https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o

You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?

In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:35:58 PM UTC-7, MarkE wrote:
> https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
>
> You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
>
> In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.

Another amazing topic is the rna editing of some organisms, such as octopi. Apparently brain neurons at lightning speed edit rna for many specific purposes. This is cognition, intelligence. In fact, it appears all life is intelligent, and has some cognitive abilities which provide for adaptation, behavior and purpose, with only a very small percentage having a "brain" as we humans.
Slime molds, fungus, plants are also quite interesting in that they communicate, cooperate on an intelligent level, on purpose.

Anyone who denies "consciousness", "intelligence", "purpose" in life has to be a few hands short of a deck.

On 2023-10-05 06:35:18 +0000, MarkE said:

> https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
>
> You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in
> doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that
> your own belief might be from credulity?

Hardly. There are plenty of things we don't understand, and won't
understand for a long time, but preferring a naturalistic
interpretation over God-did-it has nothing to do with credulity. It has
do with the fact that naturalistic interpretations of many topics have
taken us a long way, whereas God-did-it explanations are based on no
evidence whatsoever and have never led to useful new knowledge.
>
> In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're
> not looking.

Yes, but real scientists do look and try to understand.

--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016

On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 23:35:18 -0700 (PDT), MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>
wrote:

>https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
>
>You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
>
>In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.

<https://youtu.be/ba2h9tqNYAo?t=41>
***************************************
Complexity complexity complexity complexity. Oh look there's a
pathway. It's very complicated.

Complexity complexity complexity complexity complexity. And did you
know that cells are really really complicated. But we're not done.

Complexity complexity complexity complexity. And you're going to be
blown away by the bacterial flagellum. It's like a little machine and
it's really really complicated.

Complexity complexity complexity complexity. We need more cells.
They're really complicated. you just get blown away by these things.
They are so amazingly complicated

Complexity, therefore design.
*****************************************
Thank you, PZ.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 2:35:58 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
>
> You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
>
> In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.

First you made the assumption that lots of us had never thought about God or the supernatural. Now you assume lots of us have no idea that cells are complicated. I'm not sure what you're trying to do, since you say you are not trying to evangelize here, but whatever your goal is, you're more likely to get there if you make an effort to understand your audience.

On 10/5/2023 4:55 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 23:35:18 -0700 (PDT), MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
>>
>> You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
>>
>> In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.
>
>
> <https://youtu.be/ba2h9tqNYAo?t=41>
> ***************************************
> Complexity complexity complexity complexity. Oh look there's a
> pathway. It's very complicated.
>
> Complexity complexity complexity complexity complexity. And did you
> know that cells are really really complicated. But we're not done.
>
> Complexity complexity complexity complexity. And you're going to be
> blown away by the bacterial flagellum. It's like a little machine and
> it's really really complicated.
>
> Complexity complexity complexity complexity. We need more cells.
> They're really complicated. you just get blown away by these things.
> They are so amazingly complicated
>
> Complexity, therefore design.
> *****************************************
> Thank you, PZ.
>
> --
> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>

Before he quit the ID creationist scam, with his complex specified
information pseudo science an abject failure, Dembski made the claim
that natural selection could be the intelligent designer whose work we
see in nature. Dembski understood that all natural selection has to do
is to favor change (that could include increased complexity) that does
something to increase the ability of a lifeform to survive and
reproduce. Specification is not needed because anything new has to work
within the what the lifeform already is. Any changes are selected for
or against. It doesn't matter what the new function does as long as it
changes things enough to be more useful than what previously existed.

It is why Behe started claiming that the irreducible part of IC didn't
matter, and that it was the order and arrangement of mutations that
created that IC system that made irreducible systems his type of IC.
Behe has never found an order and arrangement of mutations that would
qualify in making a system his type of IC. All that he has found, so
far, are systems that could have evolved by natural means.

Ron Okimoto

On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 04:05:16 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com"
<brogers31751@gmail.com>:

>On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 2:35:58?AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
>> https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
>>
>> You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
>>
>> In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.
>
>First you made the assumption that lots of us had never thought about God or the supernatural. Now you assume lots of us have no idea that cells are complicated. I'm not sure what you're trying to do, since you say you are not trying to evangelize here, but whatever your goal is, you're more likely to get there if you make an effort to understand your audience.
>
Too complex; the audience can never be understood. Therefore
Goddidtheaudience. See how that works?
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:40:59 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 04:05:16 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com"
> <broger...@gmail.com>:
> >On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 2:35:58?AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> >> https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
> >>
> >> You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
> >>
> >> In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.
> >
> >First you made the assumption that lots of us had never thought about God or the supernatural. Now you assume lots of us have no idea that cells are complicated. I'm not sure what you're trying to do, since you say you are not trying to evangelize here, but whatever your goal is, you're more likely to get there if you make an effort to understand your audience.
> >
> Too complex; the audience can never be understood. Therefore
> Goddidtheaudience. See how that works?
> >
> --
You are all very good at making assumptions, even if you have to lie about what you are assuming.

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

And you're getting you asses kicked hard. The funny thing is that none of you seem to feel anything.

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:00:59 PM UTC+11, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-10-05 06:35:18 +0000, MarkE said:
>
> > https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
> >
> > You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in
> > doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that
> > your own belief might be from credulity?
> Hardly. There are plenty of things we don't understand, and won't
> understand for a long time, but preferring a naturalistic
> interpretation over God-did-it has nothing to do with credulity. It has
> do with the fact that naturalistic interpretations of many topics have
> taken us a long way, whereas God-did-it explanations are based on no
> evidence whatsoever and have never led to useful new knowledge.
> >
> > In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're
> > not looking.
> Yes, but real scientists do look and try to understand.
>

Speaking of understanding, here's a question you might have thought about: would evolution predict the development of topoisomerase early on? Presumably earlier than DNA sequences long enough to require untangling, but what I have in mind is something else, as follows.

The DNA gathering/clamping/snipping/swapping/joining function of topoisomerase in this instance is quite specific. My wondering is, would it therefore require a similarly specific and sustained selection pressure to guide its evolution? And with selection acting on the phenotype and not directly on the topoisomerase subfunction, there's an inherent distance between the organism as a whole (subject to "macroselection"), and its various constituent mechanisms under the hood (topoisomerase being one example of many molecular machines associated with DNA management). The more complex/developed the organism, more indirect and blunted becomes the reach of NS to internal workings. This attenuation of NS would be a matter of degrees rather than a hard cut-off.

Does this general idea make sense, and if so, what would its implications be?

>
> --
> athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016

TO
Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 04:05:16 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com"
> <brogers31751@gmail.com>:
>
>> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 2:35:58?AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
>>> https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
>>>
>>> You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
>>>
>>> In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.
>>
>> First you made the assumption that lots of us had never thought about God or the supernatural. Now you assume lots of us have no idea that cells are complicated. I'm not sure what you're trying to do, since you say you are not trying to evangelize here, but whatever your goal is, you're more likely to get there if you make an effort to understand your audience.
>>
> Too complex; the audience can never be understood. Therefore
> Goddidtheaudience. See how that works?
>>
Audience To is _NOT_ a Goddiditaudience. TOisathereisnogodexceptmeaudence

On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 17:50:09 -0400, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:

>TO
>Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 04:05:16 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com"
>> <brogers31751@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 2:35:58?AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
>>>> https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
>>>>
>>>> You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
>>>>
>>>> In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.
>>>
>>> First you made the assumption that lots of us had never thought about God or the supernatural. Now you assume lots of us have no idea that cells are complicated. I'm not sure what you're trying to do, since you say you are not trying to evangelize here, but whatever your goal is, you're more likely to get there if you make an effort to understand your audience.
>>>
>> Too complex; the audience can never be understood. Therefore
>> Goddidtheaudience. See how that works?
>>>
>Audience To is _NOT_ a Goddiditaudience. TOisathereisnogodexceptmeaudence
>
WHOOOSH

A bit slow on analogies?

And learn to read; I wrote "Goddidtheaudience", not
"Goddiditaudience". A subtle difference, to be sure.
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:55:59 PM UTC+11, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 23:35:18 -0700 (PDT), MarkE <me22...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
> >
> >You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
> >
> >In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.
> <https://youtu.be/ba2h9tqNYAo?t=41>
> ***************************************
> Complexity complexity complexity complexity. Oh look there's a
> pathway. It's very complicated.
>
> Complexity complexity complexity complexity complexity. And did you
> know that cells are really really complicated. But we're not done.
>
> Complexity complexity complexity complexity. And you're going to be
> blown away by the bacterial flagellum. It's like a little machine and
> it's really really complicated.
>
> Complexity complexity complexity complexity. We need more cells.
> They're really complicated. you just get blown away by these things.
> They are so amazingly complicated
>
> Complexity, therefore design.
> *****************************************
> Thank you, PZ.

I watched PZ's video, quite a good effort :) In fact, I share some of his frustration. Creationist material and argument does major on showcasing example after example of complex and amazing features of living things. I'm fine with that, and personally find this cumulative data compelling evidence for design. My frustration is along these lines: okay, you've made your point, but can you convert this into a formal hypothesis and a paper that can be peer reviewed, rather than just popular books and talks (as good as some of these are IMO)?

This is partly occurring, for example, Behe has done this with his IC ideas, and more recently with his waiting time analysis for multiple dependent mutations, or Douglas Axe's paper estimating the proportion of function sequences for a protein class here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15321723/

And there are of course also issues of the different categories of argument and epistemology at play here, and the position of mainstream scientific academia to ID, etc.

All that being said, I find it interesting that naturalists here seem almost completing unwilling to acknowledge any doubt regarding naturalistic explanations. The following quote cuts both ways, so not intended as an insult, but rather a prompt to us all: “The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.” (Charles Bukowski)
>
> --
> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 17:50:09 -0400, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
>
>> TO
>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 04:05:16 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com"
>>> <brogers31751@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 2:35:58?AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
>>>>> https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
>>>>>
>>>>> You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
>>>>>
>>>>> In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.
>>>>
>>>> First you made the assumption that lots of us had never thought about God or the supernatural. Now you assume lots of us have no idea that cells are complicated. I'm not sure what you're trying to do, since you say you are not trying to evangelize here, but whatever your goal is, you're more likely to get there if you make an effort to understand your audience.
>>>>
>>> Too complex; the audience can never be understood. Therefore
>>> Goddidtheaudience. See how that works?
>>>>
>> Audience To is _NOT_ a Goddiditaudience. TOisathereisnogodexceptmeaudence
>>
> WHOOOSH
>
> A bit slow on analogies?
>
> And learn to read; I wrote "Goddidtheaudience", not
> "Goddiditaudience". A subtle difference, to be sure.
>>
No spaces ~ a stupid, idiotic spelling!

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 6:55:59 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:55:59 PM UTC+11, jillery wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 23:35:18 -0700 (PDT), MarkE <me22...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
> > >
> > >You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
> > >
> > >In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.
> > <https://youtu.be/ba2h9tqNYAo?t=41>
> > ***************************************
> > Complexity complexity complexity complexity. Oh look there's a
> > pathway. It's very complicated.
> >
> > Complexity complexity complexity complexity complexity. And did you
> > know that cells are really really complicated. But we're not done.
> >
> > Complexity complexity complexity complexity. And you're going to be
> > blown away by the bacterial flagellum. It's like a little machine and
> > it's really really complicated.
> >
> > Complexity complexity complexity complexity. We need more cells.
> > They're really complicated. you just get blown away by these things.
> > They are so amazingly complicated
> >
> > Complexity, therefore design.
> > *****************************************
> > Thank you, PZ.
> I watched PZ's video, quite a good effort :) In fact, I share some of his frustration. Creationist material and argument does major on showcasing example after example of complex and amazing features of living things. I'm fine with that, and personally find this cumulative data compelling evidence for design. My frustration is along these lines: okay, you've made your point, but can you convert this into a formal hypothesis and a paper that can be peer reviewed, rather than just popular books and talks (as good as some of these are IMO)?
>
> This is partly occurring, for example, Behe has done this with his IC ideas, and more recently with his waiting time analysis for multiple dependent mutations, or Douglas Axe's paper estimating the proportion of function sequences for a protein class here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15321723/
>
> And there are of course also issues of the different categories of argument and epistemology at play here, and the position of mainstream scientific academia to ID, etc.
>
> All that being said, I find it interesting that naturalists here seem almost completing unwilling to acknowledge any doubt regarding naturalistic explanations. The following quote cuts both ways, so not intended as an insult, but rather a prompt to us all: “The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.” (Charles Bukowski)

When you say naturalists are almost completely unwilling to acknowledge doubt regarding naturalistic explanations, I think you have to be clear what you mean. Certainly, naturalists are very willing to doubt specific naturalistic explanations of specific things. Scientists are a skeptical bunch. You seem to wish that they would be open to the possibility of simply giving up, when no naturalistic explanation is found after some sufficiently long amount of time. Well, eventually, we might say, "Yeah, that problem is just too hard for us, at least for now." But then you want them to be willing to turn to supernatural explanations; the problem is that supernatural explanations (as you have said in the past) are in a different category entirely from scientific ones. They make no testable predictions; they need contain no details at all; and they are, or some of them are, perfectly compatible with simultaneous naturalistic explanations. The naturalists here are perhaps unwilling to indulge in supernatural explanations because they do not lead anywhere. And some of the religious here are unwilling to indulge in supernatural explanations because of the weaknesses of "god of the gaps" theology that several of us have posted about fairly often.
> >
> > --
> > To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 5:50:59 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
> TO
> Bob Casanova wrote:
> > On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 04:05:16 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com"
> > <broger...@gmail.com>:
> >
> >> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 2:35:58?AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> >>> https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
> >>>
> >>> You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
> >>>
> >>> In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.
> >>
> >> First you made the assumption that lots of us had never thought about God or the supernatural. Now you assume lots of us have no idea that cells are complicated. I'm not sure what you're trying to do, since you say you are not trying to evangelize here, but whatever your goal is, you're more likely to get there if you make an effort to understand your audience.
> >>
> > Too complex; the audience can never be understood. Therefore
> > Goddidtheaudience. See how that works?
> >>
> Audience To is _NOT_ a Goddiditaudience. TOisathereisnogodexceptmeaudence

I cannot speak fro everyone, but I am a "the truth of evolution and a naturalistic explanation tell you absolutely nothing one way or the other about the existence of God" audience.

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 5:55:58 PM UTC+11, Glenn wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:35:58 PM UTC-7, MarkE wrote:
> > https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
> >
> > You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
> >
> > In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.
> Another amazing topic is the rna editing of some organisms, such as octopi. Apparently brain neurons at lightning speed edit rna for many specific purposes. This is cognition, intelligence. In fact, it appears all life is intelligent, and has some cognitive abilities which provide for adaptation, behavior and purpose, with only a very small percentage having a "brain" as we humans.
> Slime molds, fungus, plants are also quite interesting in that they communicate, cooperate on an intelligent level, on purpose.
>
> Anyone who denies "consciousness", "intelligence", "purpose" in life has to be a few hands short of a deck.

RNA editing is a surprising extra layer of genetic variability, and an exception to the "central dogma". This article describes RNA editing in humans as well, though a couple of orders of magnitude less than cephalopods: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/octopus-squid-rna-editing-dna-cephalopods

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:50:59 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 5:55:58 PM UTC+11, Glenn wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:35:58 PM UTC-7, MarkE wrote:
> > > https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
> > >
> > > You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
> > >
> > > In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.
> > Another amazing topic is the rna editing of some organisms, such as octopi. Apparently brain neurons at lightning speed edit rna for many specific purposes. This is cognition, intelligence. In fact, it appears all life is intelligent, and has some cognitive abilities which provide for adaptation, behavior and purpose, with only a very small percentage having a "brain" as we humans.
> > Slime molds, fungus, plants are also quite interesting in that they communicate, cooperate on an intelligent level, on purpose.
> >
> > Anyone who denies "consciousness", "intelligence", "purpose" in life has to be a few hands short of a deck.
> RNA editing is a surprising extra layer of genetic variability, and an exception to the "central dogma". This article describes RNA editing in humans as well, though a couple of orders of magnitude less than cephalopods: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/octopus-squid-rna-editing-dna-cephalopods

If you want to see some very bizarre RNA editing, have a look at RNA editing in the mitochondria (also called kinetoplasts) of kinetoplastid protozoa (responsible for a couple of tropical diseases - Leishmaniasis and African Sleeping Sickness). A different mechanism entirely from that in cephalopods..

Here's a review of what happens

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.4161/rna.7.2.11393

and here's a short paper on a part of the evolution of the editing system

https://kdna.net/simpsonlab/Lab%20publications/maslov%20evol%201994.pdf

Why is anybody still using the phrase "central dogma"? I mean, it seemed nifty back when transcription and translation were first worked out, but reverse transcriptase stuck a knife in it, and, outside of elementary textbooks, most molecular biologists haven't really used the phrase for decades.

On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 19:03:12 -0400, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:

>Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 17:50:09 -0400, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> TO
>>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 04:05:16 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com"
>>>> <brogers31751@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 2:35:58?AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
>>>>>> https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.
>>>>>
>>>>> First you made the assumption that lots of us had never thought about God or the supernatural. Now you assume lots of us have no idea that cells are complicated. I'm not sure what you're trying to do, since you say you are not trying to evangelize here, but whatever your goal is, you're more likely to get there if you make an effort to understand your audience.
>>>>>
>>>> Too complex; the audience can never be understood. Therefore
>>>> Goddidtheaudience. See how that works?
>>>>>
>>> Audience To is _NOT_ a Goddiditaudience. TOisathereisnogodexceptmeaudence
>>>
>> WHOOOSH
>>
>> A bit slow on analogies?
>>
>> And learn to read; I wrote "Goddidtheaudience", not
>> "Goddiditaudience". A subtle difference, to be sure.
>>>
>No spaces ~ a stupid, idiotic spelling!
>
As noted, WHOOOSH.

Have a nice day.
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 16:16:26 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com"
<brogers31751@gmail.com>:

>On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 5:50:59?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
>> TO
>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>> > On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 04:05:16 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com"
>> > <broger...@gmail.com>:
>> >
>> >> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 2:35:58?AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
>> >>> https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
>> >>>
>> >>> You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
>> >>>
>> >>> In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.
>> >>
>> >> First you made the assumption that lots of us had never thought about God or the supernatural. Now you assume lots of us have no idea that cells are complicated. I'm not sure what you're trying to do, since you say you are not trying to evangelize here, but whatever your goal is, you're more likely to get there if you make an effort to understand your audience.
>> >>
>> > Too complex; the audience can never be understood. Therefore
>> > Goddidtheaudience. See how that works?
>> >>
>> Audience To is _NOT_ a Goddiditaudience. TOisathereisnogodexceptmeaudence
>
>I cannot speak fro everyone, but I am a "the truth of evolution and a naturalistic explanation tell you absolutely nothing one way or the other about the existence of God" audience.
>
Same here; religious belief has nothing to do with science,
and vice versa. Skew lines in the volume of reality.
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

On 2023-10-05 7:36 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:50:59 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 5:55:58 PM UTC+11, Glenn wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:35:58 PM UTC-7, MarkE wrote:
>>>> https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
>>>>
>>>> You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
>>>>
>>>> In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.
>>> Another amazing topic is the rna editing of some organisms, such as octopi. Apparently brain neurons at lightning speed edit rna for many specific purposes. This is cognition, intelligence. In fact, it appears all life is intelligent, and has some cognitive abilities which provide for adaptation, behavior and purpose, with only a very small percentage having a "brain" as we humans.
>>> Slime molds, fungus, plants are also quite interesting in that they communicate, cooperate on an intelligent level, on purpose.
>>>
>>> Anyone who denies "consciousness", "intelligence", "purpose" in life has to be a few hands short of a deck.
>> RNA editing is a surprising extra layer of genetic variability, and an exception to the "central dogma". This article describes RNA editing in humans as well, though a couple of orders of magnitude less than cephalopods: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/octopus-squid-rna-editing-dna-cephalopods
>
> If you want to see some very bizarre RNA editing, have a look at RNA editing in the mitochondria (also called kinetoplasts) of kinetoplastid protozoa (responsible for a couple of tropical diseases - Leishmaniasis and African Sleeping Sickness). A different mechanism entirely from that in cephalopods.
>
> Here's a review of what happens
>
> https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.4161/rna.7.2.11393
>
> and here's a short paper on a part of the evolution of the editing system
>
> https://kdna.net/simpsonlab/Lab%20publications/maslov%20evol%201994.pdf
>
> Why is anybody still using the phrase "central dogma"? I mean, it seemed nifty back when transcription and translation were first worked out, but reverse transcriptase stuck a knife in it, and, outside of elementary textbooks, most molecular biologists haven't really used the phrase for decades.
>
Hmmm. You may want to read this from Larry Moran's blog.
<https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/01/central-dogma-of-molecular-biology.html>
--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)

Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 16:16:26 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com"
> <brogers31751@gmail.com>:
>
>> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 5:50:59?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
>>> TO
>>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 04:05:16 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com"
>>>> <broger...@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 2:35:58?AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
>>>>>> https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.
>>>>>
>>>>> First you made the assumption that lots of us had never thought about God or the supernatural. Now you assume lots of us have no idea that cells are complicated. I'm not sure what you're trying to do, since you say you are not trying to evangelize here, but whatever your goal is, you're more likely to get there if you make an effort to understand your audience.
>>>>>
>>>> Too complex; the audience can never be understood. Therefore
>>>> Goddidtheaudience. See how that works?
>>>>>
>>> Audience To is _NOT_ a Goddiditaudience. TOisathereisnogodexceptmeaudence
>>
>> I cannot speak fro everyone, but I am a "the truth of evolution and a naturalistic explanation tell you absolutely nothing one way or the other about the existence of God" audience.
>
Belief or disbelief in the existence of God is all a matter of faith -
not evidence!
>>
> Same here; religious belief has nothing to do with science,
> and vice versa. Skew lines in the volume of reality.
>
It interesting that many famous scientist were/are religious. Several
or whom were the fathers of scientific disciplines.
>
https://www.famous scientists.org/great-scientists-christians/

On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 13:39:57 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennSheldon@msn.com>
wrote:

>On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:40:59?AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 04:05:16 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com"
>> <broger...@gmail.com>:
>> >On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 2:35:58?AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
>> >> https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
>> >>
>> >> You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
>> >>
>> >> In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.
>> >
>> >First you made the assumption that lots of us had never thought about God or the supernatural. Now you assume lots of us have no idea that cells are complicated. I'm not sure what you're trying to do, since you say you are not trying to evangelize here, but whatever your goal is, you're more likely to get there if you make an effort to understand your audience.
>> >
>> Too complex; the audience can never be understood. Therefore
>> Goddidtheaudience. See how that works?
>> >
>> --
>You are all very good at making assumptions, even if you have to lie about what you are assuming.
>
>"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

The veracity of the above uncited quote depends very much on the
criteria used to identify "best explained".

>And you're getting you asses kicked hard. The funny thing is that none of you seem to feel anything.

Really? Perhaps that's because the ass-kicking to which you allude is
a figment of your imagination.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 10:20:59 PM UTC-4, DB Cates wrote:
> On 2023-10-05 7:36 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:50:59 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> >> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 5:55:58 PM UTC+11, Glenn wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:35:58 PM UTC-7, MarkE wrote:
> >>>> https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
> >>>>
> >>>> You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
> >>>>
> >>>> In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.
> >>> Another amazing topic is the rna editing of some organisms, such as octopi. Apparently brain neurons at lightning speed edit rna for many specific purposes. This is cognition, intelligence. In fact, it appears all life is intelligent, and has some cognitive abilities which provide for adaptation, behavior and purpose, with only a very small percentage having a "brain" as we humans.
> >>> Slime molds, fungus, plants are also quite interesting in that they communicate, cooperate on an intelligent level, on purpose.
> >>>
> >>> Anyone who denies "consciousness", "intelligence", "purpose" in life has to be a few hands short of a deck.
> >> RNA editing is a surprising extra layer of genetic variability, and an exception to the "central dogma". This article describes RNA editing in humans as well, though a couple of orders of magnitude less than cephalopods: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/octopus-squid-rna-editing-dna-cephalopods
> >
> > If you want to see some very bizarre RNA editing, have a look at RNA editing in the mitochondria (also called kinetoplasts) of kinetoplastid protozoa (responsible for a couple of tropical diseases - Leishmaniasis and African Sleeping Sickness). A different mechanism entirely from that in cephalopods.
> >
> > Here's a review of what happens
> >
> > https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.4161/rna.7.2.11393
> >
> > and here's a short paper on a part of the evolution of the editing system
> >
> > https://kdna.net/simpsonlab/Lab%20publications/maslov%20evol%201994.pdf
> >
> > Why is anybody still using the phrase "central dogma"? I mean, it seemed nifty back when transcription and translation were first worked out, but reverse transcriptase stuck a knife in it, and, outside of elementary textbooks, most molecular biologists haven't really used the phrase for decades.
> >
> Hmmm. You may want to read this from Larry Moran's blog.
> <https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/01/central-dogma-of-molecular-biology..html>

I don't disagree with the blog, I just don't think lots of molecular biologists spend a lot of time thinking about the "central dogma." Sure, people are pretty convinced it's unlikely anyone will discover "reverse translation" ; sufficiently convinced that mostly they don't give it a second thought. Mostly I see the "central dogma" discussed by creationists who want to call science a religion, and are happy to have find a religious sounding phrase about molecular biology.
> --
> --
> Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)

On 06/10/2023 03:20, DB Cates wrote:

Piggybacking, since the original hasn't turned up here.

>> If you want to see some very bizarre RNA editing, have a look at RNA
>> editing in the mitochondria (also called kinetoplasts) of
>> kinetoplastid protozoa (responsible for a couple of tropical diseases
>> - Leishmaniasis and African Sleeping Sickness). A different mechanism
>> entirely from that in cephalopods.

RNA editing also occurs in plastids (chloroplasts). I can see the point
of editing ribozymes, in that incorporating non-canonical bases expands
or improves the catalytic repertoire, but mRNA editing (rather than just
have the genome specify the desired mRNA directly) strikes me as
evidence against design. Unnecessary complexity is not a marker of
competent design.
>>
>> Here's a review of what happens
>>
>> https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.4161/rna.7.2.11393
>>
>> and here's a short paper on a part of the evolution of the editing system
>>
>> https://kdna.net/simpsonlab/Lab%20publications/maslov%20evol%201994.pdf
>>
>> Why is anybody still using the phrase "central dogma"? I mean, it
>> seemed nifty back when transcription and translation were first worked
>> out, but reverse transcriptase stuck a knife in it, and, outside of
>> elementary textbooks, most molecular biologists haven't really used
>> the phrase for decades.
>>
> Hmmm. You may want to read this from Larry Moran's blog.
> <https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/01/central-dogma-of-molecular-biology.html>

I hadn't thought of mRNA editing as a breach of the central dogma. (Same
for DNA repair.)

--
alias Ernest Major

On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 12:46:00 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
> Bob Casanova wrote:
> > On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 16:16:26 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com"
> > <broger...@gmail.com>:
> >
> >> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 5:50:59?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
> >>> TO
> >>> Bob Casanova wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 04:05:16 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com"
> >>>> <broger...@gmail.com>:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 2:35:58?AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> >>>>>> https://youtu.be/wQ5oPL0PqYE?si=KTKgIexdoLAuOI0o
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You might dismiss this as another ID argument from incredulity, but in doing do you feel a flicker of uncertainty or momentary wondering that your own belief might be from credulity?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In any case, pretty amazing what goes on inside our cells when we're not looking.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> First you made the assumption that lots of us had never thought about God or the supernatural. Now you assume lots of us have no idea that cells are complicated. I'm not sure what you're trying to do, since you say you are not trying to evangelize here, but whatever your goal is, you're more likely to get there if you make an effort to understand your audience.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Too complex; the audience can never be understood. Therefore
> >>>> Goddidtheaudience. See how that works?
> >>>>>
> >>> Audience To is _NOT_ a Goddiditaudience. TOisathereisnogodexceptmeaudence
> >>
> >> I cannot speak fro everyone, but I am a "the truth of evolution and a naturalistic explanation tell you absolutely nothing one way or the other about the existence of God" audience.
> >
> Belief or disbelief in the existence of God is all a matter of faith -
> not evidence!

Exactly. So why do you waste your time looking for evidence? Why do you think that showing flaws in the theory of evolution would be evidence for God? Why do you think evidence supporting the ToE would be evidence against God?
> >>
> > Same here; religious belief has nothing to do with science,
> > and vice versa. Skew lines in the volume of reality.
> >
> It interesting that many famous scientist were/are religious. Several
> or whom were the fathers of scientific disciplines.
> >
> https://www.famous scientists.org/great-scientists-christians/