Report on virtual workshop on origin of life

I only could grab snippets of the talks, but from what I saw, I was quite impressed both with the presentation format, and the information presented in the talks themselves.

I'm very much looking forward to grabbing permanent copies of some of the talks once they become available.

The only thing that was a problem for me, and likely that's personal, was that this format makes it a bit too easy to get distracted by other things, and I kinda miss the personal interaction with speakers you get at an "in the flesh" conference.

no chance for followups, either, really.

Still, I think this format has quite a lot going for it. I would not like to see it replace actual conferences, but would very much like to see this as a regular addition.

Does anyone know if this is indeed an experiment in replacement? or is it actually intended to be an add-on experience?

Well, several papers came very close to meeting Behe’s [ridiculous] demands

fixed.

;)

Thank you for this idea.

Such a great workshop! Thanks so much to the organizer who did such a fantastic job, and to NAI for hosting such an awesome event!!

The talks were great. I am glad to see so much in the chat bar - particularly references to related work. It is great to see side discussions in real time. Hopefully the chat will be available to reference later, there was a lot of great information in the chat in addition to in the talks.

To address Ichthyic's comment, I think the format is intended to be an add-on experience to stimulate discussion and collaboration among researchers at different institutions. However I think the format is great for other reasons. Primarily that 1) It gives a fantastic update of current research in the field and 2) it is accessible to people everywhere - widening the the audience that would normally attend such an event. To reiterate what others have been saying about the workshop - it is certainly not a replacement for conferences where people meet face-to-face and often some of the best conversations occur over coffee or in corridors. Those types of interactions are great for building new collaborations, which is more difficult to do within the format of an online workshop. However, the format is obviously a great addition to the normal routine! (and I do think new collaborations are coming out of the workshop - another great outcome!)

Nice work organizing committee and NAI!

Welcome!

We just got promoted by the NASA coordinators.

Question from my boundless ignorance: the title and announced subject seem mutually contradictory. Origin of life research is one thing and molecular reconstruction quite another. The latter can get us back, at best, to the last common ancestor. But this isn't anywhere near the origin of life. Were presentations on either one subject or the other, with no attempt to make explicit connection? Or was there actually some way to relate reconstruction efforts to the origin of life, and if so, how would that be done?

A number of papers presented today used the notion of "network connectedness." But there are several kinds of network connectedness, at least in the graph theory study of networks.

John Harshman said: Question from my boundless ignorance: the title and announced subject seem mutually contradictory. Origin of life research is one thing and molecular reconstruction quite another. The latter can get us back, at best, to the last common ancestor. But this isn't anywhere near the origin of life. Were presentations on either one subject or the other, with no attempt to make explicit connection? Or was there actually some way to relate reconstruction efforts to the origin of life, and if so, how would that be done?

Hi, Wendy Dolci from the NASA Astrobiology Institute central office here. Glad to see this discussion about the Workshop Without Walls! We'll take note of any suggestions posted, and consider them for next time. Thanks for joining us for the workshop!

I find the abstracts fascinating, but don't have time during the day to pay attention. Will the full presentations be available at some point?

Thanks.

Man oh man

It was such a great time to spend just listening to scientists talking science.

I spend so much time with creationists that my brain was melting

@Loren Williams

I really enjoyed your talk. It seems to me that the first AAs were the so-called "Miller" amino acids. They are the most readily formed, and for the most part they abotically form in a racemic mix. Leaning heavily on Gramicidin A as a model, why not have racemic peptides form abiotically, and then be "copied" by RNA.

John Harshman said: Question from my boundless ignorance: the title and announced subject seem mutually contradictory. Origin of life research is one thing and molecular reconstruction quite another. The latter can get us back, at best, to the last common ancestor. But this isn't anywhere near the origin of life. Were presentations on either one subject or the other, with no attempt to make explicit connection? Or was there actually some way to relate reconstruction efforts to the origin of life, and if so, how would that be done?

Wendy Dolci said: Hi, Wendy Dolci from the NASA Astrobiology Institute central office here. Glad to see this discussion about the Workshop Without Walls! We'll take note of any suggestions posted, and consider them for next time. Thanks for joining us for the workshop!

Most of my directly relevant work was the trace element composition of clay. This turns out to matter when we look at the papers regarding minerals and the origin of life.

One question for the presenters of papers regarding montmorillonite and OOL is have you looked at the heavy metal substitution centers in the clay crystal?

I did see much of this and found many of the talks fascinating. Of course, the last one (by Williams) remains the most memorable, perhaps due to a short attention span on my part.

I am left wondering whether anyone has linked the layers of the ribosomal onion to the correction of amino acid insertion errors which, as I recall, is powered by GTP hydrolysis. Which proteins are involved and in which layer is it located? More generally, which new functionalities appear with each layer? Where in the tunnel is it located?

Hi All,

We are noting your comments to improve the format of future workshops - increased discussion time is a top suggestion. Please help us capture others by taking the survey at: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/ool-www

Gary Hurd said: @Loren Williams I really enjoyed your talk. It seems to me that the first AAs were the so-called "Miller" amino acids. They are the most readily formed, and for the most part they abotically form in a racemic mix. Leaning heavily on Gramicidin A as a model, why not have racemic peptides form abiotically, and then be "copied" by RNA.

As one of the organizers of the meeting, I cannot say enough about the people at the NASA Astrobiology Institute. The provided all the infrastructure and expertise, etc.

I'll second the desire to see the talks posted later if possible. I had to teach during most of hte conference times, and missed a lot of the ones I was really interested in. I did wow my 7th graders with a couple of minutes of a live science conference for the fun of it.

Loren Williams said: There is debate about the appropriateness of reductive during the miller experiments. So those miller ratios are not a gold standard.

Well, maybe someone will come along.

Gary Hurd said: @Loren Williams I really enjoyed your talk. It seems to me that the first AAs were the so-called "Miller" amino acids. They are the most readily formed, and for the most part they abotically form in a racemic mix. Leaning heavily on Gramicidin A as a model, why not have racemic peptides form abiotically, and then be "copied" by RNA.

Loren Williams said: There is no back copying of peptide to RNA. But if you can come up with a mechanism for it, I am all ears.

A few years ago, creationist Mike Behe wrote, “Professor Bottaro, perhaps sensing that the paper he cites won’t be persuasive to people who are skeptical of Darwinian claims, laments that ‘Behe and other ID advocates will retreat further and further into impossible demands, such as asking for mutation-by-mutation accounts of specific evolutionary pathways…’ Well, yes, of course that’s exactly what I ask of Darwinian claims–a mutation-by-mutation account of critical steps (which will likely be very, very many), at the amino acid level.” And Behe then demanded, “…not only a list of mutations, but also a detailed account of the selective pressures that would be operating, the difficulties such changes would cause for the organism, the expected time scale over which the changes would be expected to occur, the likely population sizes available in the relevant ancestral species at each step, other potential ways to solve the problem which might interfere, and much more.”

Great experience! I "attended" most of the talks, and will try to find the video for the ones I missed. Some talks were better than others, of course. Some presenters make complicated material simple, and some make material more complicated than it needs to be. I feel that speakers should do a better job of providing background information early in the talk for those of use less familiar with the material. Some were very good about this, and some just jumped into their data. A well made slide can make all the difference.

JGB said: I'll second the desire to see the talks posted later if possible. I had to teach during most of hte conference times, and missed a lot of the ones I was really interested in. I did wow my 7th graders with a couple of minutes of a live science conference for the fun of it.

I did many years of clay trace element chemistry- all before STM. What I would do today would be a trace element analysis of montmorillonite to identify reaction sites. Then I'd look at marine clays like attapulgite.

Betul Arslan said: JGB said: I'll second the desire to see the talks posted later if possible. I had to teach during most of hte conference times, and missed a lot of the ones I was really interested in. I did wow my 7th graders with a couple of minutes of a live science conference for the fun of it.

John Hewitt said: I did see much of this and found many of the talks fascinating. Of course, the last one (by Williams) remains the most memorable, perhaps due to a short attention span on my part. I am left wondering whether anyone has linked the layers of the ribosomal onion to the correction of amino acid insertion errors which, as I recall, is powered by GTP hydrolysis. Which proteins are involved and in which layer is it located? More generally, which new functionalities appear with each layer? Where in the tunnel is it located?

Hi George,
Good talk, thanks.
Loren

The NAI has posted day 1 recordings on the website and will be posting the rest over the next day or 2.

http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/nai/ool-www/program/

How long will the videos of these talks be available online?

Ha, ha, Behe, ha ha! Seriously? Science has to satisfy the delusions of a washed-up, D-list creationist professor of freshman biochemistry at a podunk (sorry Lehigh) university? Really?

I'd say, "Thank you, Dr. Dark Ages, why don't you get a cup of tea and take your meds."

Although, I would like to thank Dr. Behe for giving us the Kitzmiller victory. That was actually pretty cool and very generous.

Loren Williams said:

John Harshman said: Question from my boundless ignorance: the title and announced subject seem mutually contradictory. Origin of life research is one thing and molecular reconstruction quite another. The latter can get us back, at best, to the last common ancestor. But this isn't anywhere near the origin of life. Were presentations on either one subject or the other, with no attempt to make explicit connection? Or was there actually some way to relate reconstruction efforts to the origin of life, and if so, how would that be done?

Hi John, This is Loren Williams from the meeting. What you are saying is not quite right. For example the aa-synthetases went through a series of gene duplication events prior to luca. The record of those is very clear (see Koonin). So we can resurrect, if we like, aa-synthetases from beyond luca. Everything beyond luca is not washed out. Loren

suggestions:

-a formalized "coffee room" that is distinct from the chat window where questions are asked of individual presenters.

-some way of being able to control which windows are open in the application. sometimes, I would have liked to close the window that showed the video conference room, as I'm repeatedly in areas with low bandwidth, and would have liked to just focus all of my bandwidth on the speaker's presentation window and voice.

-vary the talk lengths; have some be 30 mins, some 45, some 1 hr. Not all information is presentable in a short time window, OTOH some people only need 20 mins to present a nice view of what they want to share.

this will allow people more flexibility in their talks.

-add a poster session area.

-add a period of formal discussion each day for presenters to discuss each others work, NOT open to general questions, but observable by everyone. IMO, this is a great way to learn about areas of interest that aren't one's own specialty, because good questions are hard to ask if one isn't entirely familiar with the material. I often learn tons by listening to those who know more than I about any given field discuss relevant issues.

Overall, I'm extremely impressed with how smoothly this went, with very few glitches. Hell, I've seen more glitches with standard slide projectors!

congrats!

If there’s an RNA world, before protein, then no protein can tell us anything about that, for example.

sure it can!

think about it this way:

if you start with a Ford factory, it's pretty unlikely your first vehicle is gonna be an airplane.

IOW, what we know about early proteins WILL inform us as to what the framework precursors were, and what the constraints were.

Or am I misunderstanding what you were looking for? Because AFAIK, there is no other way to approach this issue.

Ichthyic said: I've seen more glitches with standard slide projectors! congrats!

I once was about to give a conference talk, and the slide tray dropped, and all my slides dumpted onto the floor.

I recall giving a talk once where someone must have spilled something on, or just never cleaned, an older model slide projector, and it literally caught on fire* during my talk (those old slide bulbs get HOT!).

I only lost 1 or 2 slides, but still...

*seriously! there must have been lint buildup or something, which caught on the lamp, and then caught the slide tray on fire.

Ichthyic said: I recall giving a talk once where someone must have spilled something on, or just never cleaned, an older model slide projector, and it literally caught on fire* during my talk (those old slide bulbs get HOT!).

I'll go with "lose" on that one.

...for more amusing anecdotes of destruction, let me tell you how I lost my car on 90 mile beach sometime.

:p

hell, I know I've been meaning to email you for a while now; I'll toss that one in there, since it happened my first year here in NZ.

LUCA is not an event horizon, not at all. For example part of ribosomal protein L2 is clearly older than LUCA, and is a fossil of proto-protein. What is to stop us from resurrecting it? Nothing, because we already have done it. And we can resurrect the RNA, too. The core of the ribosome (LSU) comes from pre-coded protein world. We can resurrect that, and study it and test predictions. In fact that is exactly what we are doing.

Loren Williams said: LUCA is not an event horizon, not at all. For example part of ribosomal protein L2 is clearly older than LUCA, and is a fossil of proto-protein. What is to stop us from resurrecting it? Nothing, because we already have done it. And we can resurrect the RNA, too. The core of the ribosome (LSU) comes from pre-coded protein world. We can resurrect that, and study it and test predictions. In fact that is exactly what we are doing.

My group of 7th graders seemed pretty receptive. Unfortunately it was a very spur of the moment decision, and it's a chemistry class, so it was hard to tie it in too much with Kosuke Fushijima's talk. I mostly just wanted them to get a peak and let them know that were building the skills they need to be able to get something out of a talk like that in a couple of years.

With the other talks posted now I'm going to take a look and see if I can find some segments for my 9th grade biology students. Especially since we're almost to trimester 2, which means 10 weeks on evolution and classification!

But does it illuminate the origin of life? That I’m not sure.

I repeat, consider the issue of constraints.

that is all.

Jumping in to John and Loren's discussion, I think it remains to be seen what kind of resolution we can get of the reconstructions. There is so much to be learned just doing 1st level reconstructions on a single molecule (or similar group), who can really predict what insights might happen down the road if we can start putting together larger chunks of reconstructed biochemistry? Ultimately, I think Loren's is right it's not an event horizon, but digging deeper does present some big challenges.

Mike Elzinga said: How long will the videos of these talks be available online?

John, I like Carl Woese's description of LUCA. It is a diverse population of microbes just prior to speciation. It is not a homogeneous population. And I don't think it makes sense to think about the LUCA of a single gene or polymer (RNA or protein).

This is the Woese paper
Woese CR (2000) Interpreting the Universal Phylogenetic Tree. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 97(15):8392-8396.

"The root of the universal phylogenetic tree represents the first stage in cellular evolution when the evolving cell became sufficiently integrated and stable to the erosive effects of horizontal gene transfer that true organismal lineages could exist."

Or was there actually some way to relate reconstruction efforts to the origin of life, and if so, how would that be done?

Ichthyic said: suggestions: -a formalized "coffee room" that is distinct from the chat window where questions are asked of individual presenters. -some way of being able to control which windows are open in the application. sometimes, I would have liked to close the window that showed the video conference room, as I'm repeatedly in areas with low bandwidth, and would have liked to just focus all of my bandwidth on the speaker's presentation window and voice. -vary the talk lengths; have some be 30 mins, some 45, some 1 hr. Not all information is presentable in a short time window, OTOH some people only need 20 mins to present a nice view of what they want to share. this will allow people more flexibility in their talks. -add a poster session area. -add a period of formal discussion each day for presenters to discuss each others work, NOT open to general questions, but observable by everyone. IMO, this is a great way to learn about areas of interest that aren't one's own specialty, because good questions are hard to ask if one isn't entirely familiar with the material. I often learn tons by listening to those who know more than I about any given field discuss relevant issues. Overall, I'm extremely impressed with how smoothly this went, with very few glitches. Hell, I've seen more glitches with standard slide projectors! congrats!

Loren Williams said:

Mike Elzinga said: How long will the videos of these talks be available online?

Indefinitely, I think.

Loren Williams said:

Mike Elzinga said: How long will the videos of these talks be available online?

Indefinitely, I think.

The Panda's Thumb would be a great place for the "coffee room" on the next set of talks.

I think we could get more partisipation if there is a thread open from the start of the meeting.

Any non-recombining bit of the genome must have a single most recent common ancestor. Homology among duplicated genes in fact relies on this. My contention is that these various common ancestors must all postdate the origin of life by some considerable degree. I think it's overselling a quite valuable technique to claim otherwise. That's all.

Did anybody else notice? Not one anti-evolution comment (yet) from FL or Byers or other creationist ignorami. They're probably all sitting there with their hands over their ears, singing "lalala.."

Loren Williams said: The NAI has posted day 1 recordings on the website and will be posting the rest over the next day or 2. http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/nai/ool-www/program/

Paul Burnett said: Did anybody else notice? Not one anti-evolution comment (yet) from FL or Byers or other creationist ignorami. They're probably all sitting there with their hands over their ears, singing "lalala.."

I am curious why one or two of the first day presentations are not online. Was there a technical issue, or did the presenter object?

For example, 4:20 pm – 4:40 pm EST
"Making Sense of Life’s Amino Acid Alphabet"
Steve Freeland
University of Hawaii

A good paper (as I recall) that I would like to look at again.

Gary Hurd said: The Panda's Thumb would be a great place for the "coffee room" on the next set of talks. I think we could get more partisipation if there is a thread open from the start of the meeting.

Mike Elzinga said:

Gary Hurd said: The Panda's Thumb would be a great place for the "coffee room" on the next set of talks. I think we could get more partisipation if there is a thread open from the start of the meeting.

That would be great provided that any derailing trolls be sent to the Bathroom Wall immediately and kept there if they continue to throw feces.

I'll bet none of the "Greats" from ID turned up to listen. They base all of their information based on papers from the '70s

Michael J said: I'll bet none of the "Greats" from ID turned up to listen. They base all of their information based on papers from the '70s

Gary Hurd said:

Michael J said: I'll bet none of the "Greats" from ID turned up to listen. They base all of their information based on papers from the '70s

There were several papers that were directly, and thoroughly devastating to Steve Meyer's execrable book, "Signature in the Cell."

Did anybody else notice? Not one anti-evolution comment (yet) from FL or Byers or other creationist ignorami. They’re probably all sitting there with their hands over their ears, singing “lalala..”

"...much remains unanswered"

FL said: However, for me, it's always interesting to check out the professional evolutionists' efforts regarding the origin-of-life issue, and so this is a good thread. FL

The Panda’s Thumb would be a great place for the “coffee room” on the next set of talks.

I'd be thinking some sort of area where we could set up something like ventrilo to organize group chats and whatnot.

http://www.ventrilo.com/

I played WoW for a month, and I quickly got bored of it, but one thing I did pick up was the value and ease of setting up voice conferencing with that software.

very easy to set up infinite channels for group discussions, public or private.

Prebiotic evolution remains “the weakest strut in the chassis of modern biology” (John Horgan), and honestly, this virtual workshop doesn’t change that status at all.

actually, I technically don't disagree with FL here. It IS the weakest area of modern biology.

...what FL misses is that considering we just saw an entire conference on it, with dozens and dozens of individual presenters talking about peer-reviewed published work, what does that say about the rest of biology, including evolution, that is 4 or 5 orders of magnitude more established already in the literature?

If an endeavor is only as strong as its weakest link, why then FL is admitting that the ToE is essentially indisputable, based on the amount of work done on it.

somehow, I think he'll entirely miss the implications, though.

shocker.

Mike Elzinga said:

FL said: However, for me, it's always interesting to check out the professional evolutionists' efforts regarding the origin-of-life issue, and so this is a good thread. FL

It is a good thread. But no one here believes it is “always interesting” to you. Too bad you haven’t picked up on why ID/creationist snarking about good research is completely bogus. And you still haven’t been able to justify the pseudo-science of your ID heroes. So just try to learn something instead of always trying to show off. We are already totally aware of your ignorance.

…what FL misses

FL would sooner kill and eat his own children than make an honest attempt to learn science, or anything else that is even the slightest contrary to whatever his spiritual handlers have programmed into him.

And sadly, some parents HAVE killed their own children for failure to swallow the spiritual requirements.

and not just the children...

Asia Bibi has been sentenced to death for blasphemy.

If folks like Byers or FL got their way, in a couple of generations, this is what the US would be like too.

Ichthyic said: Prebiotic evolution remains “the weakest strut in the chassis of modern biology” (John Horgan), and honestly, this virtual workshop doesn’t change that status at all. actually, I technically don't disagree with FL here. It IS the weakest area of modern biology. ...what FL misses is that considering we just saw an entire conference on it, with dozens and dozens of individual presenters talking about peer-reviewed published work, what does that say about the rest of biology, including evolution, that is 4 or 5 orders of magnitude more established already in the literature? If an endeavor is only as strong as its weakest link, why then FL is admitting that the ToE is essentially indisputable, based on the amount of work done on it. somehow, I think he'll entirely miss the implications, though. shocker.

I wouldn’t call it weak; I would call it one of the most challenging parts of the overall program.

you say potato(e)

:)

besides my usage of "weak" was entirely relative, not an absolute descriptive statement.

FL would sooner kill and eat his own children than make an honest attempt to learn science, or anything else that is even the slightest contrary to whatever his spiritual handlers have programmed into him. And sadly, some parents HAVE killed their own children for failure to swallow the spiritual requirements. and not just the children… Asia Bibi has been sentenced to death for blasphemy. If folks like Byers or FL got their way, in a couple of generations, this is what the US would be like too.

Hey guys, it’s YOUR responsibility to keep this thread on topic.

because you're just an insensate puppy, pissing on the floor?

it's people like you that make me think that PT would NOT be a good place for a "coffee room" discussion regarding some conference.

while I admire Reed's efforts, the software here is not amenable to dealing with those who aren't properly housebroken.

Ichthyic said: I wouldn’t call it weak; I would call it one of the most challenging parts of the overall program. you say potato(e) :) besides my usage of "weak" was entirely relative, not an absolute descriptive statement.

Who could have guessed back then that political candidates would go downhill from there?

*sigh*

indeed.

well, it was one of the primary reasons I left. I could see the teabaggers coming 10 years ago.

sadly, I think it will only get worse, before it gets better.

this is so OT, but at this point, it seems anyone who had anything to say about the conference has done so.

FL said: Hey guys, it's YOUR responsibility to keep this thread on topic. If all you've offering is personal attacks, you may want to take it to the Bathroom Wall. Don't act a fool in front of the Virtual Workshop professional scientists. Let's keep things "sophisticated", as John K suggested. Like Mike E agreed, this IS a good thread....but that's true only if you make the choice to keep it topical. FL

If all you’ve offering is personal attacks

nonsense. If it were a personal attack, I would have said YOU would sponsor death for blasphemy if you had your way (well, assuming you actually don't... do you?)

instead, I distinctly noted that it would take a couple of generations of theocratic rule before that would likely happen.

see?

FL said:

FL would sooner kill and eat his own children than make an honest attempt to learn science, or anything else that is even the slightest contrary to whatever his spiritual handlers have programmed into him. And sadly, some parents HAVE killed their own children for failure to swallow the spiritual requirements. and not just the children… Asia Bibi has been sentenced to death for blasphemy. If folks like Byers or FL got their way, in a couple of generations, this is what the US would be like too.

Hey guys, it's YOUR responsibility to keep this thread on topic. If all you've offering is personal attacks, you may want to take it to the Bathroom Wall. Don't act a fool in front of the Virtual Workshop professional scientists. Let's keep things "sophisticated", as John K suggested. Like Mike E agreed, this IS a good thread....but that's true only if you make the choice to keep it topical. FL

FL said: Like Mike E agreed, this IS a good thread....but that's true only if you make the choice to keep it topical. FL

My hope is that we have some good discussions about this kind of research here on PT.

FL said:

Prebiotic evolution remains “the weakest strut in the chassis of modern biology” (John Horgan), and honestly, this virtual workshop doesn’t change that status at all.

FL said:

My hope is that we have some good discussions about this kind of research here on PT.

Don't merely "hope" it, Mike. DO it. Model it yourself, in your own posts, in your own tone, in your own attitude. Simply move past the tendency to indulge in personal attacks and personal hatreds, and choose to reflect the professional, ethical dialogue standards that the virtual workshop researchers (and a lot of professionals on all sides of the science and religion table) are practicing. Good coffee rooms, be they science-based, religion-based, or (like PandasThumb) a half-and-half mixture of both items, are a matter of choice, not chance. PT is clearly not a good coffee room at this time. (But that doesn't bother me, I'm here to stay anyway!). However, PT can become such a place, if it wants to be. It's just a matter of choice. FL

Loren Williams said:

FL said:

Prebiotic evolution remains “the weakest strut in the chassis of modern biology” (John Horgan), and honestly, this virtual workshop doesn’t change that status at all.

Hi FL, The subject of this meeting was origin of life - from the top down. So it was deliberately focused on what extant biology tells us about the origin of life, not on prebiotic chemistry per se. But we did have several talks devoted specifically to prebiotic chemistry. Nick Hud and Ram Krishnamurty both talked about the prebiotic origins of biopolymers. I am surprised to read that you think there is something weak about their science. Could you be specific? And John Horgan... Is he the guy who wrote 'The End of Science'? Could you refer us to some of his peer-reviewed papers on prebiotic chemistry? Thanks, Loren

However, PT can become such a place, if it wants to be. It's just a matter of choice.

condescension, ignorance AND stupidity.

what a package!

FL said:

My hope is that we have some good discussions about this kind of research here on PT.

Don't merely "hope" it, Mike. DO it. Model it yourself, in your own posts, in your own tone, in your own attitude. Simply move past the tendency to indulge in personal attacks and personal hatreds, and choose to reflect the professional, ethical dialogue standards that the virtual workshop researchers (and a lot of professionals on all sides of the science and religion table) are practicing. Good coffee rooms, be they science-based, religion-based, or (like PandasThumb) a half-and-half mixture of both items, are a matter of choice, not chance. PT is clearly not a good coffee room at this time. (But that doesn't bother me, I'm here to stay anyway!). However, PT can become such a place, if it wants to be. It's just a matter of choice. FL

Mike Elzinga said:

Ichthyic said: I wouldn’t call it weak; I would call it one of the most challenging parts of the overall program. you say potato(e) :) besides my usage of "weak" was entirely relative, not an absolute descriptive statement.

:-) Ah; Dan Quayle. Who could have guessed back then that political candidates would go downhill from there?

FL said: So again, much remains unanswered, and prebiotic evolution remains the weakest strut in the chassis of modern biology. Polls indicate that the majority of Americans favor intelligent design as the explanation of how life originated on Earth.

a majority of Americans favor intelligent design as the explanation

Paul Burnett said: Did anybody else notice? Not one anti-evolution comment (yet) from FL or Byers or other creationist ignorami. They're probably all sitting there with their hands over their ears, singing "lalala.."

Gary Hurd said:

Michael J said: I'll bet none of the "Greats" from ID turned up to listen. They base all of their information based on papers from the '70s

There were several papers that were directly, and thoroughly devastating to Steve Meyer's execrable book, "Signature in the Cell."

Steve P. said: Burnett just loves those taunting ways of his. I guess he hopes to deliver those ignoramuses right into Elzinga's hands, who is just salivating to line 'em up against the wall. Another dream team in the works. While he's busy tag teamin' with Elzinga, I think I will work on the third video.

Paul Burnett said: Did anybody else notice? Not one anti-evolution comment (yet) from FL or Byers or other creationist ignorami. They're probably all sitting there with their hands over their ears, singing "lalala.."

Steve P. said: Mr. Hurd, If you can handle the stench, could you please advise which presentations in particular you are referring to and what points specifically devastate Meyer's argument? Thanks in advance from this ID proponent.

Gary Hurd said:

Michael J said: I'll bet none of the "Greats" from ID turned up to listen. They base all of their information based on papers from the '70s

There were several papers that were directly, and thoroughly devastating to Steve Meyer's execrable book, "Signature in the Cell."

Of course, no matter what evidence is presented, Steve will still claim that there isn't sufficient detail. He will demand that science explain everything to his own satisfaction and he will refuse to be satisfied no matter what. He will then go on to claim that an appeal to supernatural forces must be invoked if there is the slightest thing that cannot be fully explained by science. Of course he will refuse to apply the same rigorous criteria to his own "alternative".

Oh well. At least he might learn something by watching the videos. Unless of course he just ridicules it because he doesn't understand it and can't be bothered to actually learn anything. Well we don't have to match his pathetic level of detail. Maybe we should just demand that he show us an actual picture of the actual signature in the cell. You know, something like:

GOD DID THIS (C) 4004 BC (Patent pending, not valid in Kentucky and parts of Canada)

ID is a bit outside of my field of expertise (science), but I think I once read something by Meyers or one of his colleagues about how the translation system is irreducibly complex and so could not have developed by natural selection. Since that is the focus of my research, I took notice. It is true that translation is outrageously complex, and meets all the requirements of an irreducibly complex system. Take away the large subunit or the small subunit or the mRNA or the rRNA or the ribosomal proteins or the tRNA or the ions or the amino acids or whatever and it does not work. But never-the-less, we have detailed models, discussed in the last session of the meeting (video posted soon), all supported by data, all experimentally accessible, for ribosomal origins and evolution. Koonin describes his model. Both Sternberg and Fox describe other aspects of models of ribosomal evolution, and so do I. All of us have published in this area (Wolf and Koonin, 2009; Fox, 2004; Bokov and Steinberg 2009, Hsiao and Williams 2009). Just by way of example, evidence for exaptation of the small subunit is overwhelming, and is accepted by everyone, as far as I know. Over the next years these models will be refined and extended (or in some cases discarded).

"ID is a bit outside of my field of expertise (science)..."

Beautiful. :-)

Loren,

Thanks for the information. Your research sounds fascinating. Perhaps you could post some references on the exaptation of the small ribosomal subunit if you have the time.

As for "everyone" accepting something, this is contrary to any experience with creationists. There is even one guy who denied that dolphin embryos have hind limbs while looking at a picture of them!

FL said:

FL would sooner kill and eat his own children than make an honest attempt to learn science, or anything else that is even the slightest contrary to whatever his spiritual handlers have programmed into him. And sadly, some parents HAVE killed their own children for failure to swallow the spiritual requirements. and not just the children… Asia Bibi has been sentenced to death for blasphemy. If folks like Byers or FL got their way, in a couple of generations, this is what the US would be like too.

Hey guys, it's YOUR responsibility to keep this thread on topic. If all you've offering is personal attacks, you may want to take it to the Bathroom Wall. Don't act a fool in front of the Virtual Workshop professional scientists. Let's keep things "sophisticated", as John K suggested. Like Mike E agreed, this IS a good thread....but that's true only if you make the choice to keep it topical. FL

Steve P. said: Mr. Hurd, If you can handle the stench, could you please advise which presentations in particular you are referring to and what points specifically devastate Meyer's argument? Thanks in advance from this ID proponent.

Gary Hurd said:

Michael J said: I'll bet none of the "Greats" from ID turned up to listen. They base all of their information based on papers from the '70s

There were several papers that were directly, and thoroughly devastating to Steve Meyer's execrable book, "Signature in the Cell."

Steve P. said: Burnett just loves those taunting ways of his. I guess he hopes to deliver those ignoramuses right into Elzinga's hands, who is just salivating to line 'em up against the wall. Another dream team in the works. While he's busy tag teamin' with Elzinga, I think I will work on the third video.

Mike Elzinga said:

Steve P. said: Burnett just loves those taunting ways of his. I guess he hopes to deliver those ignoramuses right into Elzinga's hands, who is just salivating to line 'em up against the wall. Another dream team in the works. While he's busy tag teamin' with Elzinga, I think I will work on the third video.

Well, both you and FL have built up quite a backlog of ID science you have refused to defend or explain. You have chosen to infest a thread in which the foundations of ID are under the gun. Now is your chance to explain how ID is consistent with the research going in this conference. In particular, as an expert on ID/creationism, you must certainly know the roots if the “calculations” by Dembski, Meyer, et. al. Surely you are aware of Henry Morris’s central narrative which forms the foundation for Dembski’s and Meyer’s works. And how could you miss the peer-reviewed paper of Dembski and Marks. Surely you can explain how the mathematical foundation of all of ID fails to explains the yields of chemical compounds in the experiments discussed in this conference. But you and FL have refused to explain these “theoretical calculations” and the justification for the sampling assumptions made in this paper. The same assumptions are the foundation of Meyer’s claims also. So let’s hear your explanation of this foundational narrative of ID/creationism. And now you also have another major work of a creationist, namely, Jason Lisle’s use of "relativity" to solve the “distant starlight problem” and clear a path for a universe that is only 6000 years old. Now that directly conflicts with the ages when the various chemicals leading to the formation of life were formed. So you also owe us an explanation of Lisle’s paper. How does Lisle justify his use of relativity given the assumptions he lays out in his paper? You don’t like being lined up against the wall? Then show yourself capable of understanding the “science” of ID/creationism and justify it like a grownup. The same goes for FL. Or are you just going to continue to taunt and fake it; and then run away when asked to justify something specific? Are both of you so stupid that you think we can’t see the games you play? Now get cracking on those explanations!

DS said: Of course, no matter what evidence is presented, Steve will still claim that there isn't sufficient detail. He will demand that science explain everything to his own satisfaction and he will refuse to be satisfied no matter what. He will then go on to claim that an appeal to supernatural forces must be invoked if there is the slightest thing that cannot be fully explained by science. Of course he will refuse to apply the same rigorous criteria to his own "alternative".

Hi FL, The subject of this meeting was origin of life - from the top down. So it was deliberately focused on what extant biology tells us about the origin of life, not on prebiotic chemistry per se. But we did have several talks devoted specifically to prebiotic chemistry.

Nick Hud and Ram Krishnamurty both talked about the prebiotic origins of biopolymers. I am surprised to read that you think there is something weak about their science.

"...much remains unanswered"

And John Horgan… Is he the guy who wrote ‘The End of Science’? Could you refer us to some of his peer-reviewed papers on prebiotic chemistry?

"More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution."

Through the week of the (ISSOL 2009) conference, we noted an air of frustration and pessimism, even a hint of despair or desperation. The realization seems to have dawned that 45 years of research into the origins of life has led to a dead end. The same old intractable problems—if not more—still exist, with no resolution in sight. Dr. Fazale Rana, chemist, Reasons to Believe website (Hugh Ross)

I think that we can all agree as rational beings that "much remains unanswered" is far superior to "no clear hypothesis exists yet, let alone any way to test it or any evidence to support it".

The old routine of "you don't know everything, so I don't have to believe anything you say" is wearing a little thin after all these years now isn't it? Exactly when will there be enough evidence that creationists can't explain for them to concede that science provides a better answer? IMHO we passed that point about fifty years ago and ignorance is the only refuge left for such scoundrels.

FL said: However, I have no trouble affirming that the phrase I borrowed from Steve Freeland's abstract...

"...much remains unanswered"

...is an accurate and accepted assessment that describes and permeates the entire overall state of OOL research at this time.

Neither Hud and Krishmamurty's essays, nor any of the other good articles in your virtual workshop, are going to overturn that assessment at this time.

And that's also true for the "weakest strut" assessment given by SciAm's John Horgan as well. It's not a slap at individual scientists and their research articles, it's just the way things are, overall, right now.

For example, as previously stated, after you extract every possible insight or direction from Eugene Koonin's article, the reality is that the origin of the genetic code is STILL "a wide open problem", to use his phrase. That doesn't mean Koonin's article is no good or bad science; it just means that the GC's origin remains unsolved a wide open problem, period. That's just being honest, that's all.

Through the week of the (ISSOL 2009) conference, we noted an air of frustration and pessimism, even a hint of despair or desperation. The realization seems to have dawned that 45 years of research into the origins of life has led to a dead end. The same old intractable problems—if not more—still exist, with no resolution in sight. Dr. Fazale Rana, chemist, Reasons to Believe website (Hugh Ross)

Mike: if you disagree with Horgan's assessment, go ahead and publish that OOL paper in which you spell out, scientifically and specifically, the origin of the genetic code (the issue mentioned by Koonin.)

Free Nobel Prize and "Today Show" appearances, of course. Please publish it now. Thanks!

FL :)

And btw, there is NO condescension towards any of the Workshop researchers, including the one who was kind enough to ask me his question.

Those folks, I respect. Can't really say that about some PT posters, though. (U know who U are, heh!).

FL said: And btw, there is NO condescension towards any of the Workshop researchers, including the one who was kind enough to ask me his question. Those folks, I respect. Can't really say that about some PT posters, though. (U know who U are, heh!).

So, again, it’s not about disrespecting the science you’re trying to do. It’s about being clear and realistic (and honest) with the overall situation that’s currently on the science table.

Dear Y'all,
Marco has just reported that all of the the talks from the meeting are now posted.

http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/nai/ool-www/program/

Cheers,
Loren

FL said: And btw,there is NO condescension towards any of the Workshop researchers, including the one who was kind enough to ask me his question. Those folks, I respect. Can't really say that about some PT posters, though. (U know who U are, heh!).

Loren Williams said: Dear Y'all, Marco has just reported that all of the the talks from the meeting are now posted. http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/nai/ool-www/program/ Cheers, Loren

Mike: if you disagree with Horgan’s assessment, go ahead and publish that OOL paper in which you spell out, scientifically and specifically, the origin of the genetic code (the issue mentioned by Koonin.)

(from Meyer 1998, which appeared with trivail alteration as footnote 10-15 in Meyer 2009) 21. L. C. Berkner and L. L. Marshall, “On the Origin and Rise in Concentration in the Earth’s Atmosphere,” Journal of Atmospheric Science 22 (1965): 225-61; R. T. Brinkman, “Dissociation of Water Vapor and Evolution of Oxygen in the Terrestrial Atmosphere,” Journal of Geophysical Research 74 (1969): 5354-68; Erich Dimroth and Michael M. Kimberly, “Pre-Cambrian Atmospheric Oxygen: Evidence in Sedimentary Distribution of Carbon Sulfur, Uranium and Iron,” Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 13 (1976): 1161-85; J. H. Carver, “Prebiotic Atmospheric Oxygen Levels,” Nature 292 (1981): 136-38; H. D. Holland, B. Lazar, and M. McCaffrey, “Evolution of Atmosphere and Oceans,” Nature 320 (1986): 27-33; J. F. Kastings, S. C. Liu, and T. M. Donahue, “Oxygen Levels in the Prebiological Atmosphere,” Journal of Geophysical Research 84 (1979): 3097-3102; Kerr, “Origin of Life: New Ingredients Suggested,” 42-43; Thaxton et al., Mystery of Life’s Origin, 73-94.

Loren Williams said: Dear Y'all, Marco has just reported that all of the the talks from the meeting are now posted. http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/nai/ool-www/program/ Cheers, Loren

FL said:

Mike: if you disagree with Horgan’s assessment, go ahead and publish that OOL paper in which you spell out, scientifically and specifically, the origin of the genetic code (the issue mentioned by Koonin.)

Do you disagree with John Horgan's assessment, Mike? If not, please say so. If you do, then the above request is still on the table: you could at least sketch out your solution to that huge longstanding problem, right here in this forum, and then publish the whole thing in a peer review journal. Fair enough? FL

I noticed that talks are not avialble from;

4:20 pm – 4:40 pm EST
Making Sense of Life’s Amino Acid Alphabet
Steve Freeland
University of Hawaii

1:25 pm – 1:50 pm EST
Extracellular Polymeric Substances As Armor Against Cytotoxic Minerals
Nita Sahai
University of Wisconsin, Madison

Idle curiosity: Why not?

FL said:

Mike: if you disagree with Horgan’s assessment, go ahead and publish that OOL paper in which you spell out, scientifically and specifically, the origin of the genetic code (the issue mentioned by Koonin.)

Do you disagree with John Horgan's assessment, Mike? If not, please say so. If you do, then the above request is still on the table: you could at least sketch out your solution to that huge longstanding problem, right here in this forum, and then publish the whole thing in a peer review journal. Fair enough? FL

Why do any of you waste time with trolls?

If you stop feeding them, they will go away.

Steve P. -

Glad to see you're here. I have some questions.

Who designed what? How? When? Evidence-based answers that can be independently replicated, please.

I notice that you never answer these questions.

Hi Y'all,
There has been some discussion here about the nature and the origin of the genetic code. Steve Freeland said in his really beautiful talk that the genetic code is an open question. He has been quoted repeatedly on that. But Steve did not mean that the origin of the genetic code is an undispherable mystery and that no models have been proposed for it. There are two general models for the origin of the genetic code. The first model is that direct favorable interactions between specific amino acids and certain nucleic acid sequences evolved into the genetic code. Michael Yarus, a brillant biochemist at the University of Colarado has championed this model. The second model, which I think is more reasonable, is a 'frozen accident', whereby a chemical reaction between two charged RNAs is accelerated by a third RNA that never interacts directly with the amino acids. Both of these models make specific testable predictions. The fact that these two models have not been resolved as of this time to everyone's satisfation does not make origin of life research a 'weak strut'. This is just science, this is how it always works. If there is interest, maybe I can get Steve on the line. I doubt that somebody like John Horgan, with expertise in journalism, knows enough about this on a level that would allow him to understand the validity of these models.
Thanks,
Loren

I don’t give a CRAP about Horgan’s "assessment". It’s irrelevant to what is taking place here.

Gary Hurd -

No, actually, I find that they go away when they are consistently asked for positive evidence for "intelligent design". Not that I particularly care about making them go away. The moderators can exclude whomever they like. They can outright block people or send comments to the bathroom wall. As a mere visitor I accept their choices.

In the early days of the internet, the term "troll" referred to people who had little interest in the topic at hand, but for attention-seeking or other psychological reasons, sought to disrupt conversations. Naturally, these types of trolls would indeed go away if ignored.

The term "troll" has expanded or changed in meaning, and now generally refer to those who comment from a biased perspective, often one of denial, often using overt rudeness, and nearly always using either a fake "folksy" tone or the now less-popular hyper-pompous William F. Buckley imitation tone.

The term "troll" thus now refers to a different group of people. The objective of this new type of troll is not to disrupt, but to reinforce their own denial. Some challenge to their biases makes them uncomfortable, and they react to the cognitive dissonance by finding a forum where that challenge is discussed, where they then parrot propaganda sound bites. If ignored, they will hang around making fatuous "sarcastic" remarks to reinforce their own challenged biases; if ignored long enough timid followers will come out of the woodwork and begin "cheering them on". If allowed to define the conversation and avoid direct scientific questions (for example, if someone gets into an "I know more about Biblical prophesies than you do" battle with them) they will triumphantly go on for massive amounts of time.

However, if they are asked who designed what, when, and how, they usually run away.

Steve P. and FL -

Since you guys are both cDesignproponentists, I'd like to ask you BOTH the same same questions.

I'm looking for evidence-based replies that I can independently and objectively verify.

Who designed what? When? How?

Loren Williams said: Hi Y'all, There has been some discussion here about the nature and the origin of the genetic code. Steve Freeland said in his really beautiful talk that the genetic code is an open question. He has been quoted repeatedly on that. But Steve did not mean that the origin of the genetic code is an undispherable mystery and that no models have been proposed for it.

Loren Williams said:There are two general models for the origin of the genetic code. The first model is that direct favorable interactions between specific amino acids and certain nucleic acid sequences evolved into the genetic code. Michael Yarus, a brillant biochemist at the University of Colarado has championed this model. The second model, which I think is more reasonable, is a 'frozen accident', whereby a chemical reaction between two charged RNAs is accelerated by a third RNA that never interacts directly with the amino acids. Both of these models make specific testable predictions. The fact that these two models have not been resolved as of this time to everyone's satisfation does not make origin of life research a 'weak strut'. This is just science, this is how it always works. If there is interest, maybe I can get Steve on the line. I doubt that somebody like John Horgan, with expertise in journalism, knows enough about this on a level that would allow him to understand the validity of these models. Thanks, Loren

FL said:

I don’t give a CRAP about Horgan’s "assessment". It’s irrelevant to what is taking place here.

Not correct, Mike. SciAm's John Horgan's long-standing assessment of the state of prebiotic evolution, is directly OOL related and OOL relevant, unlike your attempt to derail this thread by opening a separate discussion of Dembski & Mark's journal-published, peer-reviewed paper.

Whether you agree or disagree with his assessment, Horgan's statement IS topical, especially since reflections or echoes of Horgan's statement can be (and have already been) specifically pointed out within two of the Virtual Workshop researchers' abstracts.

If you now wish to discuss a previous thread topic, namely Dembski's 1999 IVP book Intelligent Design and specifically how Dembski's 3-point hypothesis bridged science and theology, (that's the thread where you brought up the Dembski/Marks paper and was informed that the paper doesn't say anything about bridging science and theology), that issue must be discussed in a separate thread.

Please don't derail this thread, Mike. This one is about OOL and the Virtual Workshop. FL

FL said: Please don't derail this thread, Mike. This one is about OOL and the Virtual Workshop. FL

Can you do a better job than Mikey Behe, Bill Dembski, Stephen Meyer, Scott Minnich, or Jon "I Love Reverend Moon" Wells have done in explaining how Intelligent Design cretinism is a better, more plausible, more predictive, alternative to modern evolutionary theory in explaining the origin, history and current composition of Planet Earth's biodiversity. I asked this very question of Behe and Dembski and neither one could provide an answer. So can you do better than a "distingished" Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer like Behe or Dembski? Can't wait to read your response.

BTW I still think this discussion should be at a sophisticated level, so show us the science FL which demonstrates why ID is a better scientific theory or just shut the F**K up please:

Mike Elzinga said:

FL said: Please don't derail this thread, Mike. This one is about OOL and the Virtual Workshop. FL

We can chalk your last comment up as further evidence that you have no clue what you are talking about. We're getting there. Whether you like it or not, the rest of the scientific community gets the picture. You don't get to decide; remember? You simply don't know what is relevant and what is not.

FL said: If you now wish to discuss a previous thread topic, namely Dembski's 1999 IVP book Intelligent Design and specifically how Dembski's 3-point hypothesis bridged science and theology, (that's the thread where you brought up the Dembski/Marks paper and was informed that the paper doesn't say anything about bridging science and theology), that issue must be discussed in a separate thread.

harold said: ...(for example, if someone gets into an "I know more about Biblical prophesies than you do" battle with them) they will triumphantly go on for massive amounts of time. However, if they are asked who designed what, when, and how, they usually run away.

John Vanko -

My impression is that OOL models are developing a lot faster than I would have expected a few years ago, but that there is still plenty of opportunity in the field.

I'm an interested amateur.

One area of great interest to me, that will have to be addressed before any strong model of origin of cells is exists, is membranes, and the origin of ionic pumps and channels. The defining characteristic of contemporary independent cellular life, as opposed to molecules replicating in solution, is that the cell is a membrane enclosed environment, and ionic concentrations of the intracellular fluid are quite different from those of the extracellular fluid. All motility/contractability of cells that I am aware of ultimately depends on this, for example. I'm not a microbiologist but I know that this is characteristic of prokaryotes as well as eukaryotes.

Current cellular membranes are very coordinated with everything else about the cell, and "bubble" models may be a starting point but don't go all that far.

It's my impression that a lot more satisfying work has been done on replicators than on the organized membranes that eventually have to enclose the replicators.

I could be wrong out of pure ignorance, and would be delighted to be corrected by being directed to more membrane-origin research.

FL lied: re: Dembski & Mark's journal-published, peer-reviewed paper.

Paul Burnett said:

FL lied: re: Dembski & Mark's journal-published, peer-reviewed paper.

It wasn't "peer-reviewed" and it wasn't a "journal" - it was a summary article of a presentation D&M made at an electrical engineering (?) symposium. And the article - not really a "paper" - doesn't even have the term "intelligent design" in it. I know I've mentioned this several times, and others have also. Stop repeating this creationist lie. Please.

It’s more “special” to ID/creationists.

by special, do you mean ala "short bus"?

I have to admit I am partial to Trifonov, Edward N. 2004 "The Triplet Code From First Principles" Journal of Biomolecular Structure & Dynamics, ISSN 0739-1102 Volume 22, Issue Number 1, (2004) He starts with a restricted set of AAs, and just a couplet code. I am sure you are familiar with it, so what am I missing?

I ...would be delighted to be ...directed to more membrane-origin research.

Ichthyic said: It’s more “special” to ID/creationists. by special, do you mean ala "short bus"?

Loren Williams said: It is true that translation is outrageously complex, and meets all the requirements of an irreducibly complex system. Take away the large subunit or the small subunit or the mRNA or the rRNA or the ribosomal proteins or the tRNA or the ions or the amino acids or whatever and it does not work. But never-the-less, we have detailed models, discussed in the last session of the meeting (video posted soon), all supported by data, all experimentally accessible, for ribosomal origins and evolution.

harold said: Steve P. and FL - Since you guys are both cDesignproponentists, I'd like to ask you BOTH the same same questions. I'm looking for evidence-based replies that I can independently and objectively verify. Who designed what? When? How?

henry said:

Loren Williams said: It is true that translation is outrageously complex, and meets all the requirements of an irreducibly complex system. Take away the large subunit or the small subunit or the mRNA or the rRNA or the ribosomal proteins or the tRNA or the ions or the amino acids or whatever and it does not work. But never-the-less, we have detailed models, discussed in the last session of the meeting (video posted soon), all supported by data, all experimentally accessible, for ribosomal origins and evolution.

The first two statements seem to contradict the third. There is an irreducibly complex system in the present, but there wasn't one in the past?

...thus a complicated machine was gradually built up whose effective working was dependent upon the interlocking action of very numerous different elementary parts or factors, and many of the characters and factors which, when new, were originally merely an asset finally became necessary because other necessary characters and factors had subsequently become changed so as to be dependent on the former.

Just for grins, let's agree that FL's quotation from Horgan is 100% accurate -- that abiogenesis is indeed "the weakest strut" in biology. So what? By definition, some aspect of biology must be "the weakest strut" at any given moment, after all. So to my way of thinking, calling abiogenesis "the weakest strut" in biology is kind of like saying that water is wet... yes, it's true, but in and of itself, the statement isn't particularly interesting or significant.
So, sure, abiogenesis is currently "the weakest strut" in biology. Does that mean abiogenesis will always be "the weakest strut"? No, it doesn't.
Does that mean abiogenesis is completely groundless and evidence-free? Again: No, it doesn't -- rather, it just means that at the present time, abiogenesis has less supportive evidence than any other aspect of biology. Tomorrow, or next year, some abiogenesis researcher might well discover some new data which causes the "least amount of supportive evidence" title to be transferred to some other aspect of biology.
Does that mean abiogenesis is so poorly supported by the evidence that abiogenesis should be disregarded? Again, no. Since "weakest" is a comparative term, calling abiogenesis "the weakest strut" could easily be the equivalent of pointing out that whoever is the last man on the Fortune 500 list of the world's richest people is the "poorest" person on that list.
If anybody wants to argue that abiogenesis is unsupported, fine; I say go for it! The catch is, you're gonna have to argue that abiogenesis is unsupported. And you don't do that by arguing "other aspects of biology are better-supported"; rather, you do it by arguing that "abiogenesis is unsupported". You up for that task, FL?

Cubist, right on the spot! From the very beginning FL has shown how he is as qualified to participate as a blind paraplegic in a downhill bicycling contest. What’s the relevance of the relative number of cdesign proponentsists in the USA with respect to OOL research? He is a fish out of the water here. So am I, but I’ve got a built-in BS detector.

Mike Elzinga said: There are two; the one you refer to and the one I have been referring to.

NoNick said:

harold said: Steve P. and FL - Since you guys are both cDesignproponentists, I'd like to ask you BOTH the same same questions. I'm looking for evidence-based replies that I can independently and objectively verify. Who designed what? When? How?

Thank you for asking this question harold. I believe it "is directly OOL related and OOL relevant". I hope that FL will continue to keep this thread on topic and have the intellectual honesty to address the question you've put forth. As FL has so eloquently stated, "Hey guys, it’s YOUR responsibility to keep this thread on topic", perhaps as a participant in the thread he would like to lead by example. What say you FL ?

FL said:

I don’t give a CRAP about Horgan’s "assessment". It’s irrelevant to what is taking place here.

Not correct, Mike. SciAm's John Horgan's long-standing assessment of the state of prebiotic evolution, is directly OOL related and OOL relevant, unlike your attempt to derail this thread by opening a separate discussion of Dembski & Mark's journal-published, peer-reviewed paper. Whether you agree or disagree with his assessment, Horgan's statement IS topical, especially since reflections or echoes of Horgan's statement can be (and have already been) specifically pointed out within two of the Virtual Workshop researchers' abstracts. If you now wish to discuss a previous thread topic, namely Dembski's 1999 IVP book Intelligent Design and specifically how Dembski's 3-point hypothesis bridged science and theology, (that's the thread where you brought up the Dembski/Marks paper and was informed that the paper doesn't say anything about bridging science and theology), that issue must be discussed in a separate thread. Please don't derail this thread, Mike. This one is about OOL and the Virtual Workshop. FL

Loren Williams -

Thank you very much for the link. I will check out some original articles.

It does seem that this lab is actively pursuing research on replicating membranes that coordinate their replication with that of enclosed replicating nucleotide-AA based contents. That is clearly an important element in any really solid model of origin of cellular life.

Another fascinating issue is the emergence of steep, regulated ionic gradients between the extracellular environment and the intracellular environment. That seems to have been a very early event.

A search for "origin of ion channels" on Pubmed didn't seem to turn up any OOL/very early life research, but did turn up something that some people here may find interesting. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20808886

harold said: Loren Williams - Thank you very much for the link. I will check out some original articles. It does seem that this lab is actively pursuing research on replicating membranes that coordinate their replication with that of enclosed replicating nucleotide-AA based contents. That is clearly an important element in any really solid model of origin of cellular life. Another fascinating issue is the emergence of steep, regulated ionic gradients between the extracellular environment and the intracellular environment. That seems to have been a very early event. A search for "origin of ion channels" on Pubmed didn't seem to turn up any OOL/very early life research, but did turn up something that some people here may find interesting. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20808886

Loren Williams said: That (Trifonov 2004) could be considered a variation of the frozen accident model, in which direct codon-amino acid interactions did not determine the code. Trifonov suggests that the enthalpy of codon/anti-codon interactions determined the code. The first aa's used the most stable interactions. Later amino acids used the best available. The problem with all of this is that his order of aa incorporation, and the method by which he determined it, are not universally accepted.

Rolf Aalberg said: From the very beginning FL has shown how he is as qualified to participate as a blind paraplegic in a downhill bicycling contest.

Paul Burnett said:

Mike Elzinga said: There are two; the one you refer to and the one I have been referring to.

Neither one of them mentions "intelligent design," other than in the second one's biography of Dembski.

... please explain the error in Hermann J. Muller’s 1918 paper ...

Behe thinks incorrectly that evolution adds parts, one by one, as if organelles were made out of whole cloth. Muller recognized that parts were gradually modified to perform new functions, until eventually one or more parts became crucial. In 1939, he coined the term "interlocking complexity," and thus anticipated Behe's "discovery" by nearly 60 years.

Matt Young said:

... please explain the error in Hermann J. Muller’s 1918 paper ...

Muller's paper is very interesting indeed; in fact Paul Strode and I quote the same passage in our book on evolution and creation. I do not know enough to know whether Behe should have known about the Muller paper, but we conclude,

Behe thinks incorrectly that evolution adds parts, one by one, as if organelles were made out of whole cloth. Muller recognized that parts were gradually modified to perform new functions, until eventually one or more parts became crucial. In 1939, he coined the term "interlocking complexity," and thus anticipated Behe's "discovery" by nearly 60 years.

Mike Elzinga said: Then they slip this language into their discussion of evolution and things like Dawkins’s Weasel algorithm. Why? Is it gratuitous, or is there a meme they are trying to get established in the peer-review literature? That meme goes back to Henry Morris, and has a well-traced history in screwing up the public perceptions of thermodynamics. Look at their discussion of mutation and survival and you can recognize the standard set of misconceptions and memes of the ID/creationists there also. So you don’t see “intelligent design” in these papers, but you see them attempt to sneak in the ID/creationist misconceptions and memes along with the way ID/creationists think about stochastic processes in evolution. After 40+ years of watching how ID/creationists construct their pseudo-science, I see this kind of thinking popping out of ID/creationist writing all the time. And I know its history.

John Kwok said: However, Mike, I think you are missing the point that Dembski, Marks et al. can claim that they are really discussing Intelligent Design and got it into a peer reviewed-published paper but opted not to mention the words "Intelligent Design" for fear that the "Darwinist" mob would see through their shenanigans and ensure that the paper be "EXPELLED" from the journal in question as a probable manuscript worthy of publication.

I have a question for Loren concerning the “onion” model.

One of the more remarkable things about the existence of life as we know it is that much of it exists in the energy range of liquid water. This means that binding energies in k_BTs (k_B is Boltzmann’s consant and T is the absolute temperature) are on the order of 0.01 eV to about 0.04 eV.

You mentioned in your talk that those “inner cores” are probably the oldest, and were probably formed at higher temperatures.

This seems to demonstrate the cascading nature of evolution in which we find the earlier, more primitive “substrates”, if you like, have been formed in more energetic environments. These are then transported into lower energy environments and become the building blocks of later, more complex structures that are somewhat more delicate.

Are there any data on the average binding energies of the constituents in each of those “onion” layers?

Gary Hurd said: I noticed that talks are not avialble from; 4:20 pm – 4:40 pm EST Making Sense of Life’s Amino Acid Alphabet Steve Freeland University of Hawaii 1:25 pm – 1:50 pm EST Extracellular Polymeric Substances As Armor Against Cytotoxic Minerals Nita Sahai University of Wisconsin, Madison Idle curiosity: Why not?

Marco said: Nita requested we not record her talk. Steve's talk was recorded and will be posted pending an upcoming journal submission. -Marco

Gary Hurd said:

Marco said: Nita requested we not record her talk. Steve's talk was recorded and will be posted pending an upcoming journal submission. -Marco

I thought it might be something along those lines. However, if I were the funding agency, and/or the conference organizer, there would be no holdouts.

Cubist said:

henry said:

Loren Williams said: It is true that translation is outrageously complex, and meets all the requirements of an irreducibly complex system. Take away the large subunit or the small subunit or the mRNA or the rRNA or the ribosomal proteins or the tRNA or the ions or the amino acids or whatever and it does not work. But never-the-less, we have detailed models, discussed in the last session of the meeting (video posted soon), all supported by data, all experimentally accessible, for ribosomal origins and evolution.

The first two statements seem to contradict the third. There is an irreducibly complex system in the present, but there wasn't one in the past?

If IC systems can indeed be produced by evolution, I fail to see how "no IC system in the past" contradicts "IC system in the present". Are you suggesting that ID-pushers are correct to assert that IC systems cannot be produced by evolution? If you are, please explain the error in Hermann J. Muller's 1918 paper, GENETIC VARIABILITY, TWIN HYBRIDS AND CONSTANT HYBRIDS, IN A CASE OF BALANCED LETHAL FACTORS (GENETICS 1918 3: 422–499), which makes an awfully strong case for IC systems being an expected product of evolution. The money quote, to my way of thinking, is this (emphasis in the original text):

...thus a complicated machine was gradually built up whose effective working was dependent upon the interlocking action of very numerous different elementary parts or factors, and many of the characters and factors which, when new, were originally merely an asset finally became necessary because other necessary characters and factors had subsequently become changed so as to be dependent on the former.

henry the racist bigot babbled: It looks like the evolution of IC systems is assumed to prove that evolution of IC systems occurred.

henry the idiot babbled: It looks like the evolution of IC systems is assumed to prove that evolution of IC systems occurred.

henry said:

Cubist said:

henry said:

Loren Williams said: It is true that translation is outrageously complex, and meets all the requirements of an irreducibly complex system. Take away the large subunit or the small subunit or the mRNA or the rRNA or the ribosomal proteins or the tRNA or the ions or the amino acids or whatever and it does not work. But never-the-less, we have detailed models, discussed in the last session of the meeting (video posted soon), all supported by data, all experimentally accessible, for ribosomal origins and evolution.

The first two statements seem to contradict the third. There is an irreducibly complex system in the present, but there wasn't one in the past?

If IC systems can indeed be produced by evolution, I fail to see how "no IC system in the past" contradicts "IC system in the present". Are you suggesting that ID-pushers are correct to assert that IC systems cannot be produced by evolution? If you are, please explain the error in Hermann J. Muller's 1918 paper, GENETIC VARIABILITY, TWIN HYBRIDS AND CONSTANT HYBRIDS, IN A CASE OF BALANCED LETHAL FACTORS (GENETICS 1918 3: 422–499), which makes an awfully strong case for IC systems being an expected product of evolution. The money quote, to my way of thinking, is this (emphasis in the original text):

...thus a complicated machine was gradually built up whose effective working was dependent upon the interlocking action of very numerous different elementary parts or factors, and many of the characters and factors which, when new, were originally merely an asset finally became necessary because other necessary characters and factors had subsequently become changed so as to be dependent on the former.

It looks like the evolution of IC systems is assumed to prove that evolution of IC systems occurred.

Cubist said: And one more thing: If you're a Christian, henry, you might want to avoid bearing false witness against Muller (in this case, by accusing Muller of an error he never actually committed). I am given to understand that there's a whole Commandment which forbids the bearing of false witness; I am further given to understand that the Biblically-validated post mortem fate of false witnesses involves a lake of fire, and it sure doesn't sound like it would be comfortable for even a second, let alone for all eternity...

Stanton said:

henry the racist bigot babbled: It looks like the evolution of IC systems is assumed to prove that evolution of IC systems occurred.

And yet, Intelligent Design proponents are totally and completely incapable of defining what "Irreducibly Complex" means beyond "I'm too stupid and too arrogant to ever bother understanding how this biological structure could have evolved, so I'll just lie and claim it couldn't have evolved."

And Intelligent Design proponents also refuse to demonstrate how to distinguish between an "Irreducibly complex" system, and an evolved system.

Mike Elzinga said:

A few years ago, creationist Mike Behe wrote, “Professor Bottaro, perhaps sensing that the paper he cites won’t be persuasive to people who are skeptical of Darwinian claims, laments that ‘Behe and other ID advocates will retreat further and further into impossible demands, such as asking for mutation-by-mutation accounts of specific evolutionary pathways…’ Well, yes, of course that’s exactly what I ask of Darwinian claims–a mutation-by-mutation account of critical steps (which will likely be very, very many), at the amino acid level.” And Behe then demanded, “…not only a list of mutations, but also a detailed account of the selective pressures that would be operating, the difficulties such changes would cause for the organism, the expected time scale over which the changes would be expected to occur, the likely population sizes available in the relevant ancestral species at each step, other potential ways to solve the problem which might interfere, and much more.”

I just love the irony in Behe’s “demands.” With the billions of examples of evolving systems from all of chemistry and physics; and with all the examples that have been elucidated in biological systems already, Behe thinks this isn’t good enough (and even said so at Dover). It is amazing that Behe doesn’t seem to understand that, given all of what we already know, it is Behe and the ID/creationist gang that are under the gun to find the “laws of physics and chemistry” that prohibit continued evolution right on up to living, replicating systems. Given all the billions of possibilities that the science community can think of, it is entirely reasonable to explore as much of what we can to narrow the possibilities. Instant gratification may be the central focus of ID/creationism and its practitioners, but it has never been a part of real science. Real scientists work.

(what happens when I skip the spel chek)

Stanton said:

henry the idiot babbled: It looks like the evolution of IC systems is assumed to prove that evolution of IC systems occurred.

Also, if Intelligent Design is correct, and nothing could have evolved, then how come Intelligent Design proponents refuse to discuss how the Intelligent Designer magically poofed Irreducibly Complex systems into existence? How come Intelligent Design proponents refuse to discuss even how to recognize the Intelligent Designer's handiwork, beyond saying that "(random biological system) is too complicated for me to understand, therefore, it is Irreducibly Complex"?

Stanton said: Hell, he's also a racist bigot, to boot, what with his fretting over how liberals, immigrants and non-whites are threatening to destroy America.

Hi MIke, This is a really good question. And yes that's correct that RT (or kT) sets the threshold. There has been a lot of work on how maromolecules adapt to varying conditions, in particular temperature. There are practical reasons for this: it has long been thought (hoped?) that the proteins and RNA from extremophiles would give the best diffracting crystals. One can see that the thermus thermophilus 23S rRNA is more G/C rich than the ecoli 23s rRNA. But back specifically to your question, it would be interesting to look at each of the elements used to build the rRNA in the Bokov and Steinberg model (for this purpose their model would work better than our onion model), to see if the thermal stabilities follow any kind of trend that could be linked to the geological record. We are always looking for ways to link ribosomal evolution to the geological record, so you have given me something really useful to think about. In fact we have already melted each of the Bokov/Steinberg elements computationally to see if they form the predicted structures (they do). But for getting reliable Tm's, actually doing the experiment would be best. That would involve making each of those RNA elements, expermentally melting each of them to find the Tm's, and looking for trends, the way Eric Gaucher has done it for EFTU. A lot of work, but it could provide very useful information. Thanks!! Loren

I got "side tracked" into actually discussing some interesting science, but I had meant to note that -

Behe's "every mutation, every selective force" rant is comical. I heard he got kicked out of a casino recently. He wouldn't believe that he rolled craps until they had told him every subatomic force that had acted on the dice.

However, my attitude toward "intelligent design" is much more reasonable.

All they have to do is give some independently verifiable evidence of who the designer is, what the designer did, how, and when.

That's all I ask for.

harold said: I got "side tracked" into actually discussing some interesting science, but I had meant to note that - Behe's "every mutation, every selective force" rant is comical. I heard he got kicked out of a casino recently. He wouldn't believe that he rolled craps until they had told him every subatomic force that had acted on the dice. However, my attitude toward "intelligent design" is much more reasonable. All they have to do is give some independently verifiable evidence of who the designer is, what the designer did, how, and when. That's all I ask for.

Frank J said:

harold said: I got "side tracked" into actually discussing some interesting science, but I had meant to note that - Behe's "every mutation, every selective force" rant is comical. I heard he got kicked out of a casino recently. He wouldn't believe that he rolled craps until they had told him every subatomic force that had acted on the dice. However, my attitude toward "intelligent design" is much more reasonable. All they have to do is give some independently verifiable evidence of who the designer is, what the designer did, how, and when. That's all I ask for.

I ask for even less, and don't get that either. I see no need to bring up the designer, other than to rub it in to their fans that Behe admitted at Dover that the designer might no longer exist. The only part that could ever make ID scientific is the what, when and how questions. And what little they have speculated on them to date concedes all the basics (~4 billion years of life, common descent) to mainstream science, and completely contradicts YEC. That too is worth rubbing in to their fans. Being increasingly sensitive to their need for support from all "kinds" of rank-and-file Biblical literalists, however, ID peddlers are more evasive of those crucial questions than ever before. And they desperately look for any excuse to keep the topic away from their "theory" and on "weaknesses" of "Darwinism." Dwelling on the designer only helps them pull the old bait-and-switch between methodological and philosophical naturalism.

Loren Williams said: But for getting reliable Tm's, actually doing the experiment would be best. That would involve making each of those RNA elements, expermentally melting each of them to find the Tm's, and looking for trends, the way Eric Gaucher has done it for EFTU. A lot of work, but it could provide very useful information.

Frank J said: These people are not unlike peddlers of alternative medicine who demand that mainstream medicine produces something that raises the dead before they accept it. While they refuse to subject their alternative to double-blind tests because it's not their task to match mainstream medicine's "pathetic level of detail."

Mike Elzinga said: Of course, their medicine kills people; so all they do is deny that they are dead...

Quarks & Gluons: billions of eV (GeV, 109 eV)

If one could somehow figure a way to fission quarks, would they release that energy?

sorry, understanding how energy works for subatomic particles was beyond my freshman physics course, and that was over a quarter of a century ago anyway.

Paul Burnett said:

Mike Elzinga said: Of course, their medicine kills people; so all they do is deny that they are dead...

Somehow that reminds me what you should do when you realize you are riding a dead horse.

Mike Elzinga said: Biologists often think of these structures from the perspective of their complexity and from the point of view of evolutionary landscapes and hill-climbing under pressures of selection. I see these hills, turned upside down, as potential wells which are the phenomenological summary of all those subtle potential well details in the mutual interactions of these structures. Evolution and natural selection are taking place at every level of complexity; right down to the molecular level.

Frank J said: They just have to show that your horse can't travel faster than the speed of light, and their horse wins by default.

John Kwok said: Certain evolutionary "pathways" have been taken by a given lineage in response to selective pressures imposed by the surrounding physical environment and interactions with other life, usually in the form of some kind of competition or predation. That's why for example, one would never expect to see a "crocoduck", since the archosaurian lineages which led to modern crocodiles and to birds diverged from each other relatively early in their evolutionary histories.

Mike Elzinga said: The gentle “thermal tickling” of systems exploring complex systems of potential wells cannot have them jumping large “distances” to adjacent configurations. Those large jumps are tantamount to destroying the system and leaving no template for subsequent generations. Think of a puddle of water exploring the tiny dips and crevices in a nearly level floor or surface. The emerging patterns build off what is there. You don’t find the puddle suddenly in another location unless there is an earthquake; in which case you have started a different lineage. Sort of like entirely different life emerging again after it has been destroyed.

John Kwok said: Mike I wouldn't want to stretch this analogy too much because simply after each of the mass extinctions there were surviving biota and it is from such surviving biota that one or more lineages underwent relatively rapid diversification that repopulated Planet Earth in a relatively short period of time, though still, that wasn't instanteous, but rather, over the course of millions of years following a mass extinction:

But I do believe that it is fair to ask of Intelligent Design proponents how they can explain that there are mass extinctions (at least seven or eight recognized in the entire Phanerozoic Eon, approximately slightly more than the last half billion years of our planet’s geological history) and how does Earth’s biodiversity recover eventually after each of these events. How could an Intelligent Designer be so foolish or stupid (or both) to have Earth’s biodiversity subjected to mass extinctions nearly ten times? Maybe the Intelligent Designer isn’t as wise or as omniscient (and omnipotent) as Intelligent Design proponents might wish.

It's been estimated that upwards to 91% of all metazoans were wiped out at the end of the Permian (the last - and therefore youngest - period of the Paleozoic Era) approximately 250 million years (In stark comparison, the terminal Cretaceous mass extinction (in which all nonavian dinosaurs became extinct) was "relatively" mild, with maybe no more than 30 to 40% of metazoans going extinct. How could an Intelligent Designer allow this to happen? That's a question that we need to ask of Intelligent Design proponents and their acolytes.

Mike Elzinga said: Well, all of life is a huge dendritic structure spreading out in many “directions” or lineages. If part of that structure gets destroyed and some remains, what remains becomes a template for what follows. It’s all highly contingent.

Quarks & Gluons: billions of eV (GeV, 109 eV) If one could somehow figure a way to fission quarks, would they release that energy? sorry, understanding how energy works for subatomic particles was beyond my freshman physics course, and that was over a quarter of a century ago anyway.

Ichthyic said: Quarks & Gluons: billions of eV (GeV, 10⁹ eV) If one could somehow figure a way to fission quarks, would they release that energy? sorry, understanding how energy works for subatomic particles was beyond my freshman physics course, and that was over a quarter of a century ago anyway.

Well Ichthyic is in NZ where they do this sort of thing in their garage. SO a big bang might not be out of the question

dexitroboper said: Well Ichthyic is in NZ where they do this sort of thing in their garage. SO a big bang might not be out of the question

dexitroboper said: Well Ichthyic is in NZ where they do this sort of thing in their garage. SO a big bang might not be out of the question

SWT said:

dexitroboper said: Well Ichthyic is in NZ where they do this sort of thing in their garage. SO a big bang might not be out of the question

I don't follow. That seems to me to be a rather reasonable thing to do in one's garage. Then again, I got mad at my parents when I was a kid because they wouldn't let me try to build the plasma torch I read about in an Amateur Scientist column in Scientific American.

Have y'all looked at Gogarten's tree of life that shows the extinct lineages?

Check it out:
http://web2.uconn.edu/gogarten/

Stanton said:

Cubist said: And one more thing: If you're a Christian, henry, you might want to avoid bearing false witness against Muller (in this case, by accusing Muller of an error he never actually committed). I am given to understand that there's a whole Commandment which forbids the bearing of false witness; I am further given to understand that the Biblically-validated post mortem fate of false witnesses involves a lake of fire, and it sure doesn't sound like it would be comfortable for even a second, let alone for all eternity...

henry is one of those Christians who believes that breaking any Commandment, or committing any sort of sin is permissible, so long as it's done with the intent of scoring brownie points from Jesus: henry is a shameless liar, and he arrogantly looks down at all of us because we don't assume that the literal reading of the Book of Genesis is a literal and accurate description of reality. Hell, he's also a racist bigot, to boot, what with his fretting over how liberals, immigrants and non-whites are threatening to destroy America.

henry said: You would make Thomas the bull dog Huxley proud, but I don't have any scientific evidence for that claim nor do I have any scientific evidence that Darwin wrote Origin of Species.

Loren Williams said: Have y'all looked at Gogarten's tree of life that shows the extinct lineages? Check it out: http://web2.uconn.edu/gogarten/

John Kwok said: Fascinating but they may also wish to look at Jack Sepkoski's work (solo and in collaboration with David Raup), some of Steve Gould's (in collaboration with David Raup and Daniel Simberloff), Michael Foote's and others who are carrying on in Gould and Sepkoski's legacy. Modeling taxonomic diversity change has been a staple of paleobiological research since the mid 1970s:

Loren Williams said: Have y'all looked at Gogarten's tree of life that shows the extinct lineages? Check it out: http://web2.uconn.edu/gogarten/

John Kwok said: ...since his untimely death by his colleague Michael Foote and others...

henry the idiot babbled: You would make Thomas the bull dog Huxley proud, but I don't have any scientific evidence for that claim nor do I have any scientific evidence that Darwin wrote Origin of Species.

Paul Burnett said:

John Kwok said: ...since his untimely death by his colleague Michael Foote and others...

Paleontology is more competitive than I realized...

henry said:

Stanton said:

Cubist said: And one more thing: If you're a Christian, henry, you might want to avoid bearing false witness against Muller (in this case, by accusing Muller of an error he never actually committed). I am given to understand that there's a whole Commandment which forbids the bearing of false witness; I am further given to understand that the Biblically-validated post mortem fate of false witnesses involves a lake of fire, and it sure doesn't sound like it would be comfortable for even a second, let alone for all eternity...

henry is one of those Christians who believes that breaking any Commandment, or committing any sort of sin is permissible, so long as it's done with the intent of scoring brownie points from Jesus: henry is a shameless liar, and he arrogantly looks down at all of us because we don't assume that the literal reading of the Book of Genesis is a literal and accurate description of reality. Hell, he's also a racist bigot, to boot, what with his fretting over how liberals, immigrants and non-whites are threatening to destroy America.

You would make Thomas the bull dog Huxley proud, but I don't have any scientific evidence for that claim nor do I have any scientific evidence that Darwin wrote Origin of Species.

Mike Elzinga said:

Frank J said: They just have to show that your horse can't travel faster than the speed of light, and their horse wins by default.

:-) Hah! Given their understanding of relativity, I don’t think we have to worry about that anytime soon.

Loren Williams said: Have y'all looked at Gogarten's tree of life that shows the extinct lineages? Check it out: http://web2.uconn.edu/gogarten/

Thanks for that link, Loren,

I must read, Fournier GP, Gogarten JP (2010)
"Rooting the Ribosomal Tree of Life."
Molecular Biology and Evolution 27(8):1792-1801; doi:10.1093/molbev/msq057

Paul Burnett said:

John Kwok said: ...since his untimely death by his colleague Michael Foote and others...

Paleontology is more competitive than I realized...

Frank J said: But unlike the DI, AiG has to answer to a "higher authority."

... I don’t have any scientific evidence for that claim nor do I have any scientific evidence that Darwin wrote Origin of Species.

John Kwok said: I believe Jack Sepkoski died from a heart attack at the age of fifty (Steve Gould would out-live him by over a year if I'm not mistaken.). There was a substantial New York Times obituary written. Sepokoski's son Daniel is now a historian of science and has either written or edited volumes (I think both) describing, from a history of science perspective, the importance of Sepkoski's work:

Paul Burnett said:

John Kwok said: ...since his untimely death by his colleague Michael Foote and others...

Paleontology is more competitive than I realized...

Mike Elzinga said:

John Kwok said: I believe Jack Sepkoski died from a heart attack at the age of fifty (Steve Gould would out-live him by over a year if I'm not mistaken.). There was a substantial New York Times obituary written. Sepokoski's son Daniel is now a historian of science and has either written or edited volumes (I think both) describing, from a history of science perspective, the importance of Sepkoski's work:

Paul Burnett said:

John Kwok said: ...since his untimely death by his colleague Michael Foote and others...

Paleontology is more competitive than I realized...

Paul was having some fun with you, John. :-)

Hey, I'm pretty much done with this thread, except for Harold's question. I'm content that, despite the conscientious current work of the professional evolutionists, John Horgan's statement still stands.

There's certainly no published work that overturns Horgan (or Klaus Dose either, or Fazale Rana) with solid evidence, and there's none forthcoming in this thread).

So I don't need to keep playing with you boys on it. Didn't have to convince you, just had to present it to you. That's done.

Harold's question is all that's left (regarding OOL anyway--no time to play with anything else), and that question will go pretty quick, because we can just focus on one issue (already discussed): the origin of the genetic code.

Look at this carefully, Harold.

Hypothesis: The genetic code originated via intelligent design as specifically worded in 3-point form in William Dembski's specific 1999 IVP book Intelligent Design. It can be shown that the GC did not originate via chance or necessity, (see link below), therefore the only option left is ID.

This specific hypothesis can be falsified, scientifically, via empirical observation.

All you have to do, Harold, is publish specifically how the GC can arise from naturalistic evolutionary means ONLY, syntax and all (and please show that it DID happen that way, and HOW it happened that way.)

If you do so, then Dembski's specific ID hypothesis (as well as the Meyer Hartwig prediction found in Kenyon's book Pandas & People), is falsified regarding a major origin of life topic, and you get juicy Nobel Prize and TV commericials.

Ready, Harold? Then take it on. I'll talk again with you when you get it done. Ask John Kwok for help if you need it. (Heh!)

Link:

http://creationism.org.pl/groups/ptkrmember/inne/2004/Trevors,%20Abel,%20Chance%20and%20necessity%20do%20not%20explain%20the%20origin%20of%20life.pdf

FL

FL thinks they give Nobel Prizes for debunking junk science. That's like giving someone an Academy Award for pointing out that Keanu Reeves can't act.

Please be advised: you'll disagree with the given ID hypothesis, and its application to the GC, immediately. Not going to debate that. Also not going to debate that evolutionists like Eugene Koonin are already working on the issue from their angle. They are.

You simply asked a question Harold, and now you got an answer, a hypothesis that YOU can work on, if you so choose. The origin of the genetic code remains a wide open problem that people are putting forth proposals and hypotheses about, (and no everybody ain't on the same page or in agreement.) So I give you MY proposal, and that's the answer to your question, and you are welcome to do what you wish with it.

FL

And be sure to read that link by Trevors and Abel. Their article is NOT my hypothesis, but it DOES show in great detail the difficult language-type stuff that's going into that genetic code. And you'll have to account for that stuff via undirected, naturalistic, chemical evolution. G'luck!

FL lied (as usual): It can be shown that the GC did not originate via chance or necessity, (see link below), therefore the only option left is ID.

Hypothesis X cannot explain phenomenon Y, therefore Jesus. It never gets old, does it?

Of course, FL is too stupid and too dishonest realize that people already noticed that Dembski refuses to explain anything, including how's, when's, or even why's, in anything Dembski prattles about Intelligent Design.

Dembski refuses to state how or why Intelligent Design is supposed to be a science, let alone how or why Intelligent Design is supposed to be a magically better explanation than Evolutionary Biology.

And FL is apparently too stupid and too dishonest to remember that he's already tried his "three plank" schtick with us, and failed miserably to boot.

As such, FL demonstrates yet again that he is far more interested in lying, and is more interested about whining and bullying us into worshiping his lies. Like I said, FL would sooner kill and eat his own children than make an attempt to educate himself about science.

This is blatantly untrue and indefensible, as there are other equally plausible alternatives - aliens of various sorts, time travellers, invisible pink unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (peace be upon his noodly appendages), for example.

FL said: All you have to do, Harold, is publish specifically how the GC can arise from naturalistic evolutionary means ONLY, syntax and all (and please show that it DID happen that way, and HOW it happened that way.) If you do so, then Dembski’s specific ID hypothesis (as well as the Meyer Hartwig prediction found in Kenyon’s book Pandas & People), is falsified

I'll talk again with you when you get it done.

FL said:

This is blatantly untrue and indefensible, as there are other equally plausible alternatives - aliens of various sorts, time travellers, invisible pink unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (peace be upon his noodly appendages), for example.

Got no time for that stuff. The fact is that the genetic algorithm-writing, syntax and all, that is spelled out in Trevors and Abel, looks pretty much like Dembski's specified complexity, the same kind that's inherent in your posts and my posts. I don't know of any empirical marker for the detection of Spaghetti Monsters. But I know that specified complexity, like your posts and mine, are an empirical markers for the detection of intelligent design. FL

Forget about burden of proof on this one, Eric. I'm just givin' Harold what he asked for, that's all.

You don't have a scientific hypothesis unless you have a falsifiable hypothesis, that's why I provided empirical falsification.

“Its your job to prove my idea wrong!”

Moreover, not only is this burden shifting, it's burden shifting without even recognizing that if they wanted to DO science, then it would be THEIR job to try and prove THEIR OWN idea wrong.

that's how science works.

it's why creationists like FL so clearly will never even begin to have a clue what they're on about.

they can't even be bothered to understand the first thing about how science works.

*sigh*

FL has actually proven what I suspected at the very first.

PT would be a really bad place to set up a general forum for discussion about a scientific conference.

good place to put a link up for someplace that actually IS structured and moderated though.

Stanton: your posts are a clear example of specified complexity. You and I may not understand everything about SC, but SC does exist. Please see Dembski's book.

but SC does exist.

only if you define cloud animals as SC.

of course, you won't understand what I mean by that.

Well of course SC exists. It's bordered by NC and GA.

When the first ID creationists started polluting the thread, I was worried that this would discourage the NASA funded "pure science" folks from participating in what I hoped would be a straight discussion of their research. But, I have reconsidered.

Those of us who devote a considerable amount of our time, and resources to combating the anti-science scourge of creationism are too little appreciated by "purists." Maybe, just maybe, seeing the sort of bilge we are bailing out, our colleagues might appreciate the fact that they will be out of work if the creationists are allowed to win.

Ichthyic said: *sigh* FL has actually proven what I suspected at the very first. PT would be a really bad place to set up a general forum for discussion about a scientific conference. good place to put a link up for someplace that actually IS structured and moderated though.

Gary Hurd said: When the first ID creationists started polluting the thread, I was worried that this would discourage the NASA funded "pure science" folks from participating in what I hoped would be a straight discussion of their research. But, I have reconsidered. Those of us who devote a considerable amount of our time, and resources to combating the anti-science scourge of creationism are too little appreciated by "purists." Maybe, just maybe, seeing the sort of bilge we are bailing out, our colleagues might appreciate the fact that they will be out of work if the creationists are allowed to win.

Well, no point in engaging FL any further, what a dishonest asshat.

If any other ID proponents would like to take a crack at harold's questions I'm still interested in the intellectually honest answers.

FL submits another non-answer that reminds me of another set of questions I have asked repeatedly and never seem to be able to get an answer to.

How much "specified complexity" is in the following ...

1) A 4" diameter orange

2) A 10" diameter sunflower

3) A fully mature female guinea pig

4) A 6' mature male human

Any species/variety/race may be chosen at the discretion of the person who cares to take up the challenge.

I realize that the ID proponents that visit here typically do not have the abilities to perform the necessary work (if it can actually be done at all) so I'm more than willing to accept the answers from Dembski or any other ID "scientist". I'd like to see the answers and the work performed to arrive at them posted here, but certainly if someone would like to post this to another forum I'd gladly visit elsewhere to view the responses.

As I value my life, I won't be holding my breath. ID apparently will forever be devoid of any real answers, merely assertions and false dichotomies like the garbage that FL provides.

I'm assuming that FL won't bother to respond at all given that he has once again dropped his pant-load and ducked out with a "gotta go !" having never really addressed the questions posed to him.

(Typical dishonesty FL, thank you for reinforcing the stereotype of the IDC proponent-sist.)

Abstract: To what degree could chaos and complexity have organized a Peptide or RNA World of crude yet necessarily integrated protometabolism? How far could such protolife evolve in the absence of a heritable linear digital symbol system that could mutate,instruct, regulate, optimize and maintain metabolic homeostasis? To address these questions, chaos, complexity, self-ordered states, and organization must all be carefully defined and distinguished. In addition their cause-and-effect relationships and mechanisms of action must be delineated. Are there any formal (non physical, abstract, conceptual, algorithmic) components to chaos, complexity, self-ordering and organization, or are they entirely physicodynamic (physical, mass/energy interaction alone)? Chaos and complexity can produce some fascinating self-ordered phenomena. But can spontaneous chaos and complexity steer events and processes toward pragmatic benefit, select function over non function, optimize algorithms, integrate circuits, produce computational halting, organize processes into formal systems, control and regulate existing systems toward greater efficiency? The question is pursued of whether there might be some yet-to-be discovered new law of biology that will elucidate the derivation of prescriptive information and control. “System” will be rigorously defined. Can a low informational rapid succession of Prigogine’s dissipative structures self-order into bona fide organization?

A Modest Proposal:

Someone who has the time and the inclination could mine the archives of PT for the most egregious examples biological nonsense, inanities, lying, crackpottery, ignorance, racism, bigotry, homophobia, etc. from the accumulated posts of Messrs. Byers, FL, Steve P., Henry, et al.

Then put together a post on "This Is Your Brain on Creationism", or "The Best (Worst?) of PT Trolls" or suchlike.

Mike Elzinga said: The paper by David L. Abel has this abstract.

Abstract: To what degree could chaos and complexity have organized a Peptide or RNA World of crude yet necessarily integrated protometabolism? How far could such protolife evolve in the absence of a heritable linear digital symbol system that could mutate,instruct, regulate, optimize and maintain metabolic homeostasis? To address these questions, chaos, complexity, self-ordered states, and organization must all be carefully defined and distinguished. In addition their cause-and-effect relationships and mechanisms of action must be delineated. Are there any formal (non physical, abstract, conceptual, algorithmic) components to chaos, complexity, self-ordering and organization, or are they entirely physicodynamic (physical, mass/energy interaction alone)? Chaos and complexity can produce some fascinating self-ordered phenomena. But can spontaneous chaos and complexity steer events and processes toward pragmatic benefit, select function over non function, optimize algorithms, integrate circuits, produce computational halting, organize processes into formal systems, control and regulate existing systems toward greater efficiency? The question is pursued of whether there might be some yet-to-be discovered new law of biology that will elucidate the derivation of prescriptive information and control. “System” will be rigorously defined. Can a low informational rapid succession of Prigogine’s dissipative structures self-order into bona fide organization?

Just the abstract itself reveals those fundamental misconceptions by ID/creationists. It only gets worse in the body of the paper. This is what FL thinks is the challenge to abiogenesis. He has no clue and can't grasp the magnitude of the misconceptions and misinformation propagated in this paper.

FL said: Stanton: your posts are a clear example of specified complexity. You and I may not understand everything about SC, but SC does exist. Please see Dembski's book.

Ichthyic said: but SC does exist. only if you define cloud animals as SC. of course, you won't understand what I mean by that.

Just Bob said: A Modest Proposal: Someone who has the time and the inclination could mine the archives of PT for the most egregious examples biological nonsense, inanities, lying, crackpottery, ignorance, racism, bigotry, homophobia, etc. from the accumulated posts of Messrs. Byers, FL, Steve P., Henry, et al. Then put together a post on "This Is Your Brain on Creationism", or "The Best (Worst?) of PT Trolls" or suchlike.

Publishing is free on PT. I was proposing a PT post, or maybe a series of 3 or so. Put a really eye-catching example of crackpottery on the front page, and ~1000 words of more examples on p.2.

They could be arranged by topic--or not, and have editorial comment--or not. I think most could stand on their own and be obviously wacko to any reader except the equally wacko.

Just Bob said: Publishing is free on PT. I was proposing a PT post, or maybe a series of 3 or so. Put a really eye-catching example of crackpottery on the front page, and ~1000 words of more examples on p.2. They could be arranged by topic--or not, and have editorial comment--or not. I think most could stand on their own and be obviously wacko to any reader except the equally wacko.

FL said: Hypothesis: The genetic code originated via intelligent design as specifically worded in 3-point form in William Dembski's specific 1999 IVP book Intelligent Design. It can be shown that the GC did not originate via chance or necessity, (see link below), therefore the only option left is ID. This specific hypothesis can be falsified, scientifically, via empirical observation. All you have to do, Harold, is publish specifically how the GC can arise from naturalistic evolutionary means ONLY, syntax and all (and please show that it DID happen that way, and HOW it happened that way.)

Just Bob said: A Modest Proposal: Someone who has the time and the inclination could mine the archives of PT for the most egregious examples biological nonsense, inanities, lying, crackpottery, ignorance, racism, bigotry, homophobia, etc. from the accumulated posts of Messrs. Byers, FL, Steve P., Henry, et al. Then put together a post on "This Is Your Brain on Creationism", or "The Best (Worst?) of PT Trolls" or suchlike.

SWT said: Are the authors actually trying to provide an example of low-information text?

I just took a look at the abstract for the Trevors and Abel paper. Two observations:

1) What the hell is this paper doing in Cell Biology International? The journal website indicates that it's principally for experimental results.

2) It's not a good sign when the first sentence of the abstract is question begging.

FL said: I don't know of any empirical marker for the detection of Spaghetti Monsters. But I know that specified complexity, like your posts and mine, are an empirical markers for the detection of intelligent design. FL

FL said: Forget about burden of proof on this one, Eric. I'm just givin' Harold what he asked for, that's all. You don't have a scientific hypothesis unless you have a falsifiable hypothesis, that's why I provided empirical falsification.

SWT said: I just took a look at the abstract for the Trevors and Abel paper. Two observations: 1) What the hell is this paper doing in Cell Biology International? The journal website indicates that it's principally for experimental results. 2) It's not a good sign when the first sentence of the abstract is question begging.

Mike Elzinga said: I’ve just noticed that both links to Abel and to Trevors and Abel don’t work. I was just accessing Abel’s paper before I posted my comment with the link. It makes me wonder if the authors are monitoring our comments and decided to take down the paper. Fortunately I have a copy.

FL said: Hey, I'm pretty much done with this thread...

I'm content that, despite the conscientious current work of the professional evolutionists, John Horgan's statement still stands.

NoNick said: If any other ID proponents would like to take a crack at harold's questions I'm still interested in the intellectually honest answers.

Robin said: Bottom line: (FL's) argument amounts to nothing.

Before you demand answers from harold and others, you need to address mine which I had asked of you, demanding that you explain how Intelligent Design can offer rigorous scientific explanations that are better than contemporary evolutionary theory in accounting for the origins, history and current composition of Planet Earth's biodiversity. If and when Intelligent Design can demosntrate such rigor, then, and only then, should anyone think of it as a credible alternative to contemporary evolutionary theory. However, Intelligent Design "scientists" like Behe, Dembski, Marks, Meyer, Minnich and Wells have had countless opportunities to try to demonstrate this via peer-reviewed scientific research and have demonstrated that they have very little inclination to do so. So, to put it bluntly FL, there is nothing in ID that demonstrates that it can be tested rigorously by scientific means. If ID can't be tested scientifically, then it follows that it isn't science (And even you have admitted this by your risible effort in trying to link ID to theology as well as science.).

Stanton said:

Robin said: Bottom line: (FL's) argument amounts to nothing.

That's because FL's argument is nothing to begin with. All he can do is lie, lie, lie, then whine that "What I'm saying is true because Jesus and I say so, so there!"

SWT said:

Mike Elzinga said: I’ve just noticed that both links to Abel and to Trevors and Abel don’t work. I was just accessing Abel’s paper before I posted my comment with the link. It makes me wonder if the authors are monitoring our comments and decided to take down the paper. Fortunately I have a copy.

The link to the Abel paper that you posted still works fine for me. Here's a undamaged link to Trevors and Abel on the creationist site FL linked to: click here.

Where and how did the complex genetic instruction set programmed into DNA come into existence? The genetic set may have arisen elsewhere and was transported to the Earth. If not, it arose on the Earth, and became the genetic code in a previous lifeless, physicalechemical world. Even if RNA or DNA were inserted into a lifeless world, they would not contain any genetic instructions unless each nucleotide selection in the sequence was programmed for function. Even then, a predetermined communication system would have had to be in place for any message to be understood at the destination. Transcription and translation would not necessarily have been needed in an RNA world. Ribozymes could have accomplished some of the simpler functions of current protein enzymes. Templating of single RNA strands followed by retemplating back to a sense strand could have occurred. But this process does not explain the derivation of ‘‘sense’’ in any strand. ‘‘Sense’’ means algorithmic function achieved through sequences of certain decision-node switch-settings. These particular primary structures determine secondary and tertiary structures. Each sequence determines minimum-free-energy folding propensities, binding site specificity, and function. Minimal metabolism would be needed for cells to be capable of growth and division. All known metabolism is cybernetic e that is, it is programmatically and algorithmically organized and controlled.

Mike Elzinga said: I'll put the abstract to Trevors & Abel here for others also.

...Ribozymes could have accomplished some of the simpler functions of current protein enzymes. Templating of single RNA strands followed by retemplating back to a sense strand could have occurred. But this process does not explain the derivation of ‘‘sense’’ in any strand. ‘‘Sense’’ means algorithmic function achieved through sequences of certain decision-node switch-settings...

eric said: So, to defend the notion that the property 'CSI' cannot occur naturally, they say it relies on a 'sense' property that (they say) can't occur naturally. I wonder what new property will be needed to defend 'sense.' Truly turtles all the way down.

John Kwok said: You're utterly hopeless and delusional, henry. Even if you were right, there is the unfortunate fact that, independently of Darwin, Wallace developed the theory of evolution via natural selection:

henry said: You would make Thomas the bull dog Huxley proud, but I don't have any scientific evidence for that claim nor do I have any scientific evidence that Darwin wrote Origin of Species.

Thanks for demonstrating once more the acutely dire state of your intellectually-challenged mind. You are certainly enjoying your membership in the Dishonesty Institute IDiot Borg Collective. May you Live Long and Prosper as a DI IDiot Borg drone.

Cubist said:

henry said:

Stanton said:

Cubist said: And one more thing: If you're a Christian, henry, you might want to avoid bearing false witness against Muller (in this case, by accusing Muller of an error he never actually committed). I am given to understand that there's a whole Commandment which forbids the bearing of false witness; I am further given to understand that the Biblically-validated post mortem fate of false witnesses involves a lake of fire, and it sure doesn't sound like it would be comfortable for even a second, let alone for all eternity...

henry is one of those Christians who believes that breaking any Commandment, or committing any sort of sin is permissible, so long as it's done with the intent of scoring brownie points from Jesus: henry is a shameless liar, and he arrogantly looks down at all of us because we don't assume that the literal reading of the Book of Genesis is a literal and accurate description of reality. Hell, he's also a racist bigot, to boot, what with his fretting over how liberals, immigrants and non-whites are threatening to destroy America.

You would make Thomas the bull dog Huxley proud, but I don't have any scientific evidence for that claim nor do I have any scientific evidence that Darwin wrote Origin of Species.

Hello, henry! Have you had a chance to read GENETIC VARIABILITY, TWIN HYBRIDS AND CONSTANT HYBRIDS, IN A CASE OF BALANCED LETHAL FACTORS (GENETICS 1918 3: 422–499) yet? And would you care to, like, substantiate your accusation that Muller was guilty of assuming his conclusion, by working thru Muller’s reasoning and demonstrating that Muller did, indeed, assume his conclusion? Or do you expect everyone to just, you know, take your bald, unsupported word for it?

henry said:

John Kwok said: You're utterly hopeless and delusional, henry. Even if you were right, there is the unfortunate fact that, independently of Darwin, Wallace developed the theory of evolution via natural selection:

henry said: You would make Thomas the bull dog Huxley proud, but I don't have any scientific evidence for that claim nor do I have any scientific evidence that Darwin wrote Origin of Species.

Thanks for demonstrating once more the acutely dire state of your intellectually-challenged mind. You are certainly enjoying your membership in the Dishonesty Institute IDiot Borg Collective. May you Live Long and Prosper as a DI IDiot Borg drone.

Too bad the Klingons couldn't help the Yankees repeat this year. It's hard to find good help nowadays. I haven't read anything from the Discovery Institute. I'm an ICR guy. Sometimes, I might read Answers in Genesis articles. It was the AIG website that I found out that Washington Irving was the American responsible for the flat earth hoax.

henry said: (quoting Muller) It must result, in consequence, that a dropping out of, or even a slight change in any one of these parts is very likely to disturb fatally the whole machinery; for this reason we should expect very many, if not most, mutations to result in lethal factors, and of the rest, the majority should be "semi-lethal" or at least disadvantageous in the struggle for life, and likely to set wrong any delicately balanced system, such as the reproductive system.

henry said: I'm an ICR guy. Sometimes, I might read Answers in Genesis articles.

FL -

You most certainly did not answer my question.

Who designed what, when, and how?

All parts required for a meaningful answer.

All parts required for a meaningful answer.

Flint -

Yes, that's a good point.

Henry -

Why don't you help FL out? After all, I'm sure you want to keep everybody in the big tent...at least for now...

All I'm looking for is a testable, or even testable in principle, answer, to these questions -

Who is the designer, what did that designer do, how, and when?

harold said: Flint - Yes, that's a good point. Henry - Why don't you help FL out? After all, I'm sure you want to keep everybody in the big tent...at least for now... All I'm looking for is a testable, or even testable in principle, answer, to these questions - Who is the designer, what did that designer do, how, and when?

Stanton said: According to Creationists like henry and FL, the Designer is Jesus, who used magic 10,000 years ago. And what they say is true and more scientific than actual science because Jesus is Lord, and if we don't believe what they say, they're going to get Jesus to send us to Hell and suffer for ever and ever and ever and ever.

harold said: Why don't you help FL out? After all, I'm sure you want to keep everybody in the big tent...at least for now... All I'm looking for is a testable, or even testable in principle, answer, to these questions - Who is the designer, what did that designer do, how, and when?

Harold, you've already been given a specific, falsifiable scientific hypothesis there, relating to ID and to a specific OOL topic. You have a specific real-world means of falsifying it.

Let's see how you do with that much.

FL

FL said: Harold, you've already been given a specific, falsifiable scientific hypothesis there, relating to ID and to a specific OOL topic. You have a specific real-world means of falsifying it. Let's see how you do with that much. FL

henry said:

Cubist said:

henry said:

Stanton said:

Cubist said: And one more thing: If you're a Christian, henry, you might want to avoid bearing false witness against Muller (in this case, by accusing Muller of an error he never actually committed). I am given to understand that there's a whole Commandment which forbids the bearing of false witness; I am further given to understand that the Biblically-validated post mortem fate of false witnesses involves a lake of fire, and it sure doesn't sound like it would be comfortable for even a second, let alone for all eternity...

henry is one of those Christians who believes that breaking any Commandment, or committing any sort of sin is permissible, so long as it's done with the intent of scoring brownie points from Jesus: henry is a shameless liar, and he arrogantly looks down at all of us because we don't assume that the literal reading of the Book of Genesis is a literal and accurate description of reality. Hell, he's also a racist bigot, to boot, what with his fretting over how liberals, immigrants and non-whites are threatening to destroy America.

You would make Thomas the bull dog Huxley proud, but I don't have any scientific evidence for that claim nor do I have any scientific evidence that Darwin wrote Origin of Species.

Hello, henry! Have you had a chance to read GENETIC VARIABILITY, TWIN HYBRIDS AND CONSTANT HYBRIDS, IN A CASE OF BALANCED LETHAL FACTORS (GENETICS 1918 3: 422–499) yet? And would you care to, like, substantiate your accusation that Muller was guilty of assuming his conclusion, by working thru Muller’s reasoning and demonstrating that Muller did, indeed, assume his conclusion? Or do you expect everyone to just, you know, take your bald, unsupported word for it?

It must result, in consequence, that a dropping out of, or even a slight change in any one of these parts is very likely to disturb fatally the whole machinery; for this reason we should expect very many, if not most, mutations to result in lethal factors, and of the rest, the majority should be "semi-lethal" or at least disadvantageous in the struggle for life, and likely to set wrong any delicately balanced system, such as the reproductive system. This statement immediately follows your quote of Muller. It seems to contradict what Muller had just stated.

FL said: Harold, you've already been given a specific, falsifiable scientific hypothesis there, relating to ID and to a specific OOL topic. You have a specific real-world means of falsifying it. Let's see how you do with that much. FL

John Kwok said: I had the pleasure of watching Henry Morris of ICR get smacked down by Ken Miller in Ken's very first debate against a delusional creationist (BTW I helped organize and run that debate.). As for the Yankees, they'll be back next year:

henry said:

John Kwok said: You're utterly hopeless and delusional, henry. Even if you were right, there is the unfortunate fact that, independently of Darwin, Wallace developed the theory of evolution via natural selection:

henry said: You would make Thomas the bull dog Huxley proud, but I don't have any scientific evidence for that claim nor do I have any scientific evidence that Darwin wrote Origin of Species.

Thanks for demonstrating once more the acutely dire state of your intellectually-challenged mind. You are certainly enjoying your membership in the Dishonesty Institute IDiot Borg Collective. May you Live Long and Prosper as a DI IDiot Borg drone.

Too bad the Klingons couldn't help the Yankees repeat this year. It's hard to find good help nowadays. I haven't read anything from the Discovery Institute. I'm an ICR guy. Sometimes, I might read Answers in Genesis articles. It was the AIG website that I found out that Washington Irving was the American responsible for the flat earth hoax.

henry said: By the way, since your comment about the Treaty of Tripoli, I found out that subsequent revisions omitted the phrase "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion". Were you aware of that? http://www.americanvision.org/mediafiles/americas-200-year-old-war-with-islam.pdf

Paul Burnett said:

henry said: By the way, since your comment about the Treaty of Tripoli, I found out that subsequent revisions omitted the phrase "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion". Were you aware of that? http://www.americanvision.org/mediafiles/americas-200-year-old-war-with-islam.pdf

American Vision is a nonprofit Christian ministry. Its mission statement calls for "equipping and empowering Christians to restore America’s biblical foundation." The president of American Vision, Gary DeMar, is a graduate of Western Michigan University (1973) and Reformed Theological Seminary (1979) and earned his PHD in 2007 from Whitfield Theological Seminary. ... The group...is active in the creation science movement. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Vision Henry, are you really sure about the level of, er, historical scholarship backing your statement above?

Stanton said: According to Creationists like henry and FL, the Designer is Jesus, who used magic 10,000 years ago. And what they say is true and more scientific than actual science because Jesus is Lord, and if we don't believe what they say, they're going to get Jesus to send us to Hell and suffer for ever and ever and ever and ever.

henry said: By the way, since your comment about the Treaty of Tripoli, I found out that subsequent revisions omitted the phrase "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion". Were you aware of that?

John Kwok said: According to my trusted sources on Qo'nos, it the Intelligent Designers were really the Klingons:

Paul, thanks for chiming in. You should note my reply to the ever delusional henry. Even Dawkins mentions the correct phrase in his book "The God Delusion".

Stanton said:

John Kwok said: According to my trusted sources on Qo'nos, it the Intelligent Designers were really the Klingons:

Saying blasphemy like that in public is liable to get you banished to Stroganov for a 1000 years, to suffer the endless torment of meatballs in meat sauce.

I suppose henry probably thinks my family fled from some Chinese rice paddies in southern China (Not so, and, in fact, the maternal side of my family has been here in the USA since the mid 1920s; my paternal side is from the North.).

But more to the point I strongly suspect that he doesn't realize that what prompted Darwin to write "Origin" was the unexpected surprise that Wallace had stumbled upon, independently of Darwin, Natural Selection, which is why that theory is correctly termed the Darwin-Wallace Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection.

Dale Husband said:

FL said: Harold, you've already been given a specific, falsifiable scientific hypothesis there, relating to ID and to a specific OOL topic. You have a specific real-world means of falsifying it. Let's see how you do with that much. FL

It must be invisible, because I never saw this "specific, falsifiable scientific hypothesis" of yours, nor did I see a "specific real-world means of falsifying it." Unless, of course, you are lying once more about things you have no comprehension of.

eric said: 1) assume a contrived dualism. Evolution is usually split into several parts to hide the contrivance. ERRORS: ignores the possibility of unknown explanations. Ignores the null hypothesis. In fact, this step replaces the null hypothesis with design so that design is automatically, methodologically favored when data is lacking. This is a departure from the scientific method, so after step 1 it would be a misnomer to claim IDers do 'bad' science - in fact they aren't doing any form of science at all. Note the systemic errors inherent in this step have been pointed out to IDers since at least 1982, and they refuse to address them.

Harold, you’ve already been given a specific, falsifiable scientific hypothesis there, relating to ID and to a specific OOL topic. You have a specific real-world means of falsifying it. Let’s see how you do with that much.

Hypothesis: The genetic code originated via intelligent design as specifically worded in 3-point form in William Dembski’s specific 1999 IVP book Intelligent Design.

It can be shown that the GC did not originate via chance or necessity, (see link below), therefore the only option left is ID.

This specific hypothesis can be falsified, scientifically, via empirical observation.

FL also needs to answer the same question I posed to both Behe and Dembski, namely, how is Intelligent Design a better, more comprehensive, theory than contemporary evolutionary theory in accounting for the origin, history and current complexity of Planet Earth's biodiversity? Haven't read or heard anything from the Dishonesty Institute's mendacious intellectual pornographers or their acolytes - including FL - which addresses this.

The idea that the struggle to understand the natural world has come to an end is not only wrong, it is ludicrously wrong. We are surrounded by mysterious physical miracles, and the continuing, unfinished task of science is to unravel them.

John Kwok said: FL also needs to answer the same question I posed to both Behe and Dembski, namely, how is Intelligent Design a better, more comprehensive, theory than contemporary evolutionary theory in accounting for the origin, history and current complexity of Planet Earth's biodiversity? Haven't read or heard anything from the Dishonesty Institute's mendacious intellectual pornographers or their acolytes - including FL - which addresses this.

Stanton said:

John Kwok said: FL also needs to answer the same question I posed to both Behe and Dembski, namely, how is Intelligent Design a better, more comprehensive, theory than contemporary evolutionary theory in accounting for the origin, history and current complexity of Planet Earth's biodiversity? Haven't read or heard anything from the Dishonesty Institute's mendacious intellectual pornographers or their acolytes - including FL - which addresses this.

I've never read or heard anything from the Dishonesty Institute that so much as explains how Intelligent Design is supposed to be a science, or even how it's supposed to work beyond an Intelligent Design proponent pointing and whining "I don't understand how [insert biological system here], therefore, Jesus magic, and Evolution doesn't work!" If FL really wants us to take him seriously (besides the fact that he wants us to worship him as our Savior), it would help if he were to actually tell us what Intelligent Design is, what about it that makes it a science, and can be applied to other sciences, and, most importantly, what about Intelligent Design makes it a better explanation than Evolutionary Biology. But, since FL is too terrified to tell us, and that the sources he cowardly and dishonestly whines at us to read also refuse to tell us, well...

John Kwok said: In several books, of which maybe the most noteworthy is Richard Dawkins's "The God Delusion", the relevant portion of the Treaty of Tripoli is cited, in which is noted that the United States was not - nor was it ever founded - as a "Christian nation". But thanks for demonstrating anew that your understanding of American history is as abysmal as your grasp of what is valid mainstream science with respect to biology (at least):

henry said: By the way, since your comment about the Treaty of Tripoli, I found out that subsequent revisions omitted the phrase "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion". Were you aware of that?

Stanton said:

Paul Burnett said:

henry said: By the way, since your comment about the Treaty of Tripoli, I found out that subsequent revisions omitted the phrase "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion". Were you aware of that? http://www.americanvision.org/mediafiles/americas-200-year-old-war-with-islam.pdf

American Vision is a nonprofit Christian ministry. Its mission statement calls for "equipping and empowering Christians to restore America’s biblical foundation." The president of American Vision, Gary DeMar, is a graduate of Western Michigan University (1973) and Reformed Theological Seminary (1979) and earned his PHD in 2007 from Whitfield Theological Seminary. ... The group...is active in the creation science movement. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Vision Henry, are you really sure about the level of, er, historical scholarship backing your statement above?

Do remember that henry is a malicious idiot of a racist bigot. His "level of scholarship" includes claiming that one has to believe, under pain of eternal damnation, that the entirety of the English translation of the Book of Genesis is word for word 150% true, with the stark exception of "windows of the sky," which are somehow, magically a metaphor. And then there's also the fact that he thinks that he can magically dismiss all of Evolutionary Biology by saying "E. coli is still E. coli... Flies are still flies," or that he's stupid enough to think that there is no scientific evidence for Charles having written "On the Origin of Species"

John Kwok said: In several books, of which maybe the most noteworthy is Richard Dawkins's "The God Delusion", the relevant portion of the Treaty of Tripoli is cited, in which is noted that the United States was not - nor was it ever founded - as a "Christian nation". But thanks for demonstrating anew that your understanding of American history is as abysmal as your grasp of what is valid mainstream science with respect to biology (at least):

henry said: By the way, since your comment about the Treaty of Tripoli, I found out that subsequent revisions omitted the phrase "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion". Were you aware of that?

henry the racist liar said: I can't possibly be a racist. This is the age of Obama--post racial, post partisan, and post achievement America.

henry said: Sorry, John, Either you quoted Dawkin incorrectly or he quoted from the treaty incorrectly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

By the way, since your comment about the Treaty of Tripoli, I found out that subsequent revisions omitted the phrase "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion". Were you aware of that?

However the Arabic and English texts differ, the Barlow translation (Article 11 included) was the text presented to, read aloud in, and ratified unanimously by the U.S. Senate.

henry said:

John Kwok said: In several books, of which maybe the most noteworthy is Richard Dawkins's "The God Delusion", the relevant portion of the Treaty of Tripoli is cited, in which is noted that the United States was not - nor was it ever founded - as a "Christian nation". But thanks for demonstrating anew that your understanding of American history is as abysmal as your grasp of what is valid mainstream science with respect to biology (at least):

henry said: By the way, since your comment about the Treaty of Tripoli, I found out that subsequent revisions omitted the phrase "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion". Were you aware of that?

Only the original Treaty had the phrase in question. The revised Treaties dropped that phrase. Somehow, Dawkins overlooked that fact or just ignored it.

henry said: I can't possibly be a racist. This is the age of Obama--post racial, post partisan, and post achievement America.

Stanton said: So were you lying when you were whining about how immigrants, colored people and liberals are ruining America and Europe for white Christian Americans or are you conveniently forgetting about that? By the way, how come you can't be bothered to provide any source or statement that demonstrates Intelligent Design is scientific, or how come you can't be bothered to provide any source that demonstrates that Evolution has been disproven because you claim that "E. coli is still E. coli" or that "flies are still flies"?

Science Avenger said:

henry said: I can't possibly be a racist. This is the age of Obama--post racial, post partisan, and post achievement America.

That deserves a place in the Stupid Hall of Fame, especially given that such comments are so frequent among the racist, partisan, nonachieving Teabagger types. Irony is lost on the keep-your-government-off-my-medicare crowd.

Rolf Aalberg said: FL, we have a lot of work to be done before us yet whereas all you've got to do is convince us that magic works. I take the opportunity to quote again one of my favorites from Robert B. Laughlin's "A Different Universe":

The idea that the struggle to understand the natural world has come to an end is not only wrong, it is ludicrously wrong. We are surrounded by mysterious physical miracles, and the continuing, unfinished task of science is to unravel them.

This will be my last "feeding of the troll" so to speak but I thought someone here might be aware of a blog post/article I came across some time ago but have been unable to find again. It was a gentleman who had gone to the Library of Congress and looked up the original articles/records for himself. IIRC, aside from the recorded discussions concerning the treaty, the Barlow translation has been printed in full in the newspapers of the time. He researched these newspapers from that point forward in time and could find no articles of outcry or dissent. This seemed to point once again that even the populace had some concept of the what the "Founders" had intended in their actions of both religious freedom and church state separation. Is anyone familiar with this blog article ?

My apologies, and I will not drag this thread any further off-topic.

John Kwok said: But in henry's case, am sure he's a good buddy of Sarah Palin, that notable Alaskan invertebrate paleontologist:

John Kwok said: Don't blame all the Tea Party followers, just the lunatics please.

Mike Elzinga said:

John Kwok said: But in henry's case, am sure he's a good buddy of Sarah Palin, that notable Alaskan invertebrate paleontologist:

Isn’t that palintologist? ;-)

John Kwok said: Think I heard she claimed to have collected invertebrate fossils with her father, a science teacher, and that Barney Rubble came along with Dino and Bam-Bam for company:

Mike Elzinga said:

John Kwok said: But in henry's case, am sure he's a good buddy of Sarah Palin, that notable Alaskan invertebrate paleontologist:

Isn’t that palintologist? ;-)

NoNick said: This will be my last "feeding of the troll" so to speak but I thought someone here might be aware of a blog post/article I came across some time ago but have been unable to find again. It was a gentleman who had gone to the Library of Congress and looked up the original articles/records for himself. IIRC, aside from the recorded discussions concerning the treaty, the Barlow translation has been printed in full in the newspapers of the time. He researched these newspapers from that point forward in time and could find no articles of outcry or dissent. This seemed to point once again that even the populace had some concept of the what the "Founders" had intended in their actions of both religious freedom and church state separation. Is anyone familiar with this blog article ? My apologies, and I will not drag this thread any further off-topic.

John Kwok said: No, I haven't seen it. It wasn't until the Great Revival of the 1820s and 1830s - spearheaded by Methodists and other, more Evangelical, Protestant Christian groups - that Americans found "GOD". Might surprise my conservative and Republican "brothers" (and "sisters") to learn that the United States at the time of the American Revolution and the drafting the United States Constitution was far more secularist in orientation than they would care to admit:

NoNick said: This will be my last "feeding of the troll" so to speak but I thought someone here might be aware of a blog post/article I came across some time ago but have been unable to find again. It was a gentleman who had gone to the Library of Congress and looked up the original articles/records for himself. IIRC, aside from the recorded discussions concerning the treaty, the Barlow translation has been printed in full in the newspapers of the time. He researched these newspapers from that point forward in time and could find no articles of outcry or dissent. This seemed to point once again that even the populace had some concept of the what the "Founders" had intended in their actions of both religious freedom and church state separation. Is anyone familiar with this blog article ? My apologies, and I will not drag this thread any further off-topic.

One more time for racist Henry (well, no, he won't get it, so it's for anybody else):

Imagine that 2 years ago we had elected a president with the SAME family history as Barack Obama: born in Hawaii to an American mother and a foreign father, a couple of years in childhood spent going to school in another country, family deserted by the father, raised mainly by his grandparents. Assume the same political philosophy and professional career, including election to President vs. John McCain.

Assume all that stuff is the same. Now assume that the absent father was SWEDISH, and the President is blond and blue-eyed and his name is Sven Olsen. Then ask yourself--would there even BE a "Tea Party" or "birthers"? If the candidate and President's middle name were Joseph (like STALIN, right?), would it have been repeated ad nauseum by right-wing radio and TV hosts? When we've had moderate-to-liberal presidents in the past, why was there no "Tea Party" then?

My mother's favorite (valid) generalization: Republicans may not be racists, but racists are Republicans [and now "Tea Partiers"].

Loren Williams -

Okay, I know you're long gone, but I wanted to say that I did check out that tree of life with extinct species included, and I found it to be incredibly interesting, insightful, sobering, and profound.

For my fellow end-of-the-threaders who are still here, here is the link Loren originally provided, in case you didn't see it. http://web2.uconn.edu/gogarten/

Gary Hurd -

I rest my case. There is one you have to do it twice to. If I mention his handle he will reappear, but I think you know what I'm talking about.

NoNick said:

henry said: Sorry, John, Either you quoted Dawkin incorrectly or he quoted from the treaty incorrectly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

By the way, since your comment about the Treaty of Tripoli, I found out that subsequent revisions omitted the phrase "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion". Were you aware of that?

Of course henry's lack of intellectual honesty, or at the very least, reading comprehension prevents him from parsing the following last lines of the Wiki article ...

However the Arabic and English texts differ, the Barlow translation (Article 11 included) was the text presented to, read aloud in, and ratified unanimously by the U.S. Senate.

Regardless if what you say is true, how does this speak to the "Founders" intent henry ? Any thoughts ?

*head~desk*

NoNick said: *head~desk*

harold said: Loren Williams - Okay, I know you're long gone, but I wanted to say that I did check out that tree of life with extinct species included, and I found it to be incredibly interesting, insightful, sobering, and profound. For my fellow end-of-the-threaders who are still here, here is the link Loren originally provided, in case you didn't see it. http://web2.uconn.edu/gogarten/ Gary Hurd - I rest my case. There is one you have to do it twice to. If I mention his handle he will reappear, but I think you know what I'm talking about.

So when are you going to read any of Gordon Wood's excellent histories, which demonstrate that the United States wasn't founded on Christian principles, but instead, was a result of the French - and especially Scottish - Enlightenments? It was Wood who demonstrated just how radical in nature the American Revolution was.

Your ignorance of American history, especially around the time of the drafting of the United States Constitution and its immediate aftermath, is woeful to say the least. Both NoNick and Stanton have made virtually the same observation.

John Kwok said: I suppose henry probably thinks my family fled from some Chinese rice paddies in southern China (Not so, and, in fact, the maternal side of my family has been here in the USA since the mid 1920s; my paternal side is from the North.). But more to the point I strongly suspect that he doesn't realize that what prompted Darwin to write "Origin" was the unexpected surprise that Wallace had stumbled upon, independently of Darwin, Natural Selection, which is why that theory is correctly termed the Darwin-Wallace Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection.

John Kwok said: In several books, of which maybe the most noteworthy is Richard Dawkins's "The God Delusion", the relevant portion of the Treaty of Tripoli is cited, in which is noted that the United States was not - nor was it ever founded - as a "Christian nation". But thanks for demonstrating anew that your understanding of American history is as abysmal as your grasp of what is valid mainstream science with respect to biology (at least):

henry said: By the way, since your comment about the Treaty of Tripoli, I found out that subsequent revisions omitted the phrase "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion". Were you aware of that?

henry said: Last year, somebody suggested I look up some E. coli research. It involved 20,000 generations of E. coli. I pointed out that it's still E. coli. I was told I didn't have enough imagination. Is that what is needed for Muller's fly experiments, imagination? The flies are still flies.

henry said: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/4098 Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. Of course, the website doesn't mention that only the original treaty has Article 11, but the revised treaties omit it.

John Kwok said: In several books, of which maybe the most noteworthy is Richard Dawkins's "The God Delusion", the relevant portion of the Treaty of Tripoli is cited, in which is noted that the United States was not - nor was it ever founded - as a "Christian nation". But thanks for demonstrating anew that your understanding of American history is as abysmal as your grasp of what is valid mainstream science with respect to biology (at least):

henry said: By the way, since your comment about the Treaty of Tripoli, I found out that subsequent revisions omitted the phrase "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion". Were you aware of that?

Science Avenger said:

henry said: Last year, somebody suggested I look up some E. coli research. It involved 20,000 generations of E. coli. I pointed out that it's still E. coli. I was told I didn't have enough imagination. Is that what is needed for Muller's fly experiments, imagination? The flies are still flies.

Once again I think it's worth pointing out that this is nothing more than a semantic game. Henry's response amounts to "there is no evolution because I can still use the same name for those creatures that I used for their ancestors". One might as well say that humans and chimpanzees did not evolve from a common ancestor because I can still call them all "apes". It's the genetic content of the creatures that matters Henry, not what words you choose to call them.

phantomreader42 said: But to henry, only the word matters. Reality is irrelevant. Words are not chosen to describe things with any consideration of accuracy, not for creationists. They think the words are magic. The question or definitions doesn't even enter into their hollow heads.

henry said: What's with the race card?

John Kwok said: I suppose henry probably thinks my family fled from some Chinese rice paddies in southern China (Not so, and, in fact, the maternal side of my family has been here in the USA since the mid 1920s; my paternal side is from the North.). But more to the point I strongly suspect that he doesn't realize that what prompted Darwin to write "Origin" was the unexpected surprise that Wallace had stumbled upon, independently of Darwin, Natural Selection, which is why that theory is correctly termed the Darwin-Wallace Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection.

henry said: What's with the race card?

John Kwok said: I suppose henry probably thinks my family fled from some Chinese rice paddies in southern China (Not so, and, in fact, the maternal side of my family has been here in the USA since the mid 1920s; my paternal side is from the North.). But more to the point I strongly suspect that he doesn't realize that what prompted Darwin to write "Origin" was the unexpected surprise that Wallace had stumbled upon, independently of Darwin, Natural Selection, which is why that theory is correctly termed the Darwin-Wallace Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection.

henry said: Of course, the website doesn't mention that only the original treaty has Article 11, but the revised treaties omit it.

In my personal experience to date, only racists use the term "race card".

Despite being strongly progressive and despising unjustified discrimination and unkindness, I am not especially "PC". But if I do accidentally offend (which does not happen very often to begin with), I don't start blabbering about some kind of "card", I apologize.

eric said: The people's elected representatives went out of their way to make an extra, diplomatically unnecessary statement to the world that we are not a Christian nation.

Just Bob said: One more time for racist Henry (well, no, he won't get it, so it's for anybody else): Imagine that 2 years ago we had elected a president with the SAME family history as Barack Obama: born in Hawaii to an American mother and a foreign father, a couple of years in childhood spent going to school in another country, family deserted by the father, raised mainly by his grandparents. Assume the same political philosophy and professional career, including election to President vs. John McCain. Assume all that stuff is the same. Now assume that the absent father was SWEDISH, and the President is blond and blue-eyed and his name is Sven Olsen. Then ask yourself--would there even BE a "Tea Party" or "birthers"? If the candidate and President's middle name were Joseph (like STALIN, right?), would it have been repeated ad nauseum by right-wing radio and TV hosts? When we've had moderate-to-liberal presidents in the past, why was there no "Tea Party" then? My mother's favorite (valid) generalization: Republicans may not be racists, but racists are Republicans [and now "Tea Partiers"].

As the Government of the United States of America has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of any nation, and as the said States have never entered into any voluntary war, or act of hostility, except in defence of their just rights on the high seas, it is declared by the Contracting parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of Harmony between the two nations; and the Consuls and agents of both nations, shall have liberty to Celebrate the rights of their respective religions in their own houses.

henry said: Sorry, John, Either you quoted Dawkin incorrectly or he quoted from the treaty incorrectly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

David Fickett-Wilbar said:

henry said: Sorry, John, Either you quoted Dawkin incorrectly or he quoted from the treaty incorrectly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

Did you read the article? The question is whether the sentence appears in the Arabic version. As the article you yourself linked says, "However the Arabic and English texts differ, the Barlow translation (Article 11 included) was the text presented to, read aloud in, and ratified unanimously by the U.S. Senate."

OK, people, let's stop whipping a dead horse. Mr. henry has clearly lost, though he is not perceptive enough to realize it, and there is no need to pile on. May I suggest that we either return to something roughly approximating the topic of this thread, or else stop and do something else?

"the southern Democrats were the racists."

Notice your tense, Henry? WERE

After the passage of the Civil Rights Act (by DEMOCRATS), the Dixiecrats (segregationists) abandoned the Democratic party wholesale and became Republicans (strongly encouraged by Nixon's "southern strategy").

If you can't face the facts of US history, too damn bad.

Where do you find the most racism today? The Deep South

Where is creationism most entrenched? The Deep South.

Which states have the worst poverty and lowest educational scores? The Deep South.

Which are the most solidly Republican states? The Deep South.

Reckon there's any connection?

Wheew. Matt, the discussion is over. Why not close the thread?

Gary Hurd said: Wheew. Matt, the discussion is over. Why not close the thread?

OK.