Turning Science Into Speculation
Christoph Adami of Michigan State University in East Lansing decided to study the origin of life purely in terms of information theory, so he could ignore the chemistry involved. He assumed that molecules must exceed a certain length in order to have enough information to self-replicate. These long molecules are made from different kinds of short molecules, called monomers.
Adami calculates that if you start with an equal number of each type of monomer, the odds of getting a self-replicating molecule are very low. But if you adjust the distribution of monomers in the environment to match the distribution within a potential self-replicator, the chances improve by many orders of magnitude. It's a bit like hammering randomly on a keyboard on which the most frequently used letters are proportionally larger – your odds of accidentally typing a word are much better than the famous infinite monkeys banging on typewriters.
And by skipping those details, you can always get the right answer:
Once a self-replicator emerges at random, evolution can start improving its abilities. "You only have to make this very first step, where you are getting some crappy replicator," says Adami. "The moment evolution can actually work with it, you're done."
That was easy. And like the multiverse, it’s not impossible:
We have no idea what the distribution of monomers was like on early Earth, but Adami says studies show meteorites contain an unequal distribution of monomers approaching what you might need for life. "It is not impossible that basic self-replicators cooked up on some meteor and ended up contaminating Earth."
But that is only because it is not falsifiable.
It's funny to see how allergic creationists are to genuine science. To anyone without an agenda, Adami's paper is an interesting piece of work that is quite modest in its goals and conclusions.
ReplyDeleteI guess it must really gall you that Adami publishes in respected venues, gets his work written up in New Scientist, and has an active lab with many graduate students, while you're stuck as an adjunct at a 5th-rate bible school.
Wow, that was some refutation. It's funny top watch people like Jeffy here blather about because it is obvious he doesn't have anything but blathering.
DeleteWell done.
Let’s see: “But if you adjust the distribution of monomers in the environment to match the distribution within a potential self-replicator, the chances improve by many orders of magnitude.” This is not novel thinking. It addresses one problem — and only one of the very many problems — with abiogenesis, namely having the monomers in the right proportion. And it addresses it by showing that it could realistically occur? Nope. By assuming it.
DeleteMore importantly, it doesn’t address any of the other numerous and well-documented issues with the naturalistic scenario.
And by the way, Dr. Shallit, can you point us to a “self-replicating molecule”? Such an entity seems to exist only in the minds of abiogenesis proponents. Could such a thing exist in theory? Perhaps. But no-one seems to be able to point to a live example.
The fact that Adami publishes in respected venues and so forth doesn’t gall anyone. Your silly, juvenile retort fails to respond to any of the issues that Dr. Hunter rightly highlights.
It’s funny, though, to see how allergic believers in magical particle collisions are to genuine science.
Eric: And it addresses it by showing that it could realistically occur? Nope.
DeleteThere's evidence in the genetic code that it evolved from a simpler alphabet, and that this reduced alphabet is more likely to form functional proteins.
Zachriel is confusing a requirement with evidence. There is a requirement for evolutionists that the genetic code evolved from something more simple, but there isn't any evidence for it.
DeleteJoe G: there isn't any evidence for it
DeleteThat the posited primordial alphabet is more likely to form soluble proteins is evidence. In addition, there is the affinity between codons and amino acids, as well as the partial optimization of the code itself.
Umm that is NOT evidence that one can evolve into the other. The genetic code requires ribosomes and ribosomes are far beyond the reach of natural selection and drift.
DeleteJoe G: Umm that is NOT evidence that one can evolve into the other.
DeleteIn science, evidence is observations consistent with the hypothesis. So, if we hypothesize that the code evolved from more direct associations between amino acids and codons, then affinity between them would be consistent with that hypothesis. If we posit that the extant code evolved from a primitive code in primordial life, then that the primitive code more readily forms proteins is consistent with that hypothesis.
There isn't any evidence of a primitive code. What we know says that living organisms rely on the timely formation of proteins and that only occurs under the current genetic code and all of its required protein machinery.
DeleteAlso the genetic code requires ribosomes and ribosomes are far beyond the reach of natural selection and drift.
Is there a nested hierarchy of genetic codes? There should be if what you say is correct.
DeleteJoe G: There isn't any evidence of a primitive code.
DeleteAffinities between codons and amino acids is predicted from the hypothesis that the current code evolved from a more primitive association.
Joe G: Is there a nested hierarchy of genetic codes? There should be if what you say is correct.
The nested hierarchy is the result of bifurcating descent, which is not the expected pattern.
Zachriel:
DeleteTwo problems with your statement:
First, the OP is talking about monomers coming together essentially at random to form the all-important, elusive, never-before-seen "self-replicating molecule" that materialists imagine kicked off the grand parade of life. Having a code that codes for proteins has nothing to do with it.
Second, can you please explain how a simpler code could -- even as a matter of principle -- be "more likely to form functional proteins" than the current code, or any other code for that matter? Explain why, say, a 2-bit digital code would be more likely to form a functional protein than a 4-bit digital code.
Zachriel:
DeleteAffinities between codons and amino acids is predicted from the hypothesis that the current code evolved from a more primitive association.
The "hypothesis" is not testable, there isn't any evidence for a primitive code and there isn't any way natural selection could create the observed genetic code.
Zachriel:
The nested hierarchy is the result of bifurcating descent,
The nested hierarchy is the result of men creating it. Nature does not produce nested hierarchies. And just because nested hierarchies can be represented as bifurcating descent does not mean bifurcating descent creates nested hierarchies. Your ignorance is shining through, again.
Eric: First, the OP is talking about monomers coming together essentially at random to form the all-important, elusive, never-before-seen "self-replicating molecule" that materialists imagine kicked off the grand parade of life.
DeleteYou're right! We got our threads mixed up. Please ignore our previous comment.
Thank you for bringing up the key issue in the Origin of Life speculation, which is that the events are, by the admission of the evolutionists, unique and unreproducible.
ReplyDeleteThere is name for the study of unique and unreproducible events that occur in time. That name is not science, but history, in this case natural history.
The study of history, even prehistory, looks for artifacts, documents, and witnesses to the events it studies. Evolution, under the Darwinian mythos, hand waves off the documentation and witness by definition, and now with computer aided simulations they no longer need artifacts.
That certainly simplifies things if you're looking to create myths instead of studying history.
Shallit, it must really gall you that Adami is defining life in terms of information - thereby tacitly admitting that Dembski and others have been correct all these years.
ReplyDeleteFunny stuff, Kapitalist. The importance of information for life didn't originate with Dembski; it was mentioned in Watson and Crick's first paper on DNA, and Quastler's book was published in 1953.
ReplyDeleteTypical creationist behavior: not knowing the literature, and pretending that creationists are inventing something new.
Well then I guess you happily concede the point. Now explain how the existence of monomers in the correct ratios allows a search sufficient to create a replicator. Because unless you can it is not science it is science fiction.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry your reading comprehension is so poor. It seems to match your knowledge of the literature.
DeleteMy reading comprehension is great and I know a negative pregnant when I see one. So you admit that life requires information and that information cannot be created by the mere existence of monomers in certain ratios.
DeleteShallit, you're digging a hole for yourself. For someone who claims to be evidence-led, you've contributed absolutely nothing other than the typical atheist last resort of the ad hominem. As they say: "Better to keep silent and be taken as a fool than to open your mouth, and leave us all in no doubt!"
DeleteKapitalist: we already know what "creates information" and it isn't what Dembski claims. You are welcome to attend my class CS 462 in the winter term, where we reveal the mysterious answer. Hint: it's not very mysterious, and we've known the answer for some time.
DeleteJeff- neither nature nor materialistic processes can create information. Not the sort that Crick was talking about anyway. And if you have evidence to the contrary then I am sure a Nobel Prize awaits.
DeleteJeffrey, Is it true that you think that evolutionary and genetic algorithms, which are search heuristics actively searching for solutions to specific problems, simulate natural selection, which isn't a search heuristic?
DeleteElsberry thinks so and linked to an easily refuted article that you two wrote. Heck my 11 year old could refute the trope in that article...
Jeffrey,
Delete"You are welcome to attend my class CS 462 in the winter term, where we reveal the mysterious answer. Hint: it's not very mysterious, and we've known the answer for some time."
If the answer is not 'mysterious' and has been known for some time, why not just spit it out? Could it be you simply have not thought anything up yet? Or perhaps your prestigious institution is in financial distress and is requiring its professors to drum up business by trying to increase enrollment.
I know you wish everyone here to kowtow to your self imagined superior intellect, but all I see is ad hominems and evasion.
Nic- I looked it up and CS 462 is titled "Formal Languages and Parsing"- see CS 462
DeleteJoe G
Delete"Nic- I looked it up and CS 462 is titled "Formal Languages and Parsing"
Yeah, I can see the relationship between parsing a sentence and constructing an evolutionary history of an organism and the naturalistic origin of the information input required, who wouldn't?
CS= computer science, meaning it isn't about parsing a sentence
DeleteJoe,
Delete"CS= computer science, meaning it isn't about parsing a sentence"
Thank you for pointing that out. It has been a long time since I investigated university courses and the meaning of the prefix 'CS' went right by me. As one who spent the majority of his time at university studying language related subjects parsing a sentence is what immediately came to mind.
However, I think my point still stands as computer code is really nothing more than a series of sentences, albeit in a unique language, instructing the machine how to function. It matters not whether you are trying to argue for the naturalistic origin of information from computer code or simple linguistic structures, you will fail in both scenarios as all information contained within both systems originates from an intelligent source. It never arises naturally on its own.
Shallit: "You are welcome to attend my class CS 462 in the winter term, where we reveal the mysterious answer. Hint: it's not very mysterious, and we've known the answer for some time."
DeleteWhat a complete load of bluff. If Shallit knows how information-rich systems originated in the context of the origin of life (the subject of this thread, after all), he will certainly publish it and easily obtain a Nobel Prize. It isn't going to be disclosed in his CS class. Typical bluster and obfuscation.
Nic, you are correct- I just didn't want Jeffy to jump all over you for the apparent confusion
DeleteJoe,
Delete"Nic, you are correct- I just didn't want Jeffy to jump all over you for the apparent confusion"
Thank you, I appreciate that.
No refutation? Well Dr. Shallit, what do you think of the "WOW signal of the terrestrial genetic code" concluding that the DNA genetic code is "irreducible to natural origin" and that the null hypothesis of chance and evolution are strongly rejected. This is one peer reviewed paper that is Intelligent Design friendly. I realize they are concerned with Pansperia, but this confirmed hypothesis that there is an intelligent signal in our genetic code could certainly just as likely be the signature of our Intelligent Designer. :)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103513000791
I'm sorry that your science training is so weak that you have trouble distinguishing between pure crackpottery and genuine science. It seems to be an affliction of creationists.
DeleteJeffrey- anyone who thinks that evolutionism is science doesn't have a clue as to what science entails.
DeleteBut the "gold standard of science", the peer reviewed literature is now worthless if it confirms an Intelligent Design prediction? All the editors and reviewers, as well as authors and SETI scientists are crackpots now? :) Where is the paper showing how the genetic code evolved then. This one has no explanation: "The Origin and Evolution of the Genetic Code, The Universal Enigma" as it explains the many paradoxical difficulties, not to mention the dual language recently discovered in the code which wasn't even known when this paper was published.
DeleteKristen Mayeaux: This one has no explanation: "The Origin and Evolution of the Genetic Code, The Universal Enigma"
DeleteYes, it does. It provides three non-exclusive explanations, but finds that the evidence to determine their relative contribution is still weak.
'
There isn't any evidence that the genetic code can arise via any other mechanism besides via an intelligent agency. There isn't even a testable hypothesis for any other cause for it.
DeleteJoe G: There isn't even a testable hypothesis for any other cause for it.
DeleteAll you seem to do is say "Is not". That the posited primordial alphabet is more likely to form soluble proteins is evidence. In addition, there is the affinity between codons and amino acids, as well as the partial optimization of the code itself.
Zachriel:
DeleteAll you seem to do is say "Is not".
All you seem to do is lie and that is my response to your lies.
That the posited primordial alphabet is more likely to form soluble proteins is evidence.
Evidence for what?
In addition, there is the affinity between codons and amino acids, as well as the partial optimization of the code itself.
So what?
Zachreil, Here is what the author said about his paper - Origin & Evolution of Genetic Code: the Universal Enigma
Delete"The truth is that we still do not have a reliable and testable theory for the genetic code origin and evolution. This was the gist of the review paper by Eugene Koonin and myself, and I keep standing behind this premise.
The genetic code has more regularities than it is usually thought (or can be accounted for by random forces), and in this I agree with the authors of the paper. The existing theories do not explain the overall level of code non-randomness (whatever it might mean). --- Artem Novozhilov
http://anovozhilov.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/the-wow-signal-of-the-terrestrial-genetic-code/
Excerpt from the paper: "At the heart of this problem is a dreary vicious circle: what would be the selective force behind the evolution of the extremely complex translation system before there were functional proteins? And, of course, there could be no proteins without a sufficiently effective translation system. A variety of hypotheses have been proposed in attempts to break the circle (see (132–135) and references therein) but so far none of these seems to be sufficiently coherent or enjoys sufficient support to claim the status of a real theory."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3293468/
Kristen Mayeaux: so far none of these seems to be sufficiently coherent or enjoys sufficient support to claim the status of a real theory
DeleteWe agree that there is currently no complete theory. That is different than saying there is no explanation whatsoever.
Explanations based on personal bias don't count.
DeleteI concede that by "no explanation" I meant no tenable or plausible explanation. Sorry and have a nice day.
DeleteJeffrey,
Delete"I'm sorry that your science training is so weak that you have trouble distinguishing between pure crackpottery and genuine science. It seems to be an affliction of creationists."
I'm sorry your critical thinking abilities are so weak that you have trouble realizing that evolution is not a scientific discipline in and of itself, but merely a world view which uses legitimate scientific disciplines in an attempt to justify its philosophical views.
Kristen Mayeaux: I concede that by "no explanation" I meant no tenable or plausible explanation.
DeleteWhat makes you think the explanation is not tenable or plausible?
If the explanation was tenable or plausible someone would have said how to model and test it.
DeleteJoe G: If the explanation was tenable or plausible someone would have said how to model and test it.
DeleteWhile testing is important, the lack of a current test doesn't mean the explanation isn't tenable or plausible.
Zachriel:
DeleteWhile testing is important, the lack of a current test doesn't mean the explanation isn't tenable or plausible.
It means it isn't tenable nor plausible at this moment. And it won't be until it can be modeled and tested.
So when Einstein published his General Theory of Relativity, it wasn't tenable or plausible.
DeleteHeh. Einstein posited a test for his theory.
DeleteJoe G: Einstein posited a test for his theory.
DeleteYes, and the hypothesis of codon-amino acid affinity has been tested and verified.
OK but that has nothing to do with any alleged primitive code and it definitely has nothing to do with the evolution of the primitive code to the modern genetic code.
DeleteJoe G: OK but that has nothing to do with any alleged primitive code
DeleteSure it does. Scientists hypothesized that if the code evolved from a simpler association between codons and amino acids, that they would have an affinity. This is a confirmed prediction, supporting the hypothesis.
The paper says this regarding the three possibilities that were evaluated:
Delete"Nevertheless, these and other theoretical approaches lack the ability to take the reconstruction of the evolutionary past beyond the complexity threshold that is required to yield functional proteins, and we must admit that concrete ways to cross that horizon are not currently known."
This is why it is untenable.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThat doesn't make the explanations untenable, i.e. indefensible. Rather, support is insufficient to reach any definitive conclusion, but the hypotheses have been important for guiding new research in the area.
DeleteZachriel:
DeleteScientists hypothesized that if the code evolved from a simpler association between codons and amino acids, that they would have an affinity
You're just dim. I could hypothesize that given the nature of the current genetic code that there would be such an affinity. As a matter of fact such an affinity could fit in with other hypotheses as well.
Joe G: I could hypothesize that given the nature of the current genetic code that there would be such an affinity.
DeleteWhy? What's the entailment?
The entailment is physics and chemistry, duh.
DeleteAn entailment is a series of deductions that leads to the prediction. Waving your hands in the general direction is not a series of deductions. What about the current genetic code would lead to predict an affinity between amino acids and codons?
DeleteOK so Zachriel is also ignorant of physics and chemistry. It is via knowledge of physics and chemistry that allows us to predict an affinity between codons and amino acids.
DeleteWhat are you such an horses arse?
Joe G: It is via knowledge of physics and chemistry that allows us to predict an affinity between codons and amino acids.
DeleteWe asking for the chemical specifics of the genetic code as to why you would predict an affinity between codons and amino acids.
Due to the physics and chemistry of the current genetic code we would predict the affinity between codons and amino acids.
DeleteAs I said obviously you have mental issues
Joe G: Due to the physics and chemistry of the current genetic code we would predict the affinity between codons and amino acids.
DeleteDo you think that is specific?
Zachriel:
DeleteDo you think that is specific?
I know it is. OTOH there still isn't any evidence for a more primitive code and no way to get to the current code from the alleged primitive code.
Heh. Except you didn't note any properties of the genetic code or the translation process, much less properties that imply that there should be an affinity between codons and amino acids.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHeh. The affinity doesn't have anything to do with the code. And that is what makes your posited "hypothesis", nothing but a lie for gullible losers to promote. And here you are.
DeleteJoe G: The affinity doesn't have anything to do with the code.
DeleteAnd yet the affinity was predicted from a hypothesis about the origin of the code. Lucky guess?
By the way, did you forget that you said the affinity was predicted from the chemical properties of the code?
Zachriel:
DeleteAnd yet the affinity was predicted from a hypothesis about the origin of the code.
No, it wasn't. However, there still isn't any evidence for a more primitive code and no way to get to the current code from the alleged primitive code.
By the way, did you forget that you said the affinity was predicted from the chemical properties of the code?
That isn't what we said.
Joe G: No, it wasn't.
DeleteGamow, Possible relation between deoxyribonucleic acid and protein structures, Nature 1954.
Zachriel: By the way, did you forget that you said the affinity was predicted from the chemical properties of the code?
Joe G: That isn't what we said.
Joe G: "Due to the physics and chemistry of the current genetic code we would predict the affinity between codons and amino acids."
The affinity doesn't have anything to do with any code. That is just a fact. The affinity has everything to do with the physics and chemistry of the molecules involved.
DeleteThat means given the physics and chemistry of the molecules involved in the genetic code we would expect there to be an affinity between codons and amino acids.
But then again you appear to be too obtuse to grasp that.
Joe G: The affinity doesn't have anything to do with any code.
DeleteLucky guess then?
Joe G: That means given the physics and chemistry of the molecules involved in the genetic code we would expect there to be an affinity between codons and amino acids.
As codons and amino acids don't interact directly, why would you expect an affinity. Please be specific.
Zachriel:
DeleteAs codons and amino acids don't interact directly, why would you expect an affinity. Please be specific.
The affinity has everything to do with the physics and chemistry of the molecules involved.
That means given the physics and chemistry of the molecules involved in the genetic code we would expect there to be an affinity between codons and amino acids.
No guessing required,just knowledge of chemistry and physics.
Do you really believe the affinity between DNA and amino acids wouldn't exist if the genetic code didn't use either of them? Really? The affinity only exists because the genetic code requires a pre-cursor with such an affinity? Really?
Joe G: That means given the physics and chemistry of the molecules involved in the genetic code we would expect there to be an affinity between codons and amino acids.
DeleteWhy specifically about the "physics and chemistry" would lead you to that conclusion?
Joe G: Do you really believe the affinity between DNA and amino acids wouldn't exist if the genetic code didn't use either of them?
There's no reason for the affinity if the system was designed.
Zachriel:
DeleteWhy specifically about the "physics and chemistry" would lead you to that conclusion?
It has to do with the way certain molecules can interact. IOW it requires knowledge, which is something you don't have.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19795157
There's no reason for the affinity if the system was designed.
Only if the system was designed would we expect the affinity. Non-design processes can't account for atoms, let alone molecules and their affinities.
Joe G: It has to do with the way certain molecules can interact.
DeleteYes, what specially about the genetic code implies that codons and amino acids would have affinity?
Joe G: Only if the system was designed would we expect the affinity.
Why is that? And why was the hypothesis put forth by evolutionary biologists rather than IDers?
Zachriel:
DeleteYes, what specially about the genetic code implies that codons and amino acids would have affinity?
We already covered that.
Only if the system was designed would we expect the affinity.
Why is that?
I explained why.
And why was the hypothesis put forth by evolutionary biologists rather than IDers?
The hypothesis was NOT put forth by blind watchmaker evolutionary biologists. And the hypothesis has nothing to do with the code.
And there still isn't any evidence for a more primitive code and no way to get to the current code from the alleged primitive code.
Joe G: We already covered that.
DeleteHeh. No, you said it was due to "physics and chemistry". You do understand that codons and amino acids don't directly interact?
Joe G: The hypothesis was NOT put forth by blind watchmaker evolutionary biologists.
Gamow, Possible relation between deoxyribonucleic acid and protein structures, Nature 1954.
Zachriel:
DeleteNo, you said it was due to "physics and chemistry".
It is due to physics and chemistry. Do you doubt that? Really?
You do understand that codons and amino acids don't directly interact?
Yes and I also understand that evolutionism did NOT predict the genetic code. It did predict the molecules involved in the genetic code and that means only an imbecile would think it predicted the affinities between the molecules. And here you are.
Gamow, Possible relation between deoxyribonucleic acid and protein structures, Nature 1954.
And he was WRONG. DNA does not have the affinity, RNA does. Not only that he-Gamow- wasn't a biologist.
Joe G: It is due to physics and chemistry.
DeleteThe hypothesis was based on a posited history of the evolution of the code from a more primitive association. The prediction regards chemistry.
Now, the question is what specifically about "physics and chemistry" leads you to predict an affinity between codons and amino acids?
Joe G: DNA does not have the affinity, RNA does.
DeleteYes.
Saxinger et al., Evidence for the interaction of nucleotides with immobilized amino-acids and its significance for the origin of the genetic code. Nat New Biol 1971.
Which supports the RNA-world hypothesis.
Crick, "The origin of the genetic code", Journal of Molecular Biology 1968.
Zachriel:'
DeleteNow, the question is what specifically about "physics and chemistry" leads you to predict an affinity between codons and amino acids?
Knowledge-
Also evolutionism did NOT predict the genetic code. It did predict the molecules involved in the genetic code and that means only an imbecile would think it predicted the affinities between the molecules. And here you are.
BTW there isn't any evidence for a RNA world. There is a requirement but even then you cannot get to a DNA world from a RNA world.
Zachriel: what specifically
DeleteJoe G: Knowledge-
Ha, ha! You are hilarious.
Ha, ha! You are ignorant.
Delete"it must really gall you that Adami publishes in respected venues, gets his work written up in New Scientist, and has an active lab with many graduate students"
ReplyDeleteYou don't usually seek employment at a bible college for money or fame. Perhaps you were really talking about the way you would feel if you were in his position?
Also, Biola is an excellent school.
DeleteBy what measure is Biola excellent? Research per faculty member, grants per faculty member, what?
DeleteBiola is a laughingstock.
Jeffrey, here's something to consider.
DeleteMichael Behe and William Dembski have made a greater impact on the evolutionary debate than you've made in either your own field, in evolutionary debate, or even in your advocacy work. I say this as someone who doesn't think ID is science, and who rejects creationism.
And the best part? They just sidestepped academia altogether. Instead they wrote books, provoked a lot of thought and even more controversy, and made some good points in the process.
You? You're just another pissant at Waterloo, a person known at best by a tiny number of people. Among the people who know you for your ID yammerings, half of THOSE people think you're a laughingstock and a jackass. The other half agree with you, but probably forget your name if you're not actively talking to them in blogs.
But keep on swinging, baby! ;)
Michael Behe and William Dembski have made a greater impact on the evolutionary debate than you've made in either your own field: among laymen, sure. In exactly the same way that L. Ron Hubbard had a great impact.
DeleteBut among actual evolutionary biologists, you know, the ones who do the research and write the papers and the textbooks, their influence is almost zero. This can easily be checked by looking at how often their work is cited, something I've already done (for example) here: http://recursed.blogspot.ca/2009/11/fruitlessness-of-id-research.html .
What actual evolutionary biologists are doing research that demonstrates that natural selection can bring about design without a designer? Heck evolutionary biologists can't even tell us what determines the type of organism that will develop- no one knows what makes an organism what it is- and that is pathetic and that ignorance is the result of materialistic evolution
DeleteJeffrey
Delete"Biola is a laughingstock."
The only thing worthy of laughter here is your pathetic belief that ridicule and personal attacks constitute a sound defence of your 'scientific' position. If you're the highly qualified scientist you wish everyone to believe you are, try acting like it. Your actions are beyond childish.
"An honest creationist. Any idea where I could find one?"
There is plenty of them around, all you have to do is be willing to look and listen. However, I do realize that is asking way too much of you. You've got it all figured out and anyone who does not see the world as you do is just simply ignorant.
You wish to be respected as an intellect, but you simply come across as an arrogant buffoon.
Geeze Mr. Shallit,
ReplyDeletePerhaps you could provide some actual information to back up your preposterous pomposity.
You claim to be someone without an agenda, "To anyone without an agenda, Adami's paper...etc." But, you are a liar aren't you because you obviously have an agenda.
You think Dr. Hunter must be galled. But I've been on this forum a long time and I've rarely seen someone so galling as you are. Projection is a symptom of denial of real but deeper problems.
PS We've here long ago rejected "bandwagon" argumentation. It doesn't matter if Adami has written for New Scientist or Mad Magazine. What matters is what he says and what evidence he has to support it.
In this case, Adami offers only speculation, like my philosophy professor who speculated there must be little green fairies hovering somewhere above the Pacific Ocean. We were unable to prove it wasn't true.
Speaking of evidence...I missed the evidence you provided. Oops! There isn't any.
Typical behavior? Pretending?
We've also rejected "bluffing". Bluffing is when you make statements that imply you know what you are talking about.
You got one thing right, though, Mr. Shallit, a couple of times. "I'm sorry...."
Laughingstock? You've made yourself one here, sir.
I notice the Darwinians that usually hang out at this blog, waiting like mad men to pounce on every post and who are usually the first to post, have stayed far away from this thread. I'm guessing you've embarrassed them.
Until you showed up, I tolerated them. But now, I'll be glad when they come back. They generally try to offer some sort of evidence for their claims--which you have utterly failed to do.
I hope you find what you are looking for, Mr. Shallit. You are one of the unhappiest people I've ever known to post here.
You think Dr. Hunter must be galled. But I've been on this forum a long time and I've rarely seen someone so galling as you are. Projection is a symptom of denial of real but deeper problems.
ReplyDeleteOh dear, someone who doesn't understand the difference between galling and being galled. It would only be "projection" if I were galled, not galling someone else, now, wouldn't it?
As for unhappiness, I think the definition of it would be to author a blog which harps on the same theme, post after post, and that theme is how everybody else in the same field is an idiot and delusional and "religious", and only the author of the blog has the perspicacity enough to realize it.
I hope you find what you are looking for, Mr. Shallit.
ReplyDeleteAn honest creationist. Any idea where I could find one?
Well there are by far more honest Creationists and IDists than there are honest evolutionists. The latter has absolutely no one that can be called honest
DeleteSure, Shallit. I'll attend CS462 if its online.
ReplyDeleteWhere do I register?