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

Conversation Side Conversation
45

In order to begin answer that for yourself,

  1. How much time did it take to go from the great apes to the oldest UCA?
  2. How much time did it actually take to go from the oldest UCA to modern humanity?
  3. How much functional genetic change has to be accounted for?
  4. How much behavioral and capacitative change has to be accounted for?
  5. Explain your theory on how random evolutionary changes led to the uniquely qualitative state we refer to as human consciousness, including self-awareness, to the degree that we can contemplate our own mortality, and plan accordingly to live as long and as well as we may, while maintaining a willingness to flout that when the need for sacrificial altruism arises.
  6. Explain how such altruism trumps our “selfish genes.”
  7. Explain how all of this derives from a process which has no teleological reference to anything that will reward such sacrifice.
    Such altruism is not an “accident.” We were made “in the image of God.”
    Now, you can at least begin to evaluate what folks on “my ship” see as important to account for as regards origins.
46

Irrelevant. You utterly falsified your claim that both sides are examining the same evidence. Moreover, there was a link to the paper provided by ScienceDaily. You didn’t follow it because you’re afraid of evidence.

Yes, but you falsely claimed to be evaluating evidence. You weren’t.

So what? I’m more interested in getting you to stop falsely claiming that both sides are interpreting the same evidence. You have demonstrated that your claim is false.

The issue is whether both sides are examining the same evidence. You erred, as I predicted, because you reached a conclusion without examining any evidence. You proved my point in spades.

What efforts will you make to stop claiming that both sides interpret the same evidence differently?

You met the burden of proof in proving that both sides are not examining the same evidence, because you did not examine the evidence while falsely claiming that you did so.

Perfect! So will you PLEASE stop making that false claim?

47

You’re the one who has already claimed to have calculated all of the above. You haven’t even sampled any of the relevant evidence, have you?

48

I’d tell you, but then I’d have to … you know. And it doesn’t end well for you.

1 Like
49

The Science Daily article made reference to where the article can be found in the archives. Only part of that link comes up for me, and all it takes me to is the abstract, and pdf file of ancillary resources. So, all I have access to is the abstract, where this statement is made: “These findings support the hypothesis that nucleic acid homochirality was a result of symmetry breaking at the supramolecular polymer level.” It does nothing to answer my criticisms. Please forward a pdf of the paper, or at least quotes which address my criticisms, and stop being so fearful. You have proven nothing… other than you like to try to game valid criticisms.

1 Like
50

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
51

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

1 Like
52

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.

2 Likes
53

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
54

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

55

Should have included a link: Understanding Evolutionary Trees.

1 Like
56

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.
Cheers!

57

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
58

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

59

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

1 Like
60

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.

61

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
62

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.

63

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.

64

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.