity to an expanded range of inducers, the amino acid replacements responsible for those changes, and the evolutionary potential of the system are discussed. The EBG system has also served as a model for studying the detailed catalytic consequences of experimental evolution at the physical-chemical level. The analysis of free-energy profiles for the wildtype and all of the various evolved Ebg enzymes has permitted rejection of the Albery-Knowles hypothesis that relates likely changes in free-energy profiles to evolutionary change.

When you say the beta-galactosidease gene was "deleted," was it removed entirely from the genome, or was it mutated into silence?

was it [beta gal.] removed entirely from the genome, or was it mutated into silence?

Gary Hurd said: I think that Laura has trolled you all with an amazing skill.

I think that Laura has trolled you all with an amazing skill.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said:

Dan said: the lemming myth

OT on abiogenesis, but lemmings are cute. IIRC one of the reasons for swarming (of locusts) is possibly that they start to attack each other when the population becomes too dense, for food in some cases. Presumably they want to get out of the way. Another myth born and perpetuated out of ignorance, or worse.

Gary Hurd said: I think that Laura has trolled you all with an amazing skill.

Stanton said: The lemming stampede myth was propagated primarily by Walt Disney and Carl Banks

Laura Branigan said: The scientists have become so estranged to their own emotions they are not even aware of their existence.

I've nearly finished my second-last semester of my ecology major and it's been a very emotional time. I've run the full spectra of pride and shame in my own work, admiration and envy of my fellow student's work, fascination and boredom in the lectures. I've also been feeling a lot of gratitude towards my teachers (all scientists) for their understanding and support. I think a good scientist should always be aware of his or her emotions, lest they get in the way of rationality and objectivity.

Sorry, buggered that first one up. Anyway, just wanted to reply to Laura's early comments about science and emotions.

I've nearly finished the second-last semester of my ecology major and it's been a very emotional time. I ran the full spectrum of pride and shame (my assignments), admiration and envy (other students' assignments) and fascination and boredom (mainly the population genetics lectures). I've also felt a lot of gratitude towards many lecturers and tutors (all scientists) for being so supportive and understanding and towards my fellow students for being great friends.

I think scientists should always be in touch with their emotions, otherwise they might cloud their objectivity and rationality.

Not too many people are coming to this thread anymore, but I thought this was important enough to pass along.

There is new evidence that life on Earth originated from meteorites hitting the Earth!

That appears to be talking about the chemicals needed for life (as we know it) rather than life itself (i.e., it isn't raining cats and dogs after all :) ).

Henry

Of course you are correct Henry! (I need to learn how to better communicate what I am trying to say!)

It's still pretty cool though. :-)

Don't forget Stacy, darwinists say people, animals and plants all came from rock (i.e. the alleged primal earth).

"The origin of animals [like . . . pandas] is almost as much a mystery as the origin of life itself." - P.C.J. Donoghue, Embryonic identity crisis, Nature v 445, Jan. 11, 2007, p. 155

As for the Moon's origin, atheists have their idea of the lunar collision "4.5 billion yrs ago" by a Mars-sized object. But there's a serious problems with this regarding how a ring of debris actually will come together into a moon. Other physical problems include earth's Roche limit (Lissauer, 1997). "There is no strong geochemical support for either the Giant Impact or Impact-triggered Fission hypothesis (Ruzicka, A, et al., International Geology Review 40, 1998).
There's also the problem of lunar heat. In 1965 Gamow (p. 41-42) said the moon must be cold throughout. But lunar mapping by the Clementine satellite showed, "Most likely, part of the rock is still molten" (Kerr, Science 264:1666).

It's almost like the Moon was created, Stacy. There's a consistent sequence of integer numbers when looking at every major aspect of the moon. Not so with other moons or planets in our solar system.

windar 007 said: Don't forget Stacy, darwinists say people, animals and plants all came from rock (i.e. the alleged primal earth).

"The origin of animals [like . . . pandas] is almost as much a mystery as the origin of life itself." - P.C.J. Donoghue, Embryonic identity crisis, Nature v 445, Jan. 11, 2007, p. 155

As for the Moon's origin, atheists have their idea of the lunar collision "4.5 billion yrs ago" by a Mars-sized object. But there's a serious problems with this regarding how a ring of debris actually will come together into a moon. Other physical problems include earth's Roche limit (Lissauer, 1997). "There is no strong geochemical support for either the Giant Impact or Impact-triggered Fission hypothesis (Ruzicka, A, et al., International Geology Review 40, 1998). There's also the problem of lunar heat. In 1965 Gamow (p. 41-42) said the moon must be cold throughout. But lunar mapping by the Clementine satellite showed, "Most likely, part of the rock is still molten" (Kerr, Science 264:1666).

It's almost like the Moon was created, Stacy. There's a consistent sequence of integer numbers when looking at every major aspect of the moon. Not so with other moons or planets in our solar system.

(Sigh). No. Biochemists - not "darwinists", there's no such thing - mostly say that life probably began through the action of solar energy on organic molecules in a mildly reducing atmosphere. Notice the qualifiers, because unlike someone whose opinions were grafted on them in childhood, the scientists don't know for sure. The evidence, a concept with which windar 007 is unfamiliar, is scant and difficult to interpret. They're working to find out, though. There are several possible explanations.

As for the moon, which is apparently devoid of life, biochemists and biologists have nothing to say at all. The question of how it got there doesn't concern them, in a professional sense, though no doubt they are curious, as scientists are generally. But most scientists have the elementary good sense not to comment on matters they know nothing about.

For what it's worth, the origin and history of the earth's moon is not known. There are several competing theories among astrophysicists and astronomers. But just because the moon's origins are not known doesn't mean that one fine day God decided to give the earth a moon and poof, there it was. God seems mostly to work through natural processes and reasonable causation. I don't know why windar 007 thinks the moon's an exception.

Yeah, it's that other book that says life came from rock (dust = crushed rock).

On the other hand, most of the molecules in our bodies probably were part of some rock at some time in the past. ;)

Henry