Monday, October 2, 2017

But, But, But, … The Origin Of Life Was All But Solved!

“The origin of life is among the greatest open problems in science”

With everyone from the National Academy of Sciences to science writers such as Carl Zimmer proclaiming that the origin of life problem has essentially been solved, we wonder why we continue to find researchers, this time Yehuda Zeiri at Ben-Gurion University, admitting that:

Despite decades of research, how life began on Earth remains one of the most challenging scientific conundrums facing modern science.

and Sara Walker resorting to hope and luck:

The origins of life stands among the great open scientific questions of our time. While a number of proposals exist for possible starting points in the pathway from non-living to living matter, these have so far not achieved states of complexity that are anywhere near that of even the simplest living systems. A key challenge is identifying the properties of living matter that might distinguish living and non-living physical systems such that we might build new life in the lab. This review is geared towards covering major viewpoints on the origin of life for those new to the origin of life field, with a forward look towards considering what it might take for a physical theory that universally explains the phenomenon of life to arise from the seemingly disconnected array of ideas proposed thus far. The hope is that a theory akin to our other theories in fundamental physics might one day emerge to explain the phenomenon of life, and in turn finally permit solving its origins. […] If we are so lucky as to stumble on new fundamental understanding of life that allows us to solve our origins, it could be such a radical departure from what we know now that it might be left to the next generation of physicists to reconcile the unification of life with other domains of physics, as we are now struggling to accomplish with unifying general relativity and quantum theory a century after those theories were first developed.

But “hope” is not a good science strategy.

One sign of this problem is the proliferation of hypotheses, indicating, as we have pointed out many times, the lack of any good solution. Or as Alex Berezow a bit more bluntly puts it:

The origin of life is a profound mystery. Once life arose, natural selection and evolution took over, but the question of how a mixture of various gases created life-giving molecules that arranged into structures capable of reproducing themselves remains unanswered. Many theories have been proposed, some of which are popular (e.g., RNA World), and some of which are a far-fetched (e.g., aliens). Unlike politics, more ideas are not necessarily better; in science, a diversity of theories tends to betray the reality that scientists have no idea what's going on.

No idea what’s going on? It must be time for Jeremy England to find another Ilya Prigogine idea.

160 comments:

  1. The fundamental problem that OoL researchers must solve is where did life's information come from.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. """The fundamental problem that OoL researchers must solve is where did life's information come from."""

      Well yes there is that, but they also have trouble keeping their intelligent designing manipulating goal oriented fingers off their experiments when trying to prove to the general public just how blind dumb luck spontaneously for no rhyme or reason insta-poofed life into extistence.

      Delete
  2. "The origin of life is a profound mystery. Once life arose, natural selection and evolution took over, but the question of how a mixture of various gases created life-giving molecules that arranged into structures capable of reproducing themselves remains unanswered. "

    The problems of origin of life extend into evolution. As Pepe said where did the information come from for the first eukaryotic cell, or the first respiration system, or the first central nervous system.

    We don't have evidence that a new animal structure can arise from a different animal structure though genetic variation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Once life arose, natural selection and evolution took over..."

      That's the copernican epicycles theory explanation.

      Darwin theory is no match to what modern research has found about life. Bright, open minded scientists are acknowledging this fact:

      "...Neo-Darwinism ... ignores much contemporary molecular evidence and invokes a set of unsupported assumptions about the accidental nature of hereditary variation. Neo-Darwinism ignores important rapid evolutionary processes such as symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, action of mobile DNA and epigenetic modifications. Moreover, some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis. Many scientists today see the need for a deeper and more complete exploration of all aspects of the evolutionary process."
      (http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/)

      Delete
    2. Bill Cole

      We don't have evidence that a new animal structure can arise from a different animal structure though genetic variation.


      Yes, we do have such evidence. Here is one of many papers on the evolution of the bat wing from a non-wing limb.

      Bat Accelerated Regions Identify a Bat Forelimb Specific Enhancer in the HoxD Locus

      Summary: The limb is a classic example of vertebrate homology and is represented by a large range of morphological structures such as fins, legs and wings. The evolution of these structures could be driven by alterations in gene regulatory elements that have critical roles during development. To identify elements that may contribute to bat wing development, we characterized sequences that are conserved between vertebrates, but changed significantly in the bat lineage. We then overlapped these sequences with predicted developing limb enhancers as determined by ChIP-seq, finding 166 bat accelerated sequences (BARs). Five BARs that were tested for enhancer activity in mice all drove expression in the limb. Testing the mouse orthologous sequence showed that three had differences in their limb enhancer activity as compared to the bat sequence. Of these, BAR116 was of particular interest as it is located near the HoxD locus, an essential gene complex required for proper spatiotemporal patterning of the developing limb. The bat BAR116 sequence drove robust forelimb expression but the mouse BAR116 sequence did not show enhancer activity. These experiments correspond to analyses of HoxD gene expressions in developing bat limbs, which had strong forelimb versus weak hindlimb expression for Hoxd10-11. Combined, our studies highlight specific genomic regions that could be important in shaping the morphological differences that led to the development of the bat wing.

      Delete
    3. Dirt worshippers are so friggin boring. It's enough to make a grown man cry.

      Delete
    4. Too bad for ghostrider no one knows what genetic changes are required to turn a land mammal into a bat. And that goes for bat's wings too.

      Delete
  3. Anyone who says that they have anything more than a possible scenario for the origin of life is simply lying. There are several interesting possibilities, and they may not be mutually exclusive.

    Regardless, the likelihood of developing a theory that obtains general agreement is highly unlikely. Not because a robust theory on a natural origins is not possible, but because the ability to test even a small fraction of the steps involved would be beyond the time-frames of scientific research. This is the limitation of drawing significant conclusions about a naturalistic process for OOL. However, this limitation is not evidence for creationism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "However, this limitation is not evidence for creationism.
      "

      How much more evidence for "creationism" do you need? Do you think that all that exist, the universe, you, me and everything else is the product of "poof"?

      Delete

    2. How much more evidence for "creationism" do you need?


      The next bit anyone provides will be the first.

      Delete
    3. There is more evidence for creationism than there is for evolutionism. Heck there is more evidence for bigfoot than there is for evolutionism.

      Delete
    4. Materialists have elevated illogical reasoning into a full fledged philosophical discipline. It's called irrationalism!

      Delete
    5. All materialists are gutless frauds and liars.

      Delete
    6. Mapou: "All materialists are gutless frauds and liars."

      Yup. Nothing but irrefutable logic and argument.

      Delete
    7. Arguing with lying and gutless dirt worshippers is a waste of time. I just enjoy bashing the jackasses.

      ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

      Delete
    8. Nothing but irrefutable logic and argument.

      It is all facts. Don't need an argument when the facts speak for themselves.

      Delete
  4. The simplest possible self-replicating organism is optimistically estimated to have about 250 genes each with over 1500 base pairs. That's not even counting the complexity of the cell wall which is indispensable. That's 375,000 base pairs! In other words, the search space for this simplest genome is 4^375000 !!! And you have to conduct the search and arrive at this level of complexity without the benefit of self-replication and a cell wall for protection against the destructive forces of the environment.

    Materialism is truly the religion of cretins and other willing morons.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mapou: "The simplest possible self-replicating organism..."

      Cannot be DNA based. Making the rest of your argument moot.

      Delete
    2. Cannot be DNA based.

      There isn't any evidence for any non-DNA based self-replicating organism, so that would be an issue.

      Delete
    3. Joke: "There isn't any evidence for any non-DNA based self-replicating organism, so that would be an issue."

      Yes it would. Is there anyone suggesting otherwise?

      Delete
    4. Damn. When I agree with you you still disagree. That is sad.

      Delete
    5. Yes it would. Is there anyone suggesting otherwise?

      If there isn't any evidence for it then why did you even post what you did in response to Louis?

      Delete
    6. Joke: "If there isn't any evidence for it then why did you even post what you did in response to Louis?"

      Just because we do not yet have clear evidence of it doesn't mean that evidence will not be found.

      Delete
    7. Joe, don't fall for the gutless rhetorical trick of a lying dirt worshipper. The jackass is dismissing my argument on the pretext that it does not mention non-DNA life forms even though the argument has nothing to do with non-DNA life forms.

      But then again, non-DNA life forms emerging from dirt are impossible for the same reason as DNA lifeforms: the curse of dimensionality kills them before they are born.

      A dirt worshipper must worship dirt. That's what the cretins do.

      Delete
    8. Mapou: "Joe, don't fall for the gutless rhetorical trick of a lying dirt worshipper. The jackass is dismissing my argument on the pretext that it does not mention non-DNA life forms even though the argument has nothing to do with non-DNA life forms."

      I am dismissing your argument because it presupposes that the first life form was DNA based. There is much disagreement amongst OOL researchers as to how it may have happened, but there is general consensus that the first "life form" was not DNA based.

      What you have done is to raise a straw man and then tear it back down. Good job.

      Delete
    9. The dirt worshipping jackass lies again. Where in my argument do I make any presupposition about the first lifeform? Where did I even use the word "first".

      My argument is against the notion that DNA-based lifeforms could have emerged from dirt via random processes. This is true whether or not the first lifeform was DNA-based.

      But then again, non-DNA-based lifeforms arising by chance from dirt is just as impossible as DNA-based lifeforms arising by chance from dirt. For the same reason.

      You don't get it because you are a gutless and dishonest dirt worshipping cretin. You are as stupid as the dirt that you worship.

      ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

      Delete
    10. Just because we do not yet have clear evidence of it doesn't mean that evidence will not be found.

      All faith and no science. Got it.

      Delete
    11. Mapou: "Where in my argument do I make any presupposition about the first lifeform? Where did I even use the word "first"."

      From this nonsense:

      "The simplest possible self-replicating organism is optimistically estimated to have about 250 genes each with over 1500 base pairs."

      Admittedly you did not specifically say "first", but the inference was there.

      "My argument is against the notion that DNA-based lifeforms could have emerged from dirt via random processes."

      Nobody is suggesting that DNA-based lifeforms could have emerged from dirt via random processes.

      "But then again, non-DNA-based lifeforms arising by chance from dirt is just as impossible "

      Nobody is suggesting that non-DNA lifeforms arose by chance from dirt. In fact, the only people who believe that life arose from dirt are theists

      You are amazingly adept at erecting strawmen. Just not adept at making a logical argument supported by evidence.

      Delete
    12. Nobody is suggesting that DNA-based lifeforms could have emerged from dirt via random processes.

      Inanimate matter/ dirt, what's the difference?

      If you listen to the alleged OoL experts they say the minerals and other stuff that oozed from the alkaline vents did it. That sounds like dirt- recycled dirt. Dirt also has minerals and other chemical compounds. So again, what's the difference? Please be specific and show your work. Or are you not adept at making a logical argument supported by evidence? Evidence says you are not adept...

      Delete
    13. Lying dirt worshipper prevaricates again:

      Nobody is suggesting that non-DNA lifeforms arose by chance from dirt. In fact, the only people who believe that life arose from dirt are theists

      The lies flow like water from the mouths of dirt worshippers. They are the children and followers of Satan, the father of lies.

      ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

      Delete
    14. Joke: "That sounds like dirt- recycled dirt. Dirt also has minerals and other chemical compounds."

      It is obvious that you know as much about chemistry as you do about waves. Is water dirt? Is oxygen, hydrogen, sodium, potassium, phosphorus and nitrogen dirt?

      Delete
    15. Mapou: "The lies flow like water from the mouths of dirt worshippers. They are the children and followers of Satan, the father of lies."

      With inciteful and thought provoking arguments like that it is a mystery why people think you are a joke.

      Delete
    16. It is obvious that you know as much about chemistry as you do about waves.

      I know more than you about both.

      Is water dirt? Is oxygen, hydrogen, sodium, potassium, phosphorus and nitrogen dirt?

      Is water life? Are oxygen, hydrogen, sodium, potassium, phosphorus and nitrogen life?

      Look, wee willie, those things were in the dirt. They were part of it.

      Clearly you are just a clueless troll.

      Delete
    17. With inciteful and thought provoking arguments like that

      Again it wasn't an argument just a post about the facts.

      Delete
    18. Dirt worshipping liar:

      With inciteful and thought provoking arguments like that it is a mystery why people think you are a joke.

      LOL. Brain-dead cretins like think I'm a joke. I love it.

      ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

      Delete
    19. In a world of lies, speaking the truth is a revolutionary act.

      It's not just biology that is full of lies. It's everywhere in the scientific community: archaeology, history, medicine, climatology, physics and cosmology. It's one big pile of crapola.

      Delete
  5. People saying the origin of life is settled or not is just dumb.
    this because its obviously complicated and they have not figured out anything about almost everything.
    These goof balls have all settled to themselves evolutionism is the truth of biology creation and diversity and complexity.
    Since good guys everywhere know this is not so it makes their ideas on ORIGINS irrelevant.
    Their intellectual competence is suspect if I may say so.


    ReplyDelete
  6. The 2017 chemistry Nobel prize was awarded to scientists who succeeded in showing us the complexity of precise protein folding, aka origami to the nth power:

    Protein folds

    I invite materialist scientists to explain to us how dumb natural forces can achieve such precision folding. That's their first step in climbing "Mount Improbable" in explaining the origin of life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I invite materialist scientists to explain to us how dumb natural forces can achieve such precision folding."

      And god designed every extremely complex, yet unique, snowflake.

      Delete
    2. Dirt worshipper and resident prevaricator:

      And god designed every extremely complex, yet unique, snowflake.

      LOL. We are still waiting for the snowflake rabbit. But a snowflake virus would do just as well.

      What a moron. God designed water and its properties, including its crystallic ability to turn into snowflakes. Water sure did not design itself.

      Delete
    3. Mapou: "What a moron. God designed water and its properties, including its crystallic ability to turn into snowflakes. Water sure did not design itself."

      How and when did he design water? Especially since there was no oxygen at the beginning of the universe. Yet, we understand very well how it is formed in Stars by purely physical means. And we understand how water is formed by purely physical means. And we understand how extremely complicated crystals like snowflakes are formed by purely physical means. Exactly where and how did the "design" take place? Did it end at hydrogen, from which everything else is created by purely physical means? Or did god have to intercede at every possible chemical and physical reaction?

      Delete
    4. Materialists believe in natural miracles:

      "Given so much time, the “impossible” becomes possible, the possible becomes probable, and the probable becomes virtually certain. One has only to wait; time itself performs miracles."
      (George Wald, Professor of Biology at Harvard University & Nobel Laureate)

      So, given so much time, squaring the circle becomes possible and 2+2 = 0.

      Delete
    5. "So, given so much time, squaring the circle becomes possible and 2+2 = 0."

      And frequency will equal wavelength.

      Delete
    6. And frequency will equal wavelength.

      A radio frequency 1.87MHz = 160 meter wavelength

      Delete
    7. And we understand how water is formed by purely physical means.

      And we understand how cars and computers were formed by purely physical means. yet they are still ARTIFACTS.

      Delete
    8. Joke: "And we understand how cars and computers were formed by purely physical means. yet they are still ARTIFACTS."

      Artifact: noun: 1An object made by a human being, typically an item of cultural or historical interest. [Oxford English Dictionary]

      I learn something new every day on ID friendly sites. I didn't know that water, which predates humans by a few billion years, was made by humans.

      Delete
    9. Joke: "And we understand how cars and computers were formed by purely physical means. yet they are still ARTIFACTS."

      You are the first UDist that admits that thought processes achieved by purely physical means. There is hope for you yet.

      Delete
    10. Joke: "A radio frequency 1.87MHz = 160 meter wavelength."

      And 12 inches equals one foot. But nobody claims that inch equals foot. But, you are free to believe any nonsense you would like.

      Delete
    11. But nobody claims that inch equals foot.

      On scaled down drawings they would. Heck maps have one inch = 1 mile or more!

      But anyway anyone with any knowledge of radio knows that a radio frequency 1.87MHz = 160 meter wavelength. But you are free to believe any nonsense you would like.

      Delete
    12. You are the first UDist that admits that thought processes achieved by purely physical means.

      The claim is thoughts are not material. Cars and computers are not formed by thoughts.

      Delete
    13. Willie- Oxford dictionary isn't a good place to look for definitions of a scientific nature. "Artifact" is not restricted to humans by the experts. See artifact

      Delete
    14. Joke: "The claim is thoughts are not material. Cars and computers are not formed by thoughts."

      That wasn't your claim. You said that cars and computers were formed by purely physical means. None of that can happen without human thought.

      "Willie- Oxford dictionary isn't a good place to look for definitions of a scientific nature."

      I prefer to use the definition that has stood the test of time rather than one that has been redefined to suit a specific purpose. Or do you think that it is perfectly OK to redefine words?

      Delete
    15. wee willie:
      You said that cars and computers were formed by purely physical means.

      They are, even in Canada.

      I prefer to use the definition that has stood the test of time rather than one that has been redefined to suit a specific purpose.

      LoL! Stanford University is in the top ten in the world.

      Or do you think that it is perfectly OK to redefine words?

      No, I just prefer to use the word in the same sense as the experts do. Hence my reference.

      Delete
    16. Amazing that after all this time Joke is still too stupid to understand wavelength =/= frequency.

      I suppose that's one reason why he's such a Joke.

      Delete
    17. But anyway anyone with any knowledge of radio knows that a radio frequency 1.87MHz = 160 meter wavelength. But you are free to believe any nonsense you would like.

      Oh, that's right, ghostie thinks that people transmit underwater. Amazing, indeed...

      Delete
    18. Joke: Oh, that's right, ghostie thinks that people transmit underwater.

      Joke the moron strikes again! The U.S. Navy for decades has used the ELF (Extremely Low Frequency) and SLF (Super Low Frequency) radio systems to communicate with submerged submarines.

      Communication with submarines

      Joke is still too stupid to realize wavelength is also dependent on the propagation speed of the media the wave is traveling in.

      Delete
    19. Wow, way to run around with those goalposts, ghostie.

      But anyway anyone with any knowledge of radio knows that a radio frequency 1.87MHz = 160 meter wavelength. But you are free to believe any nonsense you would like.

      Loser

      dependent on the propagation speed of the media the wave is traveling in.

      Liar

      Delete
    20. BIG LOL! Joke stuck his foot right in his big mouth with his ignorance about "no one transmits under water". All he can do is bluster and scream LIAR when his ignorance and stupidity is put on display for all to see.

      Delete
    21. Super low frequency (SLF) is electromagnetic waves (radio waves) in the frequency range between 30 hertz and 300 hertz. They have corresponding wavelengths of 10,000 to 1,000 kilometers.

      That means you wouldn't even get a full wave under water. Also SLF and ELF cover the same frequencies.

      And then there is this:

      . If two-way communication is needed, the boat must ascend to periscope depth (just below the surface) and raise a telescopic mast antenna to communicate on higher frequencies (such as HF, UHF, or VHF).

      Delete
    22. stuck his foot right in his big mouth with his ignorance about "no one transmits under water".

      The transmitter is on dry land.

      Delete
    23. Joke: "That means you wouldn't even get a full wave under water. Also SLF and ELF cover the same frequencies."

      I hope that you keep your goal posts on wheels for ease of transportation. I wouldn't want you to get a hernia.

      The subject is whether frequency = wavelength, which is clearly not true. As an electromagnetic wave traverses from air to water, the frequency remains the same and the wavelength increases. And, yes, electromagnetic waves cross this interface all of the time.

      Do you have any more words of "wisdom"?

      Delete
    24. Joke: The transmitter is on dry land.

      The wave has to propagate underwater to reach the submerged sub you moron.

      There's also the Navy's AN/WQC-2 underwater telephone which uses acoustic communication for up to 2 miles under water.

      Tell us Joke, does a 10 KHz sound have the same wavelength in air and in seawater?

      Your ignorance of basic physics is astounding.

      Delete
    25. The point, ole dim one, is that you don't get a full wavelength underwater to measure.

      The subject is whether frequency = wavelength, which is clearly not true.

      And yet a radio frequency 1.87MHz = 160 meter wavelength.

      Delete
    26. I think I will head over to the local Lowes and buy 1.87 MHz of hose.

      Delete
    27. The wave has to propagate underwater to reach the submerged sub.

      There isn't a full wave that reaches the destination.

      does a 10 KHz sound have the same wavelength in air and in seawater?

      No.

      You chumps are definitely desperate as none of this has anything to do with my original claim that you are choking on.

      Unless otherwise STIPULATED when discussing wavelengths and frequencies it is under normal working conditions.

      But then again you are too stupid to understand that.

      Delete
    28. wee-wee: As an electromagnetic wave traverses from air to water, the frequency remains the same and the wavelength increases.

      No, the wavelength decreases by around 63%.

      Again this has nothing to do with my original claim which pertained to wavelength and frequency in the normal use. And in the normal use wavelength and frequency are interchangeable as evidenced by the reference provided.

      Delete
    29. BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

      Look at the Joke trying to slime his way out of the stupid pit he dug for himself by NOW adding the undefined caveat "under normal working conditions".

      All this to hide the fact he was too stupid to understand the effect propagation velocity through the media has on wavelength.

      Joke G, the moron's moron. :D

      Delete
    30. I think I will head over to the local Lowes and buy 1.87 MHz of hose.

      I am sure that you would as you are obviously too stupid to understand that context matters.

      Delete
    31. LoL!@ ghostie- I see that you are also too stupid to understand that context matters. And I also understand your desperation forces you to lie about your opponents.

      Your stupidity and dishonesty are not arguments.

      Delete
    32. All this to hide the fact he was too stupid to understand the effect propagation velocity through the media has on wavelength.

      That was never part of the discussion. Desperate fools had to add that because, well, they are desperate fools.

      Delete
    33. Joke, is there anyone on the web who doesn't think you're a completely ignorant blowhard and moron?

      Delete
    34. Joke: "No, the wavelength decreases by around 63%."

      How can that be possible if frequency = wavelength?

      Delete
    35. Joke: "That was never part of the discussion. [the effect propagation velocity through media has on wavelength]"

      Sorry, but it was raised at the very beginning of this "debate", months ago. Immediately after you made the stupid claim that frequency = wavelength. But rather than admit an innocent error, you opted for the Donald Trump narcissistic approach.

      Since this discussion has largely taken place on Cornelius' blog, a person who I think we both agree is honest and fair, why don't we let him be the impartial arbiter on this subject? Are you willing?

      Delete
    36. Sorry, but it was raised at the very beginning of this "debate",

      Yes you are sorry and you are a liar. That was never raised in the thread of my original claim. And when it was raised on another site I answered it, moron loser.

      Also I provided a site that supports my claim. Are YOU willing to accept what that valid reference says? That frequency and wavelength are interchangeable? Or are you just a willfully ignorant troll?

      Delete
    37. How can that be possible if frequency = wavelength?

      Already explained, ad nauseum

      Delete
    38. is there anyone on the web who doesn't think you're a completely ignorant blowhard and moron?

      Coming from a proven completely ignorant blowhard and moron, your comment is just amusing but still meaningless.

      Delete
    39. And one more time- CONTEXT matters and the context in which I said frequency = wavelength the CONTEXT didn't have anything to do with waves traversing different media. That was all added by ignorant trolls who don't care about CONTEXT and only have the brain power to hurl their feces around the internet.

      Frequency and wavelength are interchangeable as evidenced by the reference I provided. That ghostie and wee willie choose to ignore my reference just proves that they are willfully ignorant trolls.

      Delete
    40. Joke: "Are YOU willing to accept what that valid reference says?"

      Absolutely

      "That frequency and wavelength are interchangeable?"

      Unfortunately for you, that reference does not say that.

      "Already explained, ad nauseum."

      Nausea is correct.

      "And one more time- CONTEXT matters and the context in which I said frequency = wavelength the CONTEXT didn't have anything to do with waves traversing different media."

      Even if we ignore the wave travelling through different media, Frequency = Wavelength is simply a false statement. Regardless of what context you put it in. No matter how you look at it Hz does not equal meter.

      "Frequency and wavelength are interchangeable..."

      Why do you compound one wrong statement with another? Or are you hoping that two negatives makes a positive?

      Delete
    41. Absolutely

      The valid reference was already provided. It shows that frequency and wavelength are interchangeable.

      Frequency = Wavelength is simply a false statement.

      And yet a radio frequency 1.87MHz = a wavelength of 160 meters .

      And look, moron, you got it all backwards even though you and yours had months to prepare. You are so stupid that you thought the wavelength increased when going from air to water. There is no way I will ever listen to what you have to say about this topic seeing that you couldn't even get that one simple thing right.

      I provided a reference that demonstrates frequency and wavelength are interchangeable. You can continue to ignore it but that just proves that you are a willfully ignorant troll on an agenda.

      Now I have the following to just throw at you:

      As an electromagnetic wave traverses from air to water, the frequency remains the same and the wavelength increases.

      That's a keeper, especially given the background of the discussion. Here you are trying to act all knowledgeable by bringing up an irrelevant aspect and you didn't even understand the effects.

      Expected but still pathetic

      Delete
    42. Joke: "You are so stupid that you thought the wavelength increased when going from air to water."

      You are correct. I was in error. See, a person who isn't a narcissist can actually admit an error. You should try it some time. Oh, yah. I forgot. You are a narcissist.

      But the amazing thing is that you think my error supports your claim. The bottom line is that the same frequency can have different wavelengths. They are neither equal nor interchangeable. Nice own goal.

      Delete
    43. Wow, strange that I supported my claim with a valid reference.

      The bottom line is that the same frequency can have different wavelengths.

      In each medium each frequency has one and only one wavelength. And AGAIN the CONTEXT in which I made my statement was not in the context of waves passing through different media.

      And my reference says they are interchangeable. Your willful ignorance isn't a refutation and the fact that you made that moronic error proves you don't know what you are talking about.

      Delete
    44. Hmm. After hundreds of posts, Joke still will not admit that his original claim that Frequency = Wavelength was in error.

      I don't understand it. Joke identified an error that I made and I immediately admitted my error. Joke makes an error that any of us could have made and he drags it out for months denying that he ever made a mistake. Shifting, insulting, dissembling, equivocating, diverting. Yes, all of these were done. Admit a simple mistake? Well, we all know the answer to that question.

      The joy I get is the fact that you will go through the rest of your life trying to convince people that MHz = Meters.

      "Really dear, my penis is 0.6 Hz long."

      Delete
    45. LoL! I don't have to convince anyone of anything. The experts know that transmitting on a FREQUENCY of 1.87MHz = transmitting on a WAVELENGTH of 160 meters.

      The two are interchangeable just as my reference demonstrates. And that was the CONTEXT of my original claim.

      But then again wee wee doesn't care about CONTEXT. It's only concern is to score some kind of imaginary points.

      And thanks to wee wee's total ignorance on what happens when a wave passes from air to water there is no way I am going to listen to what it has to say about the topic.

      Delete
  7. I made my own review, and I concluded that the problem of origin of life was solved by scientific research: IT IS IMPOSSIBLE !!
    -The 20 proteinogenic aminoacids cannot be synthsized by any atmospheric condition;
    -The peptidic bond cannot be formed;
    -Formaldehyde is a very unstable molecule and its presence is impossible by other concorrent reactions;
    -So, ribose cannot be synthesized. Furthermore, formose reaction is not favoured in any condition;
    -Coupling between ribose and nucleic bases to form nucleosides could not be achieved by any abiotic reaction;
    -Fosfate is incompatible with calcium ion in solubion (form precipitate)
    I have a lot of study in this sense, and I think to write a book in this issue...

    ReplyDelete
  8. A bit of logical philosophy:

    1-Causes cannot give what they do not possess.
    2-Information is always the result of intelligence.
    3-Natural processes do not have intelligence.
    4-A mind does have intelligence.
    5-Life is based on information.

    Draw your own conclusion!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 2-Information is always the result of intelligence.

      Your #2 is demonstrably false. There are many well known natural processes which produce information - tree rings and the spectral lines in starlight for two examples. Information is not a conserved quantity despite Dembski's stupid blithering.

      Delete
    2. There are many well known natural processes which produce information - tree rings and the spectral lines in starlight for two examples.

      Umm tree rings may contain data but data must be given meaning before it becomes information. It is given meaning by being analyzed. And it is only analyzed by intelligent agencies.

      Delete
    3. There is no definition which requires information to have meaning. Claude Shannon who founded the science of Information Theory specifically stated the information content of a message has zero connection to any meaning the message may have.

      Joke fails again.

      Delete
    4. There is no definition which requires information to have meaning.

      It is difficult to find one that doesn't:

      information- read it for yourself.

      Claude Shannon who founded the science of Information Theory specifically stated the information content of a message has zero connection to any meaning the message may have.

      Shannon's was all about measuring the information carrying capacity. His was a quantitative assessment that didn't care about meaning. But without meaning you don't have information.

      How can you be informed by something that doesn't have any meaning? Do tell

      Delete
    5. Hmmm... Nobel Prize winner and Information Theorist Claude Shannon says information doesn't require meaning.

      Joke "ice isn't water" "wavelength=frequency" the internet moron claims it does.

      Who to believe? :D

      Delete
    6. BTW Joke, the definition of information you linked to doesn't include the word "meaning" anywhere.

      Joke fails again!

      Delete
    7. LoL! Shannon does not say that information doesn't require meaning. Shannon's theory was about quantifying information that was transmitted, received and stored. The equipment doesn't care about meaning- we do. Without meaning there isn't any in formation.

      KNOWLEDGE requires meaning in information. Nice to see that ghostie is too stupid to be able to assess definitions.

      And only fools think that ice and water are the same thing. I have supported my claim about wavelengthh and frequency so your willful ignorance is still duly noted.

      Delete
    8. Some definitions:

      Shannon information: data which does not require meaning (ex: snowflakes, tornadoes, waves in the sand)

      Functional information: data which requires meaning (ex: traffic light)

      Prescriptive information: Instructional information (ex: a recipe, making a living organism)

      Delete
    9. Some definitions:

      If you're going to make up your own pet definitions like the IDiots do you can define anything into or out of existence. Of course the rest of the world is under no obligation to accept your IDiocy.

      Delete
    10. The normal and accepted definitions for "information" do just fine. It's just that you are too stupid to understand them.

      Delete
    11. Joke: "Umm tree rings may contain data but data must be given meaning before it becomes information."

      Hmmm. Sounds just like DNA.

      Delete
    12. Sounds just like DNA.

      Your position can't explain the existence of DNA. Also the DNA of living organisms contains the coding for polypeptide sequences. Codes are something else your position cannot explain

      Delete
    13. Sounds just like DNA.

      Really? Who gave the DNA meaning? Who told the DNA that it codes for proteins?

      Delete
    14. Joke: "Really? Who gave the DNA meaning? Who told the DNA that it codes for proteins?"

      The same mook who gave tree rings meaning and told them that they can provide information on the age of the tree.

      "Your position can't explain the existence of DNA."

      How does your position explain it? Oh, yah..."Poof".

      "Also the DNA of living organisms contains the coding for polypeptide sequences. Codes are something else your position cannot explain."

      And your position is..."Poof".

      How did your God create DNA? What mechanisms did your God use?

      Delete
    15. Ghostrider wrote:

      "2-Information is always the result of intelligence. Your #2 is demonstrably false. There are many well known natural processes which produce information..."

      Actually your statement would invalidate premise 3-Natural processes do not have intelligence.

      Then, why did natural processes not create information on mars?

      Mars

      Versus

      Earth

      Delete
    16. The same mook who gave tree rings meaning and told them that they can provide information on the age of the tree.

      LoL! Coding for proteins is very different than recording data. But thanks for admitting DNA and the genetic code were intelligently designed.

      Delete
    17. The same mook who gave tree rings meaning and told them that they can provide information on the age of the tree.

      So DNA codes for proteins only because science says they do? The genetic code functions the way it does, ie has meaning, only because it has been observed and elucidated?

      Or are you just having your typical childish meltdown when your position is exposed as a scam supported only by lying losers?

      How does your position explain it?

      DNA was clearly Intelligently Designed

      How did your God create DNA? What mechanisms did your God use?

      Thankfully we don't have to answer those questions before we can determine DNA was the result of an Intelligent Agency.

      Delete
    18. Joke: "DNA was clearly Intelligently Designed."

      Says you. Fortunately nobody with any intelligence listens to you.

      "Thankfully we don't have to answer those questions before we can determine DNA was the result of an Intelligent Agency."

      Of course not. You only have to read Genesis.

      Delete
    19. Says you.

      says the evidence. Even long time atheist and ID critic Antony Flew changed his mind with respect to ID because of DNA and its role in the genetic code. And guess what? You and your have nothing to explain DNA's role in the genetic code nor can you explain the existence of the genetic code.

      You only have to read Genesis.

      Except ID doesn't have anything to do with Genesis, troll.

      Delete
    20. "Even long time atheist and ID critic Antony Flew changed his mind with respect to ID because of DNA and its role in the genetic code."

      That only proves P. T. Barnum's claim that there is a sucker born every minute.

      "Except ID doesn't have anything to do with Genesis, troll."

      Except that ID arose from the steaming pile that was Scientific Creationism, which arose from the bigger steaming pile that was Creationism, that was based on Genesis. This was made clear when it was found that an early drafts of Of Pandas and People used the term "Scientific Creationism". A find-and-replace was performed to change "Scientific Creationism" with "Intelligent Design".

      Delete
    21. That only proves P. T. Barnum's claim that there is a sucker born every minute.


      You and yours are proof of that. Nice own goal.

      Except that ID arose from the steaming pile that was Scientific Creationism

      Wrong again, as usual. ID traces back at least to the ancient Greeks.

      As I said you are just a willfully ignorant troll on an agenda

      Delete
    22. Joke: "Wrong again, as usual. ID traces back at least to the ancient Greeks."

      Actually, it predates that. The Egyptians believed in intelligent design, with their deities playing the role of the designers.

      The ancient Greeks and Norse believed in intelligent design, with their deities filling the role as the designers.

      The Maori believed in intelligent design, with their deities filling the role of the designers.

      The Jews, Christians and Muslims believe in intelligent design, with their deity filling the role of the designer.

      Do you notice a trend?

      Creationists believe in intelligent design, with their deity filling the role of the designer.

      The scientific creationists believe in intelligent design, with their deity filling the role of the designer.

      Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon drafted Of Pandas and People with the term "Scientific Creationism" throughout the text. Doing a 'find-and-replace' does not change it from a religiously motivated text to a scientific text.

      The trail of crumbs leads straight to Christianity. You can dress it up in a cheap tuxedo but that does not hide the crucifix around its neck.

      Delete
    23. Actually, it predates that.

      What I said covers that.

      Look, loser, ID doesn't have anything to do with any religion. And nothing you say will ever change that fact

      Delete
    24. Joke: "Look, loser, ID doesn't have anything to do with any religion. And nothing you say will ever change that fact."

      Yah. Right. Pandas and People. The wedge document. All leading proponents are devout Christians. All UD authors are devout Christians (except for Murray. Nobody kniws what he is). All editors of BioComplexity are devout Christians. ID is most popular in the Bible Belt. I don't know how I could come to the conclusion that it is Christian in origin.

      Delete
    25. How could it be Christian in origin if it originated before Christianity?

      Delete
    26. Also, I know that logic isn't your strongest suit, but it follows that religious people would be drawn to ID. They see ID as an affirmation of their faith, ie science determined there was an Intelligent Designer.

      Delete
    27. Joke: "How could it be Christian in origin if it originated before Christianity?"

      The modern ID "movement" is Christian. i apologize if the flavour of ID that you subscribe to is based on one of the ancient deities. Which one is it? Zeus, Odin, Osiris, Kulkulkan, the Great Pumpkin?

      Delete
    28. The modern ID "movement" is Christian.

      That's your opinion. I happen to know otherwise

      Delete
    29. Joke: "That's your opinion. I happen to know otherwise."

      I didn't realize that you spoke for the ID "movement". I must have missed the newsletter and press release.

      Delete
    30. LoL! What an imbecile. I never said I spoke for the ID movement. Just because I happen to know that the modern ID movement is not Christian doesn't mean I speak for ID.

      Dembski said that ID doesn't require God. So that's something...

      Delete
    31. Joke: "Dembski said that ID doesn't require God. So that's something..."

      Is this the same Dembski that has a Master of Divinity in theology? The same Dembski who worked for Baylor University, an evangelical school? The same Dembski who was the Professor of Theology and Science at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary? The same Dembski who was the professor of philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary? The same Dembski who reversed his opinion about the reality of the Noah flood to preserve his job? The same Dembski who has abandoned ID and resigned from the Discover Institute?

      Delete
    32. Wow, what a loser. As if Dembski has abandoned ID.

      Look, we all know that you cannot actually make a case that ID and Christianity are linked. So why the bluster?

      Delete
    33. Joke: "Look, we all know that you cannot actually make a case that ID and Christianity are linked. So why the bluster?"

      I don't have to. The case was made in Dover. And ID creationism lost.

      Delete
    34. LoL! The case was choked on by the judge who fell for a literature bluff and ignored the testimony of the ID experts.

      Delete
    35. Joke: "

      And the jails are filled with people who claim to be wrongfully convicted.

      Delete
    36. Dr Behe sums up the judge's incompetence here: A Response to the Opinion of the Court in Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District

      Not that wee willie is interested in the facts.

      Delete
    37. Joke: "Dr Behe sums up the judge's incompetence here:"

      Is this the same Behe who was torn apart during testimony?

      Delete
    38. LoL! Now wee willie wants to change history.

      How was Dr Behe "torn apart during testimony"?

      Delete
    39. Joke: "How was Dr Behe "torn apart during testimony"?"

      Read the transcript. It is there for the world to see.

      Delete
    40. LoL! I read it and you can't make a case that Dr Behe was torn apart during testimony. You are obviously just a jealous loser.

      And for the record everything Dr Behe said about irreducible complexity still stands unrefuted. Every system he described is still out of the reach of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes and no one has ever demonstrated otherwise.

      Delete
    41. And wee willie- Dr Behe's devastating take-down of the judge is there for the world to see. Why are you afraid to read it? Or is it that you too stupid to understand it?

      Either way whatever negative crap you say about Dr Behe is refuted by reality.

      Delete
    42. I have read the transcripts and Dr Behe wasn't torn apart by anything. And you cannot make the case that he was.

      Delete
    43. "LoL! I read it and you can't make a case that Dr Behe was torn apart during testimony. You are obviously just a jealous loser."

      I'm confused. Wasn't it ID that lost at Dover?

      He was forced to admit that ID did not meet the definition of science. That couldn't have helped the case for ID.

      He admitted that the argument for ID would be less plausible if there was no GOD. That probably didn't help either.

      "And wee willie- Dr Behe's devastating take-down of the judge is there for the world to see. Why are you afraid to read it?"

      For the same reason I don't listen to claims of innocence by convicted criminals.

      "I have read the transcripts and Dr Behe wasn't torn apart by anything. And you cannot make the case that he was."

      Someone has a serious case of hero-worship going on.

      Delete
    44. Yes you are confused. ID didn't lose. ID was never on trial.

      He was forced to admit that ID did not meet the definition of science.

      Evidence please. Then read the article I linked to. Or continue to lie. Your choice.

      Someone has a serious case of hero-worship going on.

      Exposing you are the cowardly liar that you are doesn't mean anything beyond that. You have a case of being extremely close-minded- oops, you don't have a mind to close.

      Delete
    45. The Court’s reasoning in section E-4 is premised on: a cramped view of science; the conflation of intelligent design with creationism; the incapacity to distinguish the implications of a theory from the theory itself; a failure to differentiate evolution from Darwinism; and strawman arguments against ID. The Court has accepted the most tendentious and shopworn excuses for Darwinism with great charity and impatiently dismissed arguments for design.

      All of that is regrettable, but in the end does not impact the realities of biology, which are not amenable to adjudication. On December 21, 2005, as before, the cell is run by amazingly complex, functional machinery that in any other context would immediately be recognized as designed. On December 21, 2005, as before, there are no non-design explanations for the molecular machinery of life, only wishful speculations and Just-So stories.
      - Dr Michael Behe

      Delete
    46. Joke: "Yes you are confused. ID didn't lose. ID was never on trial."

      Evolution News and Views Title: "3 Myths About the Dover Intelligent Design Trial"

      NBC News: "Judge Rules Against Intelligent Design".

      Sure sounds like Intelligent Design was on trial. At least on trial in the court of public opinion.

      "The Court’s reasoning in section E-4 is premised on: a cramped view of science;"

      It was premised on the definition of science that is in common use. The same definition that Behe admitted that ID didn't meet. Those are his words, not mine.

      " the conflation of intelligent design with creationism;"

      I don't know how anyone could conflate those two. Maybe the pesky little fact that Of Pandas and People, the book at the centre of the trial, was originally drafted as a "Scientific Creationism" text might have been a clue. Doing a find-and-replace, changing "Scientific Creationism" to "Intelligent Design" without changing the rest of the text strongly suggests that creationism and ID are the same thing.

      "Me: He was forced to admit that ID did not meet the definition of science. "

      Joke response: "Evidence please. Then read the article I linked to. Or continue to lie. Your choice."

      Lawyer: "But when you call it a scientific theory, you're not defining that term the same way that the National Academy of Sciences does."

      Hehe: "Yes, that's correct."

      Delete
    47. Sure sounds like Intelligent Design was on trial.

      Only to the willfully ignorant.

      It was premised on the definition of science that is in common use.

      Nonsense. Evolutionism doesn't fit that definition

      I don't know how anyone could conflate those two.

      Again, willful ignorance. Creationism is a SUBSET of ID. But then again I doubt you would understand what that means.

      But when you call it a scientific theory, you're not defining that term the same way that the National Academy of Sciences does

      And how did they define it? And how does evolutionism meet that definition?

      Delete
    48. Jone: "Only to the willfully ignorant."

      I must have missed the ruling that said that ID could be taught as an alternate explanation to evolution. You must reside in an alternate time-line than the rest of us.

      "Nonsense. Evolutionism doesn't fit that definition."

      The question wasn't asked about evolution. It was asked about ID. And Behe admitted that ID didn't fit the common definition. Don't shoot the messenger.

      "Again, willful ignorance. Creationism is a SUBSET of ID. But then again I doubt you would understand what that means."

      I never said that it wasn't. But Of Pandas and People was being flogged as an ID text that did not require God to be the designer. Yet it was originally written as a Scientific Creationism text, which has God as a fundamental requirement. Again, don't shoot the messenger. I didn't make this up. It is on the record for all to see. As is the Wedge document.

      "And how did they define it? And how does evolutionism meet that definition?"

      Evasion and diversion tactics do not change the facts of Behe's testimony.

      Delete
    49. I must have missed the ruling that said that ID could be taught as an alternate explanation to evolution.

      ID is not anti-evolution so clearly you have no idea what you are saying. You are as willfully ignorant as the judge.

      And Behe admitted that ID didn't fit the common definition

      No, not the common definition, loser. It didn't fit the dogmatic definition of the NAS.

      As for the book- the publisher wasn't allowed to defend itself. You are clearly a troll on an agenda.

      Evasion and diversion tactics do not change the facts of Behe's testimony.

      LoL! All you have are diversion tactics and evasion. And it's very telling that you cannot ante up that definition.

      Delete
  9. Then, why did natural processes not create information on mars?

    They did. The natural processes of water and wind erosion created formations on Mars which contain information about Mars geologic history, just as they do on Earth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In order for Mars' geology to contain information one has to have knowledge of the processes Mars had to offer.

      Delete
    2. Joke: "In order for Mars' geology to contain information one has to have knowledge of the processes Mars had to offer."

      Again, sounds just like DNA. Does DNA contain any information, by your twisted toaster repair man logic, if there weren't humans to decipher it? Do tree rings contain any information if there weren't humans to decipher them? If a tree falls in the forest when there is no human around, does it make a sound? Does frequency = wavelength if there wasn't a Joe Galien around to make such a stupid statement?

      Delete
    3. LoL! DNA would contain functional information regardless. Tree rings do not contain anything but DATA. But then again you are too stupid to understand the difference between information and data

      Delete
    4. LOL! Joke continues to make a rather large horse's posterior of himself. We've seen his clown act for a decade now, nothing new. Once a Joke Gallien always a Joke Gallien.

      Delete
    5. LoL! ghostie can only spew ignorant lies because it is an ignorant troll. Once an ignorant troll, always an ignorant troll.

      Delete
    6. Does frequency = wavelength if there wasn't a Joe Galien around

      Yes, a radio frequency of 1.87MHz = a wavelength of 160 meters. All amateur and professional radio people know that.

      Delete
    7. Ghostrider wrote "The natural processes of water and wind erosion created formations on Mars which contain information about Mars geologic history..."

      Yep! Lots of useful information here: Mars

      Delete
    8. Lots of useful information here:

      Since when is information required to be "useful" to be information?

      That's the one nice thing about ID-Creationism pusher; you get to make up new woo as you go along. :)

      Delete
    9. How does ghostie define "information"? Please do tell and we will see who has the woo.

      Delete
  10. Joke: "Thankfully we don't have to answer those questions before we can determine DNA was the result of an Intelligent Agency."

    Well, ain't that convenient. One position that is expected to explain the step by step process for the origin of DNA, and the opposing position that is exempt from doing the same. "Poof".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, what a moron! One position, YOURS, says it has a step-by-step process for producing complex adaptations and macro-molecules like DNA. Blame Darwin and all other evolutionary biologists for that.




      On the other hand ID claims and has demonstrated a step-by-step process for determining intelligent design exists.

      Strange that we have been over this before but your willful ignorance always comes up.

      Delete
    2. Joke: "Wow, what a moron! One position, YOURS, says it has a step-by-step process for producing complex adaptations and macro-molecules like DNA."

      Joey 1, strawman 0. Nobody has ever said that we have a step by step process for producing complex molecules.

      "On the other hand ID claims and has demonstrated a step-by-step process for determining intelligent design exists."

      Of course intelligent design exists. Humans design and build things all of the time. What has not been done is to demonstrate any means of clearly demonstrating this in biological structures. Gordon (KairosFocus) Mullings keeps talking about FIASCO but he, nor anyone else, has ever demonstrated how to measure it.

      Delete
    3. Nobody has ever said that we have a step by step process for producing complex molecules.

      That is what the whole evolutionary concept entails. It all started with Darwin when he said:

      "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

      What do you think is meant by "numerous, slight modifications"?

      Reality 1, wee wee 0

      What has not been done is to demonstrate any means of clearly demonstrating this in biological structures.

      Yes it has and all you have is to whine as opposed to refute. and you could refute the design inference with respect to biology if you and yours could just demonstrate blind and mindless processes are up to the task. yet you can't so you whine.

      Delete
    4. Joke: "That is what the whole evolutionary concept entails."

      It posits that change over time is the result of small gradual changes acted on by selection. Nobody has said that we know what the step-by-step process was. And nobody ever will.

      "Yes it has and all you have is to whine as opposed to refute."

      You keep saying this but never support it with examples. "Poof"

      Delete
    5. It posits that change over time is the result of small gradual changes acted on by selection.

      LoL! Selection doesn't act on anything.

      Nobody has said that we know what the step-by-step process was.

      No one knows because it didn't happen. But that isn't the point. Darwin said he had a process of numerous slight, successive steps.

      You keep saying this but never support it with examples.

      Liar. ATP synthase is an example of ID in biology. The genetic code is too. All bacterial flagella, etc., etc., etc.

      Delete
    6. Joke: "LoL! Selection doesn't act on anything."

      If you say so.

      "Darwin said he had a process of numerous slight, successive steps."

      No, he said that evolution followed a process of numerous, successive, slight modifications. He never said that he had the steps, or knew what they were.

      "ATP synthase is an example of ID in biology. The genetic code is too. All bacterial flagella, etc., etc., etc."

      And how did you prove this? Please show the math. Or is this just more bald assertions that come down to, 'wow, it is complex so it must be designed'?

      Delete
    7. If you say so.

      It isn't just me:

      The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, 1971), reissued in 2001 by William Provine:

      Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing….Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets. (pp. 199-200)

      He never said that he had the steps, or knew what they were.

      You are dense. I never said he said he had the steps. The point is he made the claim and it needs to be supported.

      And how did you prove this?

      Science isn't about proof, moron. Those fit the criteria and your position cannot account for them

      Delete
    8. Joke: "It isn't just me."

      Well, that clinched it. There are two of you. Paradigm shift. Novel prize.

      Delete
    9. Umm, natural selection is a result. But if you have any evidence of natural selection acting on something there may be a Nobel Prize for you.

      Delete
  11. The battle between WS and JG is getting very tiresome...

    ...considering that comments need approval!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Any discussion with Joe is tiresome. Not intellectually, mind you.

      Delete
    2. Right, one would need a brain before one can be intellectually tired. And wee willie hasn't shown any signs of possessing one.

      Delete
    3. True Joe - another problem with people like Willie is that they dont even understand their own evolution religion. He should educate himself on what "natural selection" is and what it isnt, rather than have faith in it

      Delete