A Naturalistic Fairy Tale-Part IX

Is it? Could it be? The time we’ve all been waiting for? Perhaps.. Let’s see.

Those dumb and stupid (1) creationists think that life originated through random processes. But we do now know, although we were confused before, that life did not arise through random processes. Although all of our previous ideas on abiogenesis were utterly incorrect, we have now, convincingly to us, solved the problem (praise Science). We do now know, that the formation of biopolymers, from monomers, is anything but random, but relies on the laws of physics and chemistry (2).

We’ve made a diagram. See…it’s true! Look at it–seeing is believing. See it, the Ur Cell.

So we do know, that the first life units (FLU’s), were probably a single self-replicating molecule or possibly RNA polymerase that acts on itself. You saw the drawing didn’t you? Or perhaps, “either protein enzymes or RNA ribozymes, that [did] regenerated themselves as a catalytic cycle.” So, the silly God-believers think that we do just think that molecules did turn into a cell, and think we believe in all the wrong ideas that we did have before!! They don’t know that we do now actually believe in the true idea, not all the old false ideas. We just re-ran the calculations with our new truth, not the dumb and stupid calculations of the creationists, but with respect to the “prebiotic soup” that did exist, but no longer exists, on the Earth. (2) Got it? Good. Now shut up. Go make stone tools, and let us get back to potentially saving lives, and for certain, saving minds (uh, brains) from ignorance (praise Science).

(1). http://www.carpenoctem.tv/killers/gacy.html
(2). http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html#Globule

Advertisements

5 Responses

  1. Shrink: “So we do know, that the first life units (FLU’s), were probably a single self-replicating molecule or possibly RNA polymerase that acts on itself. You saw the drawing didn’t you?”

    Sorry, you’ll have to go back farther than that. See my comment in Fairy Tale XIII. No proteins. No RNA, no explicit replicator at all. The question is, which of a number (if any) of known alternatives would fit the then-existing environmental conditions, and how do we sharpen our knowledge of what those conditions were?

    I looked up your reference (2). Last update 1998. Hmm. Yes, it is hard keeping up with current research, especially in a fast-paced field such as evolution or cosmology. (Oh, say—the Berkley article you cited a while ago was from 1997—is way out of date. Not only that, it was misleading in several respects. Looks like a mass-communications major had gone over it and dumbed it down. Shame, Berkley!).

    ID seems to think that the purpose of peer review in publications is to enforce seem kind of orthodoxy. Scientists have a different view. Peer review digs out previous work that the author may have missed, and contrary references that the author should consider to minimize egg-on-face syndrome. It is exactly this process that ID sedulously avoids. Think of the contumely that Behe could have avoided for Edge of Evolution if someone had told him that HIV Vpu proteins contravened his hypothesis about malaria, or that the mutation frequencies that he based many of his conclusions on were irrelevant to the subject matter of the article he got them from, and thus were wild-ass guesses not based upon any evidence whatsoever.

  2. ID seems to think that the purpose of peer review in publications is to enforce seem kind of orthodoxy. Scientists have a different view. Peer review digs out previous work that the author may have missed, and contrary references that the author should consider to minimize egg-on-face syndrome. It is exactly this process that ID sedulously avoids.

    I don’t think that is the purpose of peer review, but I think that often ends up being the results (either as a result of conscious or unconscious biases on the part of the reviewers).

    I looked up your reference (2). Last update 1998. Hmm. Yes, it is hard keeping up with current research, especially in a fast-paced field such as evolution or cosmology. (Oh, say—the Berkley article you cited a while ago was from 1997—is way out of date. Not only that, it was misleading in several respects. Looks like a mass-communications major had gone over it and dumbed it down. Shame, Berkley!).

    I guess you need to tell your friends over at talk origins to get with the times. The Berkley article does not differ significantly from what I’ve read in magazines such as Discover in the past. There have been some extensions. Which part do you find objectionable?

    Think of the contumely that Behe could have avoided for Edge of Evolution if someone had told him that HIV Vpu proteins contravened his hypothesis about malaria, or that the mutation frequencies that he based many of his conclusions on were irrelevant to the subject matter of the article he got them from, and thus were wild-ass guesses not based upon any evidence whatsoever.

    That’s not what I took away from reading both sides of the argument. I found his (Behe’s) counterarguments quite compelling. But you found Smith and Musgrave’s arguments to be quite compelling. This is the point of science. More evidence needs to accumulate on both sides of the scientific debate.

  3. Shrink: “I don’t think that is the purpose of peer review,”

    That’s what scientists think the purpose is. Are they mistaken?

    Shrink:”I guess you need to tell your friends over at talk origins to get with the times.”

    Y’know, it’s a lot of work trying to find sources, abstract new stuff, convert it from technobabble, and summarize it accurately. Would you care to volunteer a lot of time and effort? One source is “Blogging on Peer-Reviewed Science.” Lokk for their logo.[1]

    Shrink: “Which part do you find objectionable?”

    One point I remember specifically is that it described the Big Bang as flinging out particles at superluminal speeds. Nothing was flung. This is flat-out wrong.

    Shrink: “That’s not what I took away from reading both sides of the argument. I found his (Behe’s) counterarguments quite compelling. But you found Smith and Musgrave’s arguments to be quite compelling.”

    (Grits teeth trying not to seem elitist.) I found that Smith and Musgrave presented actual facts and numbers, and relevant sources that Behe obviously did not cite. Behe made some convincing arguments in the Amazon blog, but I didn’t see him refute the evidence. I’m not in favor of deciding scientific issues in court, but it does have one advantage: The witness must answer the questions that are asked, and not change the subject. Judge Jones had a hard time with this, and had to ask Behe a number of times to stop evading the question.

    ==============
    [1] Last Spring the Discovery Institute stole this logo for a News & Views comment on a paper. They copied the logo, rather than linking to it as required, and they broke several other rules as well. Now the logo itself has the organization’s URL on it, so ignorance was not an option. The DI was not banned, but the incident raised such a stink that they have not dared try it again.

  4. Olorin wrote,

    That’s what scientists think the purpose is. Are they mistaken?

    I think you misunderstood me. I was referring to this:

    ID seems to think that the purpose of peer review in publications is to enforce seem kind of orthodoxy.

    Olorin wrote:

    Behe made some convincing arguments in the Amazon blog, but I didn’t see him refute the evidence.

    I think he acknowledged the limited gain in function, which was pretty unimpressive as he notes. His book focused on the limits of evolutionary theory based on the current experimental evidence. I have a hard time seeing how evolutionary biologists would not benefit from reading his book and pushing the edge if you will.

    [1] Last Spring the Discovery Institute stole this logo for a News & Views comment on a paper. They copied the logo, rather than linking to it as required, and they broke several other rules as well. Now the logo itself has the organization’s URL on it, so ignorance was not an option. The DI was not banned, but the incident raised such a stink that they have not dared try it again.

    And your point is?

  5. Shrink: “I have a hard time seeing how evolutionary biologists would not benefit from reading his book and pushing the edge if you will.”

    They have read it. All it tells them is that something that they know is possible is not possible. HIV has already pushed the edge a lot farther than Behe said is possible. Whether or not Behe is impressed with Vpu’s gain in function is immaterial.[1] It’s a new protein, with a new function. It evolved in a time interval that Behe says is impossible. As has a nylon-eating bacterium, and a PCB-digesting bacterium, and….[2]

    Shrink: “And your point is?”

    Just a gratuitous dig at yet another dishonest tactic of the DI. Maybe you disavow the DI, but they’re in charge of the ID movement, and you seem to trust what they say about it. I do not, and that is part of the reason. “Hi. I’m Michael Millikan, and I’d like to sell you some bonds.” No thanks. Sight unseen.

    Well, I’m off. Have a job of work to finish up yet. Good night and 73s.

    =================
    [1] This tactic is called “moving the goal posts.”

    [2] Most people think bacteria are all alike, and changes are insignificant. But know that there are bacteria as different from each other as humans are from mushrooms, in their wall structure, their metabolism, and in many other ways.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: