The helix, of DNA fame, may have arisen with startling ease

It probably spun around itself long before first life evolved like it did in a lab.

How probable was it, does the article show the math?

And when did it become an information bearing molecule?

1 Like

So since you claimed there simply isn’t enough time, I trust you have done this work?

1 Like

These two points are confused. The “UCA” refers to the most recent common ancestor of all life; your usage is both non-standard and ambiguous. If we take it to refer to the most recent ancestral population of all modern humans, then that population would in fact be identical to modern humans. If we take it to refer to something else, it isn’t clear what that something else is. Further, “great apes” demonstrates one of the fallacies mentioned in the recent article on the subject, which you would do well to read. You are thinking of chimps and gorillas as ancestral, which they are not; chimps and humans are equally separated from their common ancestor. We are all great apes.

Since behavioral and “capacitative” change are presumably a result of genetic change, these two are the same thing. Of course we don’t know the answer, since it’s a difficult problem in genomic analysis, connecting genetic changes with phenotypic changes. But the frequent estimate is a few thousand point and other mutations.

Well of course we don’t know. See above.

That’s a misunderstanding of what “selfish genes” means. Altruism can be beneficial, especially in a social species. And much of it may not have a genetic basis at all, only a cultural adaptation in a social group.

Ah, but rewards may not be teleological. Natural selection isn’t teleological, is it?

In short, all those questions display multiple, serious misunderstandings of evolution.


And still you falsely claimed that you were addressing the evidence. Why?

Awwww. You’re not very resourceful, are you?

The abstract isn’t the evidence either. Why do you keep on digging deeper and making silly excuses?

Why are you unwilling to acknowledge the simple truth: that both sides are clearly not looking at the same evidence?

Have you EVER looked at any actual evidence, Guy?

You had absolutely no excuse for claiming that the ScienceDaily article was evidence. Why did you do it?

So what? You knowingly and repeatedly made the false claim that your criticisms were based on your analysis of the evidence. Why not try to be a bit more graceful and examine the evidence before defending criticisms you based entirely on hearsay?

Quotes from the paper are not evidence. Why can’t you grasp this fact?

Guy, YOU have proven that both sides don’t look at the same evidence.

1 Like

Which probably originate in avoidance of the evidence. :sunglasses:

Should have included a link: Understanding Evolutionary Trees.

1 Like

Not confused, exactly, but could have been more artfully worded on my part. Thanks for that feedback.
BTW, I was not speaking of teleological rewards, at least primarily. Headed out for a few hour’s work and a walk.

True, in the sense that you could have said something completely different that might have been a set of sensible questions about some topic.

1 Like

I have no obligation to word myself to your imagined standards of suitability. For me, they’re far too limited. Ciao!

Hey, you thanked me for the feedback. Make up your mind.

1 Like

Can you please explain this, John? Why would the cited article not be considered to be evidence? It seemed as though there was much ado over the Science Daily article vs. the source articles vs. the abstract. I think that Guy was hoping that someone could forward the article that he cannot access, or else to cite the pertinent parts of the article for the same reason, because he can only see the abstract. Seems reasonable.

Sure. Again, the context for this is Guy’s false claim that both sides are interpreting the same evidence differently. The reality is that Guy’s side is ignoring most of the evidence, and Guy is demonstrating that beautifully.

Guy asked for quotes as a substitute for the paper. The problem is that the evidence is almost entirely in the figures and tables, not in the text.

Those of us who work from the evidence read papers by first looking at the evidence, then reading the text. Sometimes we don’t need to bother with the text. Pseudoscientists do quote mining.

When we do peer review, our primary function is to judge whether the authors’ conclusions are justified by the evidence. That’s impossible to do by only looking at the text, wouldn’t you say?

1 Like

Yes, that makes sense.

I read him as saying, primarily, that he would like a copy of the article to which he doesn’t have access, or, in lieu of that, to have those substantial quotes that were not covered in the original Science Daily article quoted in light of the evidence.

I’m just jumping in because I think that Guy is quite a reasonable participant and that he is honestly engaging in a search for the truth, wherever that heads.

EDIT: Sometimes, in the heat of battle, we see the individual as the methodology. Sometimes it is warranted, and others not. That’s all. I appreciate your comments very much.

Primarily, he said a lot of other things.

I would say that his claim of no access is an extraordinarily weak excuse. More importantly, I would say that only asking for the paper after leaping to conclusions is not the m.o. we associate with those searching for the truth.

But that by itself means that he’s not interested in evidence and is singlehandedly falsifying his “both sides” claim.

If that were the case, he wouldn’t claim that both sides are examining the same evidence while attacking a scientific paper without bothering to examine any of the evidence in it. I can’t see that as reasonable. Predictable, absolutely!

I appreciate your questions and comments.

Please try to understand that this is a particularly corrosive falsehood and a staple of pseudoscientific deception, including self-deception, in multiple fields. Its falsehood is also pretty darn obvious to anyone sincerely seeking truth.

It is not a falsehood to ask how such selective lab work relates to anything actually found in the history of the early earth. The high-energy UV exposure problem cannot simply be swept under a rug. The paper’s principal researcher proposed “rain-swept soils” as his site of enantiomeric concentration and supramolecular formation, without even referencing the problem that UV radiation would cause. That is not an attack, just a cogent criticism. The content of rainwater back then would hardly have been free of particulates, nor would there necessarily have even been anything like “room temperature” at earth’s surface at that time. Each wrinkle makes things less likely, but not necessarily impossible.
Corrosive is a good descriptive word, in this context. Any good student of science knows to apply critical thinking to scientific claims.

The corrosive falsehood is the claim that both sides are interpreting the same evidence.

Critical scientific thinking includes evaluating the evidence. You didn’t do that in this case. Have you done so in any case?

Why do you find that idea so offensive?
It seems irrational.
Why don’t you ask @swamidass what he thinks of that statement?
Do you honestly believe that everyone who has examined the same evidence you have must agree with you totally on what it means?
That sounds way more like the fruit of an ideological mindset than on one intent on testing hypotheses, and doing contual refinement based upon demonstrated error or insufficiency --a pretty good description of what doing science means.

The idea would be wonderful if it were true.

The reality is that it’s objectively false and easily demonstrated to be false in this very forum on most days. The truth is that your side ignores most of the evidence and produces virtually none of it.

No. Why would you try to falsely attribute such a belief to me?

Why are you claiming that both sides are examining the same evidence when you know it isn’t true, and you singlehandedly disproved it again today?

Why would pointing out your false claim sound that way?

I do not believe the different sides of the debate are working from the same pool of evidence. I’m not talking about random people here, but the leaders of the movements. One of the big things that convinced me that common descent was the legitimate finding of science (as you also agree @Guy_Coe) was the fact that all the creationists I read didn’t even explain the most important evidence for it. Just short discussions with biologists at UCI made that clear.

Also, at the same time, I remember reading Behe, noting that he affirmed common descent. Theologically engaged scientist that I was, I just didn’t get what the point of the argument could be if the common descent of man was true (Adam matters, abiogenesis, not so much).

Even now, I don’t see a pattern of “dealing with the same evidence but interpreting it differently.” That is just my opinion though. I would also insist that there are exceptions to this general observation.


Do you find a consistent pattern of outright dishonesty, for example, among those who critique science on the points like I made above today?