https://phys.org/news/2024-03-life-evidence-rna-world.html

....
But how did all of this begin? In the origins of
life, long before cells and proteins and DNA,
could a similar sort of evolution have taken
place on a simpler scale? Scientists in the
1960s, including Salk Fellow Leslie Orgel,
proposed that life began with the "RNA World,"
a hypothetical era in which small, stringy RNA
molecules ruled the early Earth and established
the dynamics of Darwinian evolution.

New research at the Salk Institute now provides
fresh insights on the origins of life, presenting
compelling evidence supporting the RNA World
hypothesis. The study, published in Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS),
unveils an RNA enzyme that can make accurate
copies of other functional RNA strands, while
also allowing new variants of the molecule to
emerge over time. These remarkable capabilities
suggest the earliest forms of evolution may have
occurred on a molecular scale in RNA.

The findings also bring scientists one step
closer to re-creating RNA-based life in the
laboratory. By modeling these primitive
environments in the lab, scientists can
directly test hypotheses about how life may
have started on Earth, or even other planets.
....

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2321592121
RNA-catalyzed evolution of catalytic RNA

Abstract
An RNA polymerase ribozyme that was obtained
by directed evolution can propagate a functional
RNA through repeated rounds of replication and
selection, thereby enabling Darwinian evolution.
Earlier versions of the polymerase did not have
sufficient copying fidelity to propagate
functional information, but a new variant with
improved fidelity can replicate the hammerhead
ribozyme through reciprocal synthesis of both
the hammerhead and its complement, with the
products then being selected for RNA-cleavage
activity. Two evolutionary lineages were
carried out in parallel, using either the prior
low-fidelity or the newer high-fidelity
polymerase. The former lineage quickly lost
hammerhead functionality as the population
diverged toward random sequences, whereas the
latter evolved new hammerhead variants with
improved fitness compared to the starting RNA.
The increase in fitness was attributable to
specific mutations that improved the
replicability of the hammerhead,
counterbalanced by a small decrease in
hammerhead activity. Deep sequencing analysis
was used to follow the course of evolution,
revealing the emergence of a succession of
variants that progressively diverged from the
starting hammerhead as fitness increased. This
study demonstrates the critical importance of
replication fidelity for maintaining heritable
information in an RNA-based evolving system,
such as is thought to have existed during the
early history of life on Earth. Attempts to
recreate RNA-based life in the laboratory must
achieve further improvements in replication
fidelity to enable the fully autonomous
Darwinian evolution of RNA enzymes as complex
as the polymerase itself.

Pro Plyd wrote:

> https://phys.org/news/2024-03-life-evidence-rna-world.html
>
> ...
> But how did all of this begin? In the origins of
> life, long before cells and proteins and DNA,
> could a similar sort of evolution have taken
> place on a simpler scale? Scientists in the
> 1960s, including Salk Fellow Leslie Orgel,
> proposed that life began with the "RNA World,"
> a hypothetical era in which small, stringy RNA
> molecules ruled the early Earth and established
> the dynamics of Darwinian evolution.

"Darwinian Evolution," besides making things difficult
when everyone later claims that they're not "Darwinists,"
is just plain wrong. Darwin believed that if an animal
ran a lot, their leg muscles would grow and produce
"Bigger, running-around-a-lot" Gemmules which would
flow to the gonads and be passed on the the next
generation, who would be born with the bigger, running
around a lot muscles.

As i pointed out many times, and will point out many
more times because, let's face it, the last thing
anyone in this group ever wanted was science but...

Darwin REJECTED evolution. He didn't believe in it. Oh,
he did eventually use that word but this is the internet.
We're all quite accustomed to people misusing terms, and
Darwin was a pioneer. In fact, later, in the Communist
world, Stalin and then Mao banned evolution, and in it's
place promoted Darwin's ideas. Renamed, of course. But
they were all copying the exact same source material,
Lamarcksim...

Darwin was an idiot. And he certainly never invented or
discovered evolution. Evolution was already quite old
by the time that Darwin sabotaged science with his
inability to grasp it. No, sorry, evolution was always
part of "Common Descent," and if you do the Google
you'll find sources pushing THAT idea back into the
thousands of years..

Darwin's single biggest impact on science -- REAL
science, as opposed to the British aristocracy
glorifying itself -- was HOLDING BACK science in
the English speaking world for 20 years by becoming
the face of Naturalism and throwing aside Mendel.

Yes, it took that long -- 20 years -- for some Brit
with a stick up his ass to pretend that he made
Mendel's discoveries...

This is important. It's not a small error. When someone
spews an oxymoron like "Darwinian Evolution" it's not
because they're so meticulous in their work. No. It's
because they are hitting buckets. They're communicating.
They are invoking things that the layman will recognize
as familiar. They are, as the saying goes, "Putting
lipstick on a pig."

"I said DARWINIAN evolution! That's cus I is edu ma
kated. I know stuff."

Again, not a small error. It makes the piece as being
meant for "The un edu ma kated"... the only people who
might find "Darwinian" evolution sciency!

Demand accuracy.

Don't you think you're worth it?

Don't you think the promotion of science is worth it?

Demand accuracy. Don't tolerate being dummed down by
your efforts to learn and grow. It's not an unreasonable
request, demanding publications that are accurate.

--
http://jtem.tumblr.com

On 2024-03-11 17:22:38 +0000, JTEM said:
>
>
> "Darwinian Evolution," besides making things difficult
> when everyone later claims that they're not "Darwinists,"
> is just plain wrong.

[ … ]

Followed by the biggest pile of ignorant garbage I've seen for a long time.

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

On 3/11/24 11:41 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2024-03-11 17:22:38 +0000, JTEM said:
>>
>>
>> "Darwinian Evolution," besides making things difficult
>> when everyone later claims that they're not "Darwinists,"
>> is just plain wrong.
>
>
> [ … ]
>
> Followed by the biggest pile of ignorant garbage I've seen for a long time.
>
I had hoped that the Google purge might scrape off some of the
barnacles. Sadly, no.

JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> writes:

> Pro Plyd wrote:
>
>> https://phys.org/news/2024-03-life-evidence-rna-world.html
>> ...
>> But how did all of this begin? In the origins of
>> life, long before cells and proteins and DNA,
>> could a similar sort of evolution have taken
>> place on a simpler scale? Scientists in the
>> 1960s, including Salk Fellow Leslie Orgel,
>> proposed that life began with the "RNA World,"
>> a hypothetical era in which small, stringy RNA
>> molecules ruled the early Earth and established
>> the dynamics of Darwinian evolution.
>
>
> "Darwinian Evolution," besides making things difficult
> when everyone later claims that they're not "Darwinists,"
> is just plain wrong. Darwin believed that if an animal
> ran a lot, their leg muscles would grow and produce
> "Bigger, running-around-a-lot" Gemmules which would
> flow to the gonads and be passed on the the next
> generation, who would be born with the bigger, running
> around a lot muscles.
>
> As i pointed out many times, and will point out many
> more times because, let's face it, the last thing
> anyone in this group ever wanted was science but...
>
> Darwin REJECTED evolution. He didn't believe in it. Oh,
> he did eventually use that word but this is the internet.
> We're all quite accustomed to people misusing terms, and
> Darwin was a pioneer. In fact, later, in the Communist
> world, Stalin and then Mao banned evolution, and in it's
> place promoted Darwin's ideas. Renamed, of course. But
> they were all copying the exact same source material,
> Lamarcksim...
>
> Darwin was an idiot. And he certainly never invented or
> discovered evolution. Evolution was already quite old
> by the time that Darwin sabotaged science with his
> inability to grasp it. No, sorry, evolution was always
> part of "Common Descent," and if you do the Google
> you'll find sources pushing THAT idea back into the
> thousands of years..
>
> Darwin's single biggest impact on science -- REAL
> science, as opposed to the British aristocracy
> glorifying itself -- was HOLDING BACK science in
> the English speaking world for 20 years by becoming
> the face of Naturalism and throwing aside Mendel.
>
> Yes, it took that long -- 20 years -- for some Brit
> with a stick up his ass to pretend that he made
> Mendel's discoveries...
>
> This is important. It's not a small error. When someone
> spews an oxymoron like "Darwinian Evolution" it's not
> because they're so meticulous in their work. No. It's
> because they are hitting buckets. They're communicating.
> They are invoking things that the layman will recognize
> as familiar. They are, as the saying goes, "Putting
> lipstick on a pig."
>
> "I said DARWINIAN evolution! That's cus I is edu ma
> kated. I know stuff."
>
> Again, not a small error. It makes the piece as being
> meant for "The un edu ma kated"... the only people who
> might find "Darwinian" evolution sciency!
>
> Demand accuracy.
>
> Don't you think you're worth it?
>
> Don't you think the promotion of science is worth it?
>
> Demand accuracy. Don't tolerate being dummed down by
> your efforts to learn and grow. It's not an unreasonable
> request, demanding publications that are accurate.

Darwin didn't know about genes, but then his book was published before
Mendel, so you can't really blame him for that. As for rejecting
evolution, well the last line in 'The Origin of Species' is:

", from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

I demand accuracy.

Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> Followed by

That's fascinating.. "Followed by." You take your
identity from the crowd?

Don't do that. Stand on your own.

--
http://jtem.tumblr.com

Richmond wrote:

> Darwin didn't know about genes

Darwin was exposed to Mendel's work --THE Mendel, the
guy who worked out inheritance -- and he was exposed
to it BEFORE he completed his "Pangenesis" vomit.

> but then his book was published before
> Mendel

Again, "Pangenesis."

Mendel worked it all out, Darwin was exposed to it AND
THEN Darwin came out with the "Pangenesis" bullshit.

> As for rejecting
> evolution, well the last line in 'The Origin of Species' is:

Omg. I'll repeat it:

Stalin. Mao. They banned evolution. They saw is as Capitalist
propaganda -- justification for everything from racism into
classism and onto economic exploitation. So they banned
evolution. And what they put in it's place was Darwin's ideas,
what Darwin believed it.

Yes, you're right, Darwin was a raging idiot who had no clue
what he meant, much less what he was talking about. That was
already established.

--
http://jtem.tumblr.com

On 3/11/24 12:24 PM, Richmond wrote:
> JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Pro Plyd wrote:
>>
>>> https://phys.org/news/2024-03-life-evidence-rna-world.html
>>> ...
>>> But how did all of this begin? In the origins of
>>> life, long before cells and proteins and DNA,
>>> could a similar sort of evolution have taken
>>> place on a simpler scale? Scientists in the
>>> 1960s, including Salk Fellow Leslie Orgel,
>>> proposed that life began with the "RNA World,"
>>> a hypothetical era in which small, stringy RNA
>>> molecules ruled the early Earth and established
>>> the dynamics of Darwinian evolution.
>>
>>
>> "Darwinian Evolution," besides making things difficult
>> when everyone later claims that they're not "Darwinists,"
>> is just plain wrong. Darwin believed that if an animal
>> ran a lot, their leg muscles would grow and produce
>> "Bigger, running-around-a-lot" Gemmules which would
>> flow to the gonads and be passed on the the next
>> generation, who would be born with the bigger, running
>> around a lot muscles.
>>
>> As i pointed out many times, and will point out many
>> more times because, let's face it, the last thing
>> anyone in this group ever wanted was science but...
>>
>> Darwin REJECTED evolution. He didn't believe in it. Oh,
>> he did eventually use that word but this is the internet.
>> We're all quite accustomed to people misusing terms, and
>> Darwin was a pioneer. In fact, later, in the Communist
>> world, Stalin and then Mao banned evolution, and in it's
>> place promoted Darwin's ideas. Renamed, of course. But
>> they were all copying the exact same source material,
>> Lamarcksim...
>>
>> Darwin was an idiot. And he certainly never invented or
>> discovered evolution. Evolution was already quite old
>> by the time that Darwin sabotaged science with his
>> inability to grasp it. No, sorry, evolution was always
>> part of "Common Descent," and if you do the Google
>> you'll find sources pushing THAT idea back into the
>> thousands of years..
>>
>> Darwin's single biggest impact on science -- REAL
>> science, as opposed to the British aristocracy
>> glorifying itself -- was HOLDING BACK science in
>> the English speaking world for 20 years by becoming
>> the face of Naturalism and throwing aside Mendel.
>>
>> Yes, it took that long -- 20 years -- for some Brit
>> with a stick up his ass to pretend that he made
>> Mendel's discoveries...
>>
>> This is important. It's not a small error. When someone
>> spews an oxymoron like "Darwinian Evolution" it's not
>> because they're so meticulous in their work. No. It's
>> because they are hitting buckets. They're communicating.
>> They are invoking things that the layman will recognize
>> as familiar. They are, as the saying goes, "Putting
>> lipstick on a pig."
>>
>> "I said DARWINIAN evolution! That's cus I is edu ma
>> kated. I know stuff."
>>
>> Again, not a small error. It makes the piece as being
>> meant for "The un edu ma kated"... the only people who
>> might find "Darwinian" evolution sciency!
>>
>> Demand accuracy.
>>
>> Don't you think you're worth it?
>>
>> Don't you think the promotion of science is worth it?
>>
>> Demand accuracy. Don't tolerate being dummed down by
>> your efforts to learn and grow. It's not an unreasonable
>> request, demanding publications that are accurate.
>
> Darwin didn't know about genes, but then his book was published before
> Mendel, so you can't really blame him for that. As for rejecting
> evolution, well the last line in 'The Origin of Species' is:
>
> ", from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."
>
> I demand accuracy.
>

JTEM has for many years trolled many newsgroups. Whether he is a genuine
fool or just plays one on the net is probably impossible to tell. Almost
everything is this gem is rubbish.

erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes:

> On 3/11/24 12:24 PM, Richmond wrote:
>> JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Pro Plyd wrote:
>>>
>>>> https://phys.org/news/2024-03-life-evidence-rna-world.html ... But
>>>> how did all of this begin? In the origins of life, long before
>>>> cells and proteins and DNA, could a similar sort of evolution have
>>>> taken place on a simpler scale? Scientists in the 1960s, including
>>>> Salk Fellow Leslie Orgel, proposed that life began with the "RNA
>>>> World," a hypothetical era in which small, stringy RNA molecules
>>>> ruled the early Earth and established the dynamics of Darwinian
>>>> evolution.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Darwinian Evolution," besides making things difficult when everyone
>>> later claims that they're not "Darwinists," is just plain
>>> wrong. Darwin believed that if an animal ran a lot, their leg
>>> muscles would grow and produce "Bigger, running-around-a-lot"
>>> Gemmules which would flow to the gonads and be passed on the the
>>> next generation, who would be born with the bigger, running around a
>>> lot muscles.
>>>
>>> As i pointed out many times, and will point out many more times
>>> because, let's face it, the last thing anyone in this group ever
>>> wanted was science but...
>>>
>>> Darwin REJECTED evolution. He didn't believe in it. Oh, he did
>>> eventually use that word but this is the internet. We're all quite
>>> accustomed to people misusing terms, and Darwin was a pioneer. In
>>> fact, later, in the Communist world, Stalin and then Mao banned
>>> evolution, and in it's place promoted Darwin's ideas. Renamed, of
>>> course. But they were all copying the exact same source material,
>>> Lamarcksim...
>>>
>>> Darwin was an idiot. And he certainly never invented or discovered
>>> evolution. Evolution was already quite old by the time that Darwin
>>> sabotaged science with his inability to grasp it. No, sorry,
>>> evolution was always part of "Common Descent," and if you do the
>>> Google you'll find sources pushing THAT idea back into the thousands
>>> of years..
>>>
>>> Darwin's single biggest impact on science -- REAL science, as
>>> opposed to the British aristocracy glorifying itself -- was HOLDING
>>> BACK science in the English speaking world for 20 years by becoming
>>> the face of Naturalism and throwing aside Mendel.
>>>
>>> Yes, it took that long -- 20 years -- for some Brit with a stick up
>>> his ass to pretend that he made Mendel's discoveries...
>>>
>>> This is important. It's not a small error. When someone spews an
>>> oxymoron like "Darwinian Evolution" it's not because they're so
>>> meticulous in their work. No. It's because they are hitting
>>> buckets. They're communicating. They are invoking things that the
>>> layman will recognize as familiar. They are, as the saying goes,
>>> "Putting lipstick on a pig."
>>>
>>> "I said DARWINIAN evolution! That's cus I is edu ma kated. I know
>>> stuff."
>>>
>>> Again, not a small error. It makes the piece as being meant for "The
>>> un edu ma kated"... the only people who might find "Darwinian"
>>> evolution sciency!
>>>
>>> Demand accuracy.
>>>
>>> Don't you think you're worth it?
>>>
>>> Don't you think the promotion of science is worth it?
>>>
>>> Demand accuracy. Don't tolerate being dummed down by your efforts to
>>> learn and grow. It's not an unreasonable request, demanding
>>> publications that are accurate. >> Darwin didn't know about genes,
>>> but then his book was published >> before >> Mendel, so you can't
>>> really blame him for that. As for rejecting >> evolution, well the
>>> last line in 'The Origin of Species' is: >> ", from so simple a
>>> beginning endless forms most beautiful and most >> wonderful have
>>> been, and are being, evolved." >> I demand accuracy.
>>
>
> JTEM has for many years trolled many newsgroups. Whether he is a
> genuine fool or just plays one on the net is probably impossible to
> tell. Almost everything is this gem is rubbish.

But what's the point in replying to it just to say it is rubbish? I
wouldn't have even noticed it if no one had replied to it.

On 3/11/24 2:46 PM, Richmond wrote:
> erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 3/11/24 12:24 PM, Richmond wrote:
>>> JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Pro Plyd wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> https://phys.org/news/2024-03-life-evidence-rna-world.html ... But
>>>>> how did all of this begin? In the origins of life, long before
>>>>> cells and proteins and DNA, could a similar sort of evolution have
>>>>> taken place on a simpler scale? Scientists in the 1960s, including
>>>>> Salk Fellow Leslie Orgel, proposed that life began with the "RNA
>>>>> World," a hypothetical era in which small, stringy RNA molecules
>>>>> ruled the early Earth and established the dynamics of Darwinian
>>>>> evolution.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Darwinian Evolution," besides making things difficult when everyone
>>>> later claims that they're not "Darwinists," is just plain
>>>> wrong. Darwin believed that if an animal ran a lot, their leg
>>>> muscles would grow and produce "Bigger, running-around-a-lot"
>>>> Gemmules which would flow to the gonads and be passed on the the
>>>> next generation, who would be born with the bigger, running around a
>>>> lot muscles.
>>>>
>>>> As i pointed out many times, and will point out many more times
>>>> because, let's face it, the last thing anyone in this group ever
>>>> wanted was science but...
>>>>
>>>> Darwin REJECTED evolution. He didn't believe in it. Oh, he did
>>>> eventually use that word but this is the internet. We're all quite
>>>> accustomed to people misusing terms, and Darwin was a pioneer. In
>>>> fact, later, in the Communist world, Stalin and then Mao banned
>>>> evolution, and in it's place promoted Darwin's ideas. Renamed, of
>>>> course. But they were all copying the exact same source material,
>>>> Lamarcksim...
>>>>
>>>> Darwin was an idiot. And he certainly never invented or discovered
>>>> evolution. Evolution was already quite old by the time that Darwin
>>>> sabotaged science with his inability to grasp it. No, sorry,
>>>> evolution was always part of "Common Descent," and if you do the
>>>> Google you'll find sources pushing THAT idea back into the thousands
>>>> of years..
>>>>
>>>> Darwin's single biggest impact on science -- REAL science, as
>>>> opposed to the British aristocracy glorifying itself -- was HOLDING
>>>> BACK science in the English speaking world for 20 years by becoming
>>>> the face of Naturalism and throwing aside Mendel.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it took that long -- 20 years -- for some Brit with a stick up
>>>> his ass to pretend that he made Mendel's discoveries...
>>>>
>>>> This is important. It's not a small error. When someone spews an
>>>> oxymoron like "Darwinian Evolution" it's not because they're so
>>>> meticulous in their work. No. It's because they are hitting
>>>> buckets. They're communicating. They are invoking things that the
>>>> layman will recognize as familiar. They are, as the saying goes,
>>>> "Putting lipstick on a pig."
>>>>
>>>> "I said DARWINIAN evolution! That's cus I is edu ma kated. I know
>>>> stuff."
>>>>
>>>> Again, not a small error. It makes the piece as being meant for "The
>>>> un edu ma kated"... the only people who might find "Darwinian"
>>>> evolution sciency!
>>>>
>>>> Demand accuracy.
>>>>
>>>> Don't you think you're worth it?
>>>>
>>>> Don't you think the promotion of science is worth it?
>>>>
>>>> Demand accuracy. Don't tolerate being dummed down by your efforts to
>>>> learn and grow. It's not an unreasonable request, demanding
>>>> publications that are accurate. >> Darwin didn't know about genes,
>>>> but then his book was published >> before >> Mendel, so you can't
>>>> really blame him for that. As for rejecting >> evolution, well the
>>>> last line in 'The Origin of Species' is: >> ", from so simple a
>>>> beginning endless forms most beautiful and most >> wonderful have
>>>> been, and are being, evolved." >> I demand accuracy.
>>>
>>
>> JTEM has for many years trolled many newsgroups. Whether he is a
>> genuine fool or just plays one on the net is probably impossible to
>> tell. Almost everything is this gem is rubbish.
>
> But what's the point in replying to it just to say it is rubbish? I
> wouldn't have even noticed it if no one had replied to it.
>
Sometimes he just ticks people off. Thunderbird has a little trash can
icon that I use to reply to him.

On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 15:08:01 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>:

>On 3/11/24 2:46 PM, Richmond wrote:
>> erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 3/11/24 12:24 PM, Richmond wrote:
>>>> JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Pro Plyd wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> https://phys.org/news/2024-03-life-evidence-rna-world.html ... But
>>>>>> how did all of this begin? In the origins of life, long before
>>>>>> cells and proteins and DNA, could a similar sort of evolution have
>>>>>> taken place on a simpler scale? Scientists in the 1960s, including
>>>>>> Salk Fellow Leslie Orgel, proposed that life began with the "RNA
>>>>>> World," a hypothetical era in which small, stringy RNA molecules
>>>>>> ruled the early Earth and established the dynamics of Darwinian
>>>>>> evolution.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Darwinian Evolution," besides making things difficult when everyone
>>>>> later claims that they're not "Darwinists," is just plain
>>>>> wrong. Darwin believed that if an animal ran a lot, their leg
>>>>> muscles would grow and produce "Bigger, running-around-a-lot"
>>>>> Gemmules which would flow to the gonads and be passed on the the
>>>>> next generation, who would be born with the bigger, running around a
>>>>> lot muscles.
>>>>>
>>>>> As i pointed out many times, and will point out many more times
>>>>> because, let's face it, the last thing anyone in this group ever
>>>>> wanted was science but...
>>>>>
>>>>> Darwin REJECTED evolution. He didn't believe in it. Oh, he did
>>>>> eventually use that word but this is the internet. We're all quite
>>>>> accustomed to people misusing terms, and Darwin was a pioneer. In
>>>>> fact, later, in the Communist world, Stalin and then Mao banned
>>>>> evolution, and in it's place promoted Darwin's ideas. Renamed, of
>>>>> course. But they were all copying the exact same source material,
>>>>> Lamarcksim...
>>>>>
>>>>> Darwin was an idiot. And he certainly never invented or discovered
>>>>> evolution. Evolution was already quite old by the time that Darwin
>>>>> sabotaged science with his inability to grasp it. No, sorry,
>>>>> evolution was always part of "Common Descent," and if you do the
>>>>> Google you'll find sources pushing THAT idea back into the thousands
>>>>> of years..
>>>>>
>>>>> Darwin's single biggest impact on science -- REAL science, as
>>>>> opposed to the British aristocracy glorifying itself -- was HOLDING
>>>>> BACK science in the English speaking world for 20 years by becoming
>>>>> the face of Naturalism and throwing aside Mendel.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, it took that long -- 20 years -- for some Brit with a stick up
>>>>> his ass to pretend that he made Mendel's discoveries...
>>>>>
>>>>> This is important. It's not a small error. When someone spews an
>>>>> oxymoron like "Darwinian Evolution" it's not because they're so
>>>>> meticulous in their work. No. It's because they are hitting
>>>>> buckets. They're communicating. They are invoking things that the
>>>>> layman will recognize as familiar. They are, as the saying goes,
>>>>> "Putting lipstick on a pig."
>>>>>
>>>>> "I said DARWINIAN evolution! That's cus I is edu ma kated. I know
>>>>> stuff."
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, not a small error. It makes the piece as being meant for "The
>>>>> un edu ma kated"... the only people who might find "Darwinian"
>>>>> evolution sciency!
>>>>>
>>>>> Demand accuracy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't you think you're worth it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't you think the promotion of science is worth it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Demand accuracy. Don't tolerate being dummed down by your efforts to
>>>>> learn and grow. It's not an unreasonable request, demanding
>>>>> publications that are accurate. >> Darwin didn't know about genes,
>>>>> but then his book was published >> before >> Mendel, so you can't
>>>>> really blame him for that. As for rejecting >> evolution, well the
>>>>> last line in 'The Origin of Species' is: >> ", from so simple a
>>>>> beginning endless forms most beautiful and most >> wonderful have
>>>>> been, and are being, evolved." >> I demand accuracy.
>>>>
>>>
>>> JTEM has for many years trolled many newsgroups. Whether he is a
>>> genuine fool or just plays one on the net is probably impossible to
>>> tell. Almost everything is this gem is rubbish.
>>
>> But what's the point in replying to it just to say it is rubbish? I
>> wouldn't have even noticed it if no one had replied to it.
>>
>Sometimes he just ticks people off. Thunderbird has a little trash can
>icon that I use to reply to him.
>
Even better to never see his posts at all; my "Special
Childrens' File" sees to that quite nicely, so I only need
to ignore responses to him, which cuts the time I waste on
him by quite a bit.
>
--

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 3/11/24 3:33 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 15:08:01 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
>
>> On 3/11/24 2:46 PM, Richmond wrote:
>>> erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 3/11/24 12:24 PM, Richmond wrote:
>>>>> JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Pro Plyd wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://phys.org/news/2024-03-life-evidence-rna-world.html ... But
>>>>>>> how did all of this begin? In the origins of life, long before
>>>>>>> cells and proteins and DNA, could a similar sort of evolution have
>>>>>>> taken place on a simpler scale? Scientists in the 1960s, including
>>>>>>> Salk Fellow Leslie Orgel, proposed that life began with the "RNA
>>>>>>> World," a hypothetical era in which small, stringy RNA molecules
>>>>>>> ruled the early Earth and established the dynamics of Darwinian
>>>>>>> evolution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Darwinian Evolution," besides making things difficult when everyone
>>>>>> later claims that they're not "Darwinists," is just plain
>>>>>> wrong. Darwin believed that if an animal ran a lot, their leg
>>>>>> muscles would grow and produce "Bigger, running-around-a-lot"
>>>>>> Gemmules which would flow to the gonads and be passed on the the
>>>>>> next generation, who would be born with the bigger, running around a
>>>>>> lot muscles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As i pointed out many times, and will point out many more times
>>>>>> because, let's face it, the last thing anyone in this group ever
>>>>>> wanted was science but...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Darwin REJECTED evolution. He didn't believe in it. Oh, he did
>>>>>> eventually use that word but this is the internet. We're all quite
>>>>>> accustomed to people misusing terms, and Darwin was a pioneer. In
>>>>>> fact, later, in the Communist world, Stalin and then Mao banned
>>>>>> evolution, and in it's place promoted Darwin's ideas. Renamed, of
>>>>>> course. But they were all copying the exact same source material,
>>>>>> Lamarcksim...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Darwin was an idiot. And he certainly never invented or discovered
>>>>>> evolution. Evolution was already quite old by the time that Darwin
>>>>>> sabotaged science with his inability to grasp it. No, sorry,
>>>>>> evolution was always part of "Common Descent," and if you do the
>>>>>> Google you'll find sources pushing THAT idea back into the thousands
>>>>>> of years..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Darwin's single biggest impact on science -- REAL science, as
>>>>>> opposed to the British aristocracy glorifying itself -- was HOLDING
>>>>>> BACK science in the English speaking world for 20 years by becoming
>>>>>> the face of Naturalism and throwing aside Mendel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, it took that long -- 20 years -- for some Brit with a stick up
>>>>>> his ass to pretend that he made Mendel's discoveries...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is important. It's not a small error. When someone spews an
>>>>>> oxymoron like "Darwinian Evolution" it's not because they're so
>>>>>> meticulous in their work. No. It's because they are hitting
>>>>>> buckets. They're communicating. They are invoking things that the
>>>>>> layman will recognize as familiar. They are, as the saying goes,
>>>>>> "Putting lipstick on a pig."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "I said DARWINIAN evolution! That's cus I is edu ma kated. I know
>>>>>> stuff."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, not a small error. It makes the piece as being meant for "The
>>>>>> un edu ma kated"... the only people who might find "Darwinian"
>>>>>> evolution sciency!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Demand accuracy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't you think you're worth it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't you think the promotion of science is worth it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Demand accuracy. Don't tolerate being dummed down by your efforts to
>>>>>> learn and grow. It's not an unreasonable request, demanding
>>>>>> publications that are accurate. >> Darwin didn't know about genes,
>>>>>> but then his book was published >> before >> Mendel, so you can't
>>>>>> really blame him for that. As for rejecting >> evolution, well the
>>>>>> last line in 'The Origin of Species' is: >> ", from so simple a
>>>>>> beginning endless forms most beautiful and most >> wonderful have
>>>>>> been, and are being, evolved." >> I demand accuracy.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> JTEM has for many years trolled many newsgroups. Whether he is a
>>>> genuine fool or just plays one on the net is probably impossible to
>>>> tell. Almost everything is this gem is rubbish.
>>>
>>> But what's the point in replying to it just to say it is rubbish? I
>>> wouldn't have even noticed it if no one had replied to it.
>>>
>> Sometimes he just ticks people off. Thunderbird has a little trash can
>> icon that I use to reply to him.
>>
> Even better to never see his posts at all; my "Special
> Childrens' File" sees to that quite nicely, so I only need
> to ignore responses to him, which cuts the time I waste on
> him by quite a bit.
>>
Thunderbird also has filters that can eliminate obnoxious posters, but
I've found that sometimes it effectively clogs the pipe to the
newsgroup. If I delete the filters, lots of stuff shows up immediately.
Has anybody else observed this?

Richmond wrote:

> But what's the point in replying to it just to say it is rubbish?=

The collective is a narcissist. Instead of thinking of
a reply, much less articulating same, it splatters the
contents of it's bowels across it's keyboard, then
convinces itself that it was clever...

I think people shouldn't be punished for wanting to
expand their minds. I think people can and should
demand accuracy instead of propaganda.

Darwin is a myth. Stop believing in myths. Stop
accepting myths. If you don't believe you're worth
it, give up. Don't pretend you care about science
or facts.

--
http://jtem.tumblr.com

Bob Casanova wrote:

> Even better to never see his posts

For someone who never sees them you sure do see
them a lot! And you always, Always, ALWAYS
use this handle to proclaim you superiority.

But, let's face it, even you don't believe it!

Darwin is a myth. You are being triggered
because I said people deserve better than a
myth. I said that people shouldn't be dumbed
down for trying to better themselves, and
this triggered you.

And we know why the collective is triggered:

Because my saying so exposes the fact that
you were too stupid to notice the propaganda!

Or the contradiction where you pretend to not
be "A Darwinist" yet rudely defend "Darwinian"
evolution -- which never even existed!

--
http://jtem.tumblr.com

erik simpson wrote:

> Thunderbird also has filters that can eliminate obnoxious posters

Speaking of which: What did you disagree with, specifically?

I'll be here, tearing into your stupidity, and no filter can
ever hide it.

You might as well grow a pair and start to think.

--
http://jtem.tumblr.com

On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 16:01:51 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>:

>On 3/11/24 3:33 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 15:08:01 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> On 3/11/24 2:46 PM, Richmond wrote:
>>>> erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/11/24 12:24 PM, Richmond wrote:
>>>>>> JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pro Plyd wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://phys.org/news/2024-03-life-evidence-rna-world.html ... But
>>>>>>>> how did all of this begin? In the origins of life, long before
>>>>>>>> cells and proteins and DNA, could a similar sort of evolution have
>>>>>>>> taken place on a simpler scale? Scientists in the 1960s, including
>>>>>>>> Salk Fellow Leslie Orgel, proposed that life began with the "RNA
>>>>>>>> World," a hypothetical era in which small, stringy RNA molecules
>>>>>>>> ruled the early Earth and established the dynamics of Darwinian
>>>>>>>> evolution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Darwinian Evolution," besides making things difficult when everyone
>>>>>>> later claims that they're not "Darwinists," is just plain
>>>>>>> wrong. Darwin believed that if an animal ran a lot, their leg
>>>>>>> muscles would grow and produce "Bigger, running-around-a-lot"
>>>>>>> Gemmules which would flow to the gonads and be passed on the the
>>>>>>> next generation, who would be born with the bigger, running around a
>>>>>>> lot muscles.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As i pointed out many times, and will point out many more times
>>>>>>> because, let's face it, the last thing anyone in this group ever
>>>>>>> wanted was science but...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Darwin REJECTED evolution. He didn't believe in it. Oh, he did
>>>>>>> eventually use that word but this is the internet. We're all quite
>>>>>>> accustomed to people misusing terms, and Darwin was a pioneer. In
>>>>>>> fact, later, in the Communist world, Stalin and then Mao banned
>>>>>>> evolution, and in it's place promoted Darwin's ideas. Renamed, of
>>>>>>> course. But they were all copying the exact same source material,
>>>>>>> Lamarcksim...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Darwin was an idiot. And he certainly never invented or discovered
>>>>>>> evolution. Evolution was already quite old by the time that Darwin
>>>>>>> sabotaged science with his inability to grasp it. No, sorry,
>>>>>>> evolution was always part of "Common Descent," and if you do the
>>>>>>> Google you'll find sources pushing THAT idea back into the thousands
>>>>>>> of years..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Darwin's single biggest impact on science -- REAL science, as
>>>>>>> opposed to the British aristocracy glorifying itself -- was HOLDING
>>>>>>> BACK science in the English speaking world for 20 years by becoming
>>>>>>> the face of Naturalism and throwing aside Mendel.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, it took that long -- 20 years -- for some Brit with a stick up
>>>>>>> his ass to pretend that he made Mendel's discoveries...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is important. It's not a small error. When someone spews an
>>>>>>> oxymoron like "Darwinian Evolution" it's not because they're so
>>>>>>> meticulous in their work. No. It's because they are hitting
>>>>>>> buckets. They're communicating. They are invoking things that the
>>>>>>> layman will recognize as familiar. They are, as the saying goes,
>>>>>>> "Putting lipstick on a pig."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "I said DARWINIAN evolution! That's cus I is edu ma kated. I know
>>>>>>> stuff."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, not a small error. It makes the piece as being meant for "The
>>>>>>> un edu ma kated"... the only people who might find "Darwinian"
>>>>>>> evolution sciency!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Demand accuracy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't you think you're worth it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't you think the promotion of science is worth it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Demand accuracy. Don't tolerate being dummed down by your efforts to
>>>>>>> learn and grow. It's not an unreasonable request, demanding
>>>>>>> publications that are accurate. >> Darwin didn't know about genes,
>>>>>>> but then his book was published >> before >> Mendel, so you can't
>>>>>>> really blame him for that. As for rejecting >> evolution, well the
>>>>>>> last line in 'The Origin of Species' is: >> ", from so simple a
>>>>>>> beginning endless forms most beautiful and most >> wonderful have
>>>>>>> been, and are being, evolved." >> I demand accuracy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> JTEM has for many years trolled many newsgroups. Whether he is a
>>>>> genuine fool or just plays one on the net is probably impossible to
>>>>> tell. Almost everything is this gem is rubbish.
>>>>
>>>> But what's the point in replying to it just to say it is rubbish? I
>>>> wouldn't have even noticed it if no one had replied to it.
>>>>
>>> Sometimes he just ticks people off. Thunderbird has a little trash can
>>> icon that I use to reply to him.
>>>
>> Even better to never see his posts at all; my "Special
>> Childrens' File" sees to that quite nicely, so I only need
>> to ignore responses to him, which cuts the time I waste on
>> him by quite a bit.
>>>
>Thunderbird also has filters that can eliminate obnoxious posters, but
>I've found that sometimes it effectively clogs the pipe to the
>newsgroup. If I delete the filters, lots of stuff shows up immediately.
> Has anybody else observed this?
>
That doesn't happen with Agent; it can filter on specific
posters. of course, nymshifting by a**holes gets around
that, but some things are impervious to solution.
>
--

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

Bob Casanova wrote:

> That doesn't happen with Agent; it

Who cares? Does your mental healthcare provider know
you keep going of on this shit? Maybe a med adjustment
is in order?

Why were you triggered because I thought people shouldn't
be penalized for wanted to better themselves?

Oh, that's right: You're fucked in the head!

Sorry. I forgot (No I didn't).

--
http://jtem.tumblr.com

On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 21:46:02 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

>erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 3/11/24 12:24 PM, Richmond wrote:
>>> JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Pro Plyd wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> https://phys.org/news/2024-03-life-evidence-rna-world.html ... But
>>>>> how did all of this begin? In the origins of life, long before
>>>>> cells and proteins and DNA, could a similar sort of evolution have
>>>>> taken place on a simpler scale? Scientists in the 1960s, including
>>>>> Salk Fellow Leslie Orgel, proposed that life began with the "RNA
>>>>> World," a hypothetical era in which small, stringy RNA molecules
>>>>> ruled the early Earth and established the dynamics of Darwinian
>>>>> evolution.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Darwinian Evolution," besides making things difficult when everyone
>>>> later claims that they're not "Darwinists," is just plain
>>>> wrong. Darwin believed that if an animal ran a lot, their leg
>>>> muscles would grow and produce "Bigger, running-around-a-lot"
>>>> Gemmules which would flow to the gonads and be passed on the the
>>>> next generation, who would be born with the bigger, running around a
>>>> lot muscles.
>>>>
>>>> As i pointed out many times, and will point out many more times
>>>> because, let's face it, the last thing anyone in this group ever
>>>> wanted was science but...
>>>>
>>>> Darwin REJECTED evolution. He didn't believe in it. Oh, he did
>>>> eventually use that word but this is the internet. We're all quite
>>>> accustomed to people misusing terms, and Darwin was a pioneer. In
>>>> fact, later, in the Communist world, Stalin and then Mao banned
>>>> evolution, and in it's place promoted Darwin's ideas. Renamed, of
>>>> course. But they were all copying the exact same source material,
>>>> Lamarcksim...
>>>>
>>>> Darwin was an idiot. And he certainly never invented or discovered
>>>> evolution. Evolution was already quite old by the time that Darwin
>>>> sabotaged science with his inability to grasp it. No, sorry,
>>>> evolution was always part of "Common Descent," and if you do the
>>>> Google you'll find sources pushing THAT idea back into the thousands
>>>> of years..
>>>>
>>>> Darwin's single biggest impact on science -- REAL science, as
>>>> opposed to the British aristocracy glorifying itself -- was HOLDING
>>>> BACK science in the English speaking world for 20 years by becoming
>>>> the face of Naturalism and throwing aside Mendel.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it took that long -- 20 years -- for some Brit with a stick up
>>>> his ass to pretend that he made Mendel's discoveries...
>>>>
>>>> This is important. It's not a small error. When someone spews an
>>>> oxymoron like "Darwinian Evolution" it's not because they're so
>>>> meticulous in their work. No. It's because they are hitting
>>>> buckets. They're communicating. They are invoking things that the
>>>> layman will recognize as familiar. They are, as the saying goes,
>>>> "Putting lipstick on a pig."
>>>>
>>>> "I said DARWINIAN evolution! That's cus I is edu ma kated. I know
>>>> stuff."
>>>>
>>>> Again, not a small error. It makes the piece as being meant for "The
>>>> un edu ma kated"... the only people who might find "Darwinian"
>>>> evolution sciency!
>>>>
>>>> Demand accuracy.
>>>>
>>>> Don't you think you're worth it?
>>>>
>>>> Don't you think the promotion of science is worth it?
>>>>
>>>> Demand accuracy. Don't tolerate being dummed down by your efforts to
>>>> learn and grow. It's not an unreasonable request, demanding
>>>> publications that are accurate. >> Darwin didn't know about genes,
>>>> but then his book was published >> before >> Mendel, so you can't
>>>> really blame him for that. As for rejecting >> evolution, well the
>>>> last line in 'The Origin of Species' is: >> ", from so simple a
>>>> beginning endless forms most beautiful and most >> wonderful have
>>>> been, and are being, evolved." >> I demand accuracy.
>>>
>>
>> JTEM has for many years trolled many newsgroups. Whether he is a
>> genuine fool or just plays one on the net is probably impossible to
>> tell. Almost everything is this gem is rubbish.
>
>But what's the point in replying to it just to say it is rubbish? I
>wouldn't have even noticed it if no one had replied to it.

If all Erik said was just to say it is rubbish, you would have raised
a good question. However, even if he had, that shouldn't stop you
from posting something more substantial. For example, you could have
pointed out that just about any mechanism for passing on traits would
still lead to evolution. The fact that Darwin's speculations about
that mechanism are wrong doesn't inform that his actual theory of the
origin of species by means of natural selection remains valid.

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

On 2024-03-11 19:48:01 +0000, JTEM said:

> Richmond wrote:
>
>> Darwin didn't know about genes
>
> Darwin was exposed to Mendel's work --THE Mendel, the
> guy who worked out inheritance -- and he was exposed
> to it BEFORE he completed his "Pangenesis" vomit.
>
>> but then his book was published before
>> Mendel
>
> Again, "Pangenesis."
>
> Mendel worked it all out, Darwin was exposed to it AND
> THEN Darwin came out with the "Pangenesis" bullshit.
>
>> As for rejecting
>> evolution, well the last line in 'The Origin of Species' is:
>
> Omg. I'll repeat it:
>
> Stalin. Mao.

I don't know about Mao, but Stalin had no problem with evolution. In
1959 (100 years after The Origin; 150 years after Darwin's birth) I was
at the same school as Darwin, many years after him. The Academy of
Sciences of the USSR sent the school a commemorative medal. (Don't
bother to tell me that Stalin had died by then: I know.) Interest in
Darwinism was at low ebb in England in 1959, and the anniversaries
passed almost unnoticed.

> They banned evolution. They saw is as Capitalist
> propaganda -- justification for everything from racism into
> classism and onto economic exploitation. So they banned
> evolution. And what they put in it's place was Darwin's ideas,
> what Darwin believed it.

Insofar as there is any sense at all in what you say, you're probably
confusing Darwin with Mendel.
>
> Yes, you're right, Darwin was a raging idiot who had no clue
> what he meant, much less what he was talking about. That was
> already established.

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

On 2024-03-11 21:34:43 +0000, erik simpson said:

> On 3/11/24 12:24 PM, Richmond wrote:
>> JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Pro Plyd wrote:
>>>
>>>> https://phys.org/news/2024-03-life-evidence-rna-world.html
>>>> ...
>>>> But how did all of this begin? In the origins of
>>>> life, long before cells and proteins and DNA,
>>>> could a similar sort of evolution have taken
>>>> place on a simpler scale? Scientists in the
>>>> 1960s, including Salk Fellow Leslie Orgel,
>>>> proposed that life began with the "RNA World,"
>>>> a hypothetical era in which small, stringy RNA
>>>> molecules ruled the early Earth and established
>>>> the dynamics of Darwinian evolution.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Darwinian Evolution," besides making things difficult
>>> when everyone later claims that they're not "Darwinists,"
>>> is just plain wrong. Darwin believed that if an animal
>>> ran a lot, their leg muscles would grow and produce
>>> "Bigger, running-around-a-lot" Gemmules which would
>>> flow to the gonads and be passed on the the next
>>> generation, who would be born with the bigger, running
>>> around a lot muscles.
>>>
>>> As i pointed out many times, and will point out many
>>> more times because, let's face it, the last thing
>>> anyone in this group ever wanted was science but...
>>>
>>> Darwin REJECTED evolution. He didn't believe in it. Oh,
>>> he did eventually use that word but this is the internet.
>>> We're all quite accustomed to people misusing terms, and
>>> Darwin was a pioneer. In fact, later, in the Communist
>>> world, Stalin and then Mao banned evolution, and in it's
>>> place promoted Darwin's ideas. Renamed, of course. But
>>> they were all copying the exact same source material,
>>> Lamarcksim...
>>>
>>> Darwin was an idiot. And he certainly never invented or
>>> discovered evolution. Evolution was already quite old
>>> by the time that Darwin sabotaged science with his
>>> inability to grasp it. No, sorry, evolution was always
>>> part of "Common Descent," and if you do the Google
>>> you'll find sources pushing THAT idea back into the
>>> thousands of years..
>>>
>>> Darwin's single biggest impact on science -- REAL
>>> science, as opposed to the British aristocracy
>>> glorifying itself -- was HOLDING BACK science in
>>> the English speaking world for 20 years by becoming
>>> the face of Naturalism and throwing aside Mendel.
>>>
>>> Yes, it took that long -- 20 years -- for some Brit
>>> with a stick up his ass to pretend that he made
>>> Mendel's discoveries...
>>>
>>> This is important. It's not a small error. When someone
>>> spews an oxymoron like "Darwinian Evolution" it's not
>>> because they're so meticulous in their work. No. It's
>>> because they are hitting buckets. They're communicating.
>>> They are invoking things that the layman will recognize
>>> as familiar. They are, as the saying goes, "Putting
>>> lipstick on a pig."
>>>
>>> "I said DARWINIAN evolution! That's cus I is edu ma
>>> kated. I know stuff."
>>>
>>> Again, not a small error. It makes the piece as being
>>> meant for "The un edu ma kated"... the only people who
>>> might find "Darwinian" evolution sciency!
>>>
>>> Demand accuracy.
>>>
>>> Don't you think you're worth it?
>>>
>>> Don't you think the promotion of science is worth it?
>>>
>>> Demand accuracy. Don't tolerate being dummed down by
>>> your efforts to learn and grow. It's not an unreasonable
>>> request, demanding publications that are accurate.
>>
>> Darwin didn't know about genes, but then his book was published before
>> Mendel, so you can't really blame him for that. As for rejecting
>> evolution, well the last line in 'The Origin of Species' is:
>>
>> ", from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most
>> wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."
>>
>> I demand accuracy.
>>
>
> JTEM has for many years trolled many newsgroups. Whether he is a
> genuine fool or just plays one on the net is probably impossible to
> tell. Almost everything is this gem is rubbish.

Only "Almost"? You're too kind.

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

jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:

> On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 21:46:02 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>>erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 3/11/24 12:24 PM, Richmond wrote:
>>>> JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Pro Plyd wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> https://phys.org/news/2024-03-life-evidence-rna-world.html ... But
>>>>>> how did all of this begin? In the origins of life, long before
>>>>>> cells and proteins and DNA, could a similar sort of evolution have
>>>>>> taken place on a simpler scale? Scientists in the 1960s, including
>>>>>> Salk Fellow Leslie Orgel, proposed that life began with the "RNA
>>>>>> World," a hypothetical era in which small, stringy RNA molecules
>>>>>> ruled the early Earth and established the dynamics of Darwinian
>>>>>> evolution.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Darwinian Evolution," besides making things difficult when everyone
>>>>> later claims that they're not "Darwinists," is just plain
>>>>> wrong. Darwin believed that if an animal ran a lot, their leg
>>>>> muscles would grow and produce "Bigger, running-around-a-lot"
>>>>> Gemmules which would flow to the gonads and be passed on the the
>>>>> next generation, who would be born with the bigger, running around a
>>>>> lot muscles.
>>>>>
>>>>> As i pointed out many times, and will point out many more times
>>>>> because, let's face it, the last thing anyone in this group ever
>>>>> wanted was science but...
>>>>>
>>>>> Darwin REJECTED evolution. He didn't believe in it. Oh, he did
>>>>> eventually use that word but this is the internet. We're all quite
>>>>> accustomed to people misusing terms, and Darwin was a pioneer. In
>>>>> fact, later, in the Communist world, Stalin and then Mao banned
>>>>> evolution, and in it's place promoted Darwin's ideas. Renamed, of
>>>>> course. But they were all copying the exact same source material,
>>>>> Lamarcksim...
>>>>>
>>>>> Darwin was an idiot. And he certainly never invented or discovered
>>>>> evolution. Evolution was already quite old by the time that Darwin
>>>>> sabotaged science with his inability to grasp it. No, sorry,
>>>>> evolution was always part of "Common Descent," and if you do the
>>>>> Google you'll find sources pushing THAT idea back into the thousands
>>>>> of years..
>>>>>
>>>>> Darwin's single biggest impact on science -- REAL science, as
>>>>> opposed to the British aristocracy glorifying itself -- was HOLDING
>>>>> BACK science in the English speaking world for 20 years by becoming
>>>>> the face of Naturalism and throwing aside Mendel.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, it took that long -- 20 years -- for some Brit with a stick up
>>>>> his ass to pretend that he made Mendel's discoveries...
>>>>>
>>>>> This is important. It's not a small error. When someone spews an
>>>>> oxymoron like "Darwinian Evolution" it's not because they're so
>>>>> meticulous in their work. No. It's because they are hitting
>>>>> buckets. They're communicating. They are invoking things that the
>>>>> layman will recognize as familiar. They are, as the saying goes,
>>>>> "Putting lipstick on a pig."
>>>>>
>>>>> "I said DARWINIAN evolution! That's cus I is edu ma kated. I know
>>>>> stuff."
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, not a small error. It makes the piece as being meant for "The
>>>>> un edu ma kated"... the only people who might find "Darwinian"
>>>>> evolution sciency!
>>>>>
>>>>> Demand accuracy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't you think you're worth it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't you think the promotion of science is worth it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Demand accuracy. Don't tolerate being dummed down by your efforts to
>>>>> learn and grow. It's not an unreasonable request, demanding
>>>>> publications that are accurate. >> Darwin didn't know about genes,
>>>>> but then his book was published >> before >> Mendel, so you can't
>>>>> really blame him for that. As for rejecting >> evolution, well the
>>>>> last line in 'The Origin of Species' is: >> ", from so simple a
>>>>> beginning endless forms most beautiful and most >> wonderful have
>>>>> been, and are being, evolved." >> I demand accuracy.
>>>>
>>>
>>> JTEM has for many years trolled many newsgroups. Whether he is a
>>> genuine fool or just plays one on the net is probably impossible to
>>> tell. Almost everything is this gem is rubbish.
>>
>>But what's the point in replying to it just to say it is rubbish? I
>>wouldn't have even noticed it if no one had replied to it.
>
>
> If all Erik said was just to say it is rubbish, you would have raised
> a good question.

I wasn't talking about Erik in particular, there were two other replies.

> However, even if he had, that shouldn't stop you
> from posting something more substantial.

Well I did, but I wasn't going to spend all day on it.

>For example, you could have
> pointed out that just about any mechanism for passing on traits would
> still lead to evolution. The fact that Darwin's speculations about
> that mechanism are wrong doesn't inform that his actual theory of the
> origin of species by means of natural selection remains valid.
>

On 3/11/24 12:24 PM, Richmond wrote:
> >[...]
> Darwin didn't know about genes, but then his book was published before
> Mendel, so you can't really blame him for that. As for rejecting
> evolution, well the last line in 'The Origin of Species' is:
>
> ", from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."
>
> I demand accuracy.

As I recall, Darwin published _Origin of Species_ after Mendel's work
with genes, but well before Mendel's work became widely known.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

On 3/11/24 4:01 PM, erik simpson wrote:
> On 3/11/24 3:33 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> [...]
>> Even better to never see his posts at all; my "Special
>> Childrens' File" sees to that quite nicely, so I only need
>> to ignore responses to him, which cuts the time I waste on
>> him by quite a bit.
>>>
> Thunderbird also has filters that can eliminate obnoxious posters, but
> I've found that sometimes it effectively clogs the pipe to the
> newsgroup.  If I delete the filters, lots of stuff shows up immediately.
>  Has anybody else observed this?

I use Thunderbird's filters to mark posts from obnoxious posters as
read. Then I pass by them but can easily look at them if there is some
reason to. I have never had any problems using this method.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> writes:

> On 3/11/24 12:24 PM, Richmond wrote:
>> >[...]
>> Darwin didn't know about genes, but then his book was published before
>> Mendel, so you can't really blame him for that. As for rejecting
>> evolution, well the last line in 'The Origin of Species' is:
>> ", from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most
>> wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."
>> I demand accuracy.
>
> As I recall, Darwin published _Origin of Species_ after Mendel's work
> with genes, but well before Mendel's work became widely known.

The Origin of Species 1859
Verhandlungen des naturforschenden Vereines in Brünn 1866

On 2024-03-11 6:01 PM, erik simpson wrote:
> On 3/11/24 3:33 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 15:08:01 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> On 3/11/24 2:46 PM, Richmond wrote:
>>>> erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/11/24 12:24 PM, Richmond wrote:
>>>>>> JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Pro Plyd wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://phys.org/news/2024-03-life-evidence-rna-world.html ...  But
>>>>>>>> how did all of this begin? In the origins of life, long before
>>>>>>>> cells and proteins and DNA, could a similar sort of evolution have
>>>>>>>> taken place on a simpler scale? Scientists in the 1960s, including
>>>>>>>> Salk Fellow Leslie Orgel, proposed that life began with the "RNA
>>>>>>>> World," a hypothetical era in which small, stringy RNA molecules
>>>>>>>> ruled the early Earth and established the dynamics of Darwinian
>>>>>>>> evolution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Darwinian Evolution," besides making things difficult when everyone
>>>>>>> later claims that they're not "Darwinists," is just plain
>>>>>>> wrong. Darwin believed that if an animal ran a lot, their leg
>>>>>>> muscles would grow and produce "Bigger, running-around-a-lot"
>>>>>>> Gemmules which would flow to the gonads and be passed on the the
>>>>>>> next generation, who would be born with the bigger, running around a
>>>>>>> lot muscles.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As i pointed out many times, and will point out many more times
>>>>>>> because, let's face it, the last thing anyone in this group ever
>>>>>>> wanted was science but...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Darwin REJECTED evolution. He didn't believe in it. Oh, he did
>>>>>>> eventually use that word but this is the internet.  We're all quite
>>>>>>> accustomed to people misusing terms, and Darwin was a pioneer. In
>>>>>>> fact, later, in the Communist world, Stalin and then Mao banned
>>>>>>> evolution, and in it's place promoted Darwin's ideas. Renamed, of
>>>>>>> course. But they were all copying the exact same source material,
>>>>>>> Lamarcksim...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Darwin was an idiot. And he certainly never invented or discovered
>>>>>>> evolution. Evolution was already quite old by the time that Darwin
>>>>>>> sabotaged science with his inability to grasp it. No, sorry,
>>>>>>> evolution was always part of "Common Descent," and if you do the
>>>>>>> Google you'll find sources pushing THAT idea back into the thousands
>>>>>>> of years..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Darwin's single biggest impact on science -- REAL science, as
>>>>>>> opposed to the British aristocracy glorifying itself -- was HOLDING
>>>>>>> BACK science in the English speaking world for 20 years by becoming
>>>>>>> the face of Naturalism and throwing aside Mendel.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, it took that long -- 20 years -- for some Brit with a stick up
>>>>>>> his ass to pretend that he made Mendel's discoveries...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is important. It's not a small error. When someone spews an
>>>>>>> oxymoron like "Darwinian Evolution" it's not because they're so
>>>>>>> meticulous in their work. No. It's because they are hitting
>>>>>>> buckets. They're communicating.  They are invoking things that the
>>>>>>> layman will recognize as familiar. They are, as the saying goes,
>>>>>>> "Putting lipstick on a pig."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "I said DARWINIAN evolution! That's cus I is edu ma kated. I know
>>>>>>> stuff."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, not a small error. It makes the piece as being meant for "The
>>>>>>> un edu ma kated"... the only people who might find "Darwinian"
>>>>>>> evolution sciency!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Demand accuracy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't you think you're worth it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't you think the promotion of science is worth it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Demand accuracy. Don't tolerate being dummed down by your efforts to
>>>>>>> learn and grow. It's not an unreasonable request, demanding
>>>>>>> publications that are accurate.  >> Darwin didn't know about genes,
>>>>>>> but then his book was published >> before >> Mendel, so you can't
>>>>>>> really blame him for that. As for rejecting >> evolution, well the
>>>>>>> last line in 'The Origin of Species' is: >> ", from so simple a
>>>>>>> beginning endless forms most beautiful and most >> wonderful have
>>>>>>> been, and are being, evolved."  >> I demand accuracy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> JTEM has for many years trolled many newsgroups. Whether he is a
>>>>> genuine fool or just plays one on the net is probably impossible to
>>>>> tell. Almost everything is this gem is rubbish.
>>>>
>>>> But what's the point in replying to it just to say it is rubbish? I
>>>> wouldn't have even noticed it if no one had replied to it.
>>>>
>>> Sometimes he just ticks people off.  Thunderbird has a little trash can
>>> icon that I use to reply to him.
>>>
>> Even better to never see his posts at all; my "Special
>> Childrens' File" sees to that quite nicely, so I only need
>> to ignore responses to him, which cuts the time I waste on
>> him by quite a bit.
>>>
> Thunderbird also has filters that can eliminate obnoxious posters, but
> I've found that sometimes it effectively clogs the pipe to the
> newsgroup.  If I delete the filters, lots of stuff shows up immediately.
>  Has anybody else observed this?
>
I use Thunderbird and extensive filtering and have had no problems at
all. But I don't have a lot of 'filters', the one named 'kill' has about
40 individual relationships to filter on with the 'filter on *all* of
the following' checked, so that is one filter that catches 40 posts.
Then I have a few single entry filters that use more than one
relationship to activate.
--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)