On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 11:40:41 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
<me@yahoo.com>:

>On 2024-03-20 10:04:24 +0000, Richmond said:
>
>> Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>>>> Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>>>>>> The prize isn't for identifying a naturally occurring code. It's for
>>>>>>> causing one to spontaneously form.
>>
>>> Please explain exactly where in the wording in the site where the
>>> prize depends on spontaneously forming. The genetic code exist, There
>>> can be no life and no evolution without genetic information.
>>
>> I was responding to Ernest Major. I haven't even visited the site as I
>> am not in the habit of clicking on links willy-nilly.
>
>I made that mistake this morning. I clicked on a plausible-looking link
>in Wikipedia and found myself on a pornography site, from which it
>proved very difficult to escape.
>
Closing the browser, or worst case doing a hard reset or
power cycle, usually works. A bit of a PITA, granted...
>
--

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 2024-03-20 15:55:05 +0000, erik simpson said:

> On 3/20/24 1:46 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2024-03-20 03:36:48 +0000, erik simpson said:
>>
>>> On 3/19/24 5:25 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>> erik simpson wrote:
>>>>> On 3/19/24 10:06 AM, Richmond wrote:
>>>>>> Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> THIS IS A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY TO BECOME WEALTHY. A $10,000.000 PRIZE.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IF EVOLUTION IS A REALITY OF NATURE.  THERE IS NO REASON FOR SOMEONE
>>>>>>> _NOT_ TO WIN THIS PRIZE.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> EVOLUTION 2.0 PRIZE KEY FACTS: Evolution 2.0 is a $10 million
>>>>>>> technology prize backed by a private equity investment group formed to
>>>>>>> identify a naturally occurring code.  The Prize came about from the
>>>>>>> group’s inaugural meeting May 31, 2019, at The Royal Society of Great
>>>>>>> Britain.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The judges are: George Church. Denis Noble, Michael Ruse
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://evo2.org/theprize/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you mean by code? Like a dress code?
>>>>>>
>>>>> I have sneaking suspicion nobody's going to win this.  This isn't new;
>>>>> it's been around since 2006, maybe earlier.  There's even a book:
>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-2-0-Breaking-Deadlock-Between/dp/1940363802
>>>>>
>>>>> The usual "atheists vs. ID proponents" are featured.
>>>>>
>>>> What do you know about the the  3 judges or the Royal Society of Great Britain?
>>>>
>>> Zero.
>>
>> George Church, likewise. Denis Noble is a distinguished physiologist,
>> but his views on evolution are, shall we say, a bit special. Michael
>> Ruse seemed to be sensible when he wrote Darwinism Defended, but he's
>> gone a bit over the rails since he moved to Florida.
>>
>>
> Florida has that effect on many. Except for historical context, I find
> the words "Darwinism" or "Darwinist" to be red flags.

Yes, but he was British when he wrote it, and in the UK "Darwinism" has
never been a dirty word. I think Richard Dawkins calls himself a
Darwinist.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

erik simpson wrote:
> On 3/19/24 5:25 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>> erik simpson wrote:
>>> On 3/19/24 10:06 AM, Richmond wrote:
>>>> Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> THIS IS A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY TO BECOME WEALTHY. A $10,000.000 PRIZE.
>>>>>
>>>>> IF EVOLUTION IS A REALITY OF NATURE.  THERE IS NO REASON FOR SOMEONE
>>>>> _NOT_ TO WIN THIS PRIZE.
>>>>>
>>>>> EVOLUTION 2.0 PRIZE KEY FACTS: Evolution 2.0 is a $10 million
>>>>> technology prize backed by a private equity investment group formed to
>>>>> identify a naturally occurring code.  The Prize came about from the
>>>>> group’s inaugural meeting May 31, 2019, at The Royal Society of Great
>>>>> Britain.
>>>>>
>>>>> The judges are: George Church. Denis Noble, Michael Ruse
>>>>>
>>>>> https://evo2.org/theprize/
>>>>
>>>> What do you mean by code? Like a dress code?
>>>>
>>> I have sneaking suspicion nobody's going to win this.  This isn't
>>> new; it's been around since 2006, maybe earlier.  There's even a book:
>>> https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-2-0-Breaking-Deadlock-Between/dp/1940363802
>>>
>>>
>>> The usual "atheists vs. ID proponents" are featured.
>>>
>> What do you know about the the  3 judges or the Royal Society of Great
>> Britain?
>>
> Zero.
> They are evolutionist.

Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
> G <g@nowhere.invalid> writes:
>
>> JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> erik simpson wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have sneaking suspicion nobody's going to win this.
>>>
>>> Now close the circle: It's as worthless as Randi's prize for
>>> "Proving" the paranormal. It's equally as impossible to force a
>>> payout.
>>>
>>
>> Of course it was impossible to win Randi's prize, you had to
>> demonstrate psychic or paranormal powers, and no such thing exists.
>>
>
> How do you know? Can you prove it?

Of course. Can you prove that the proof that no paranormal or psychic powers
exist does not exists?
If not that should mean that it exists, at least according to your way of
thinking, and that should be enough to satisfy you.

G

G <g@nowhere.invalid> writes:

> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>> G <g@nowhere.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> erik simpson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have sneaking suspicion nobody's going to win this.
>>>>
>>>> Now close the circle: It's as worthless as Randi's prize for
>>>> "Proving" the paranormal. It's equally as impossible to force a
>>>> payout.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Of course it was impossible to win Randi's prize, you had to
>>> demonstrate psychic or paranormal powers, and no such thing exists.
>>>
>>
>> How do you know? Can you prove it?
>
> Of course. Can you prove that the proof that no paranormal or psychic powers
> exist does not exists?

No.

> If not that should mean that it exists, at least according to your way of
> thinking, and that should be enough to satisfy you.
>

I don't know whether such powers exist. It seems unlikely. But quantum
entanglement seems unlikely, and yet there it is.

Ernest Major wrote:
> On 20/03/2024 03:36, erik simpson wrote:
>> On 3/19/24 5:25 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>> erik simpson wrote:
>>>> On 3/19/24 10:06 AM, Richmond wrote:
>>>>> Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> THIS IS A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY TO BECOME WEALTHY. A $10,000.000 PRIZE.
>>>>>>

>>>>
>>> What do you know about the the  3 judges or the Royal Society of
>>> Great Britain?
>>>
>> Zero.
>>
> What is puzzling me is why it is referred to as the Royal Society of
> Great Britain. It's the The Royal Society of London for Improving
> Natural Knowledge, commonly referred to as the Royal Society. (To
> disambiguate from the Royal Societies of Edinburgh and New Zealand one
> would normally refer to it as the Royal Society of London.)

Long ago, while debating AGW, I ran across the usual denialist
arguments, but in his case the "Halifax Institute for Climate Studies"
was cited. I was puzzled, as until quite recently I had been working in
Halifax, and had never heard of this "institute". None of my contacts
in Halifax (not a big city) had heard of it either.

As best I can tell it was a room in someone's house.

There appears to be no "Royal Society of Upper Canada". I suppose I
could found one, create a web site, and use it to push whatever nonsense
I wish, with the imprimatur of a "Royal Society". If the other Royal
Societies cared, they could probably sue, but also probably wouldn't
bother unless my organization became a real problem.

Cranks crave nothing more than respect.

Which is why I have some grudging respect for George MacReady Price.
He was offered "professorships" in various Christian institutions, but
always declined - as a true believer he didn't want to waste time.

William Hyde

Bob Casanova wrote:

> Rationally, "proving" the nonexistence of something which
> has never been demonstrated to exist is trivial

In both cases mentioned here -- evolution or even
Paranormal claims -- everyone is insisting that they
do exist.

So, the real point here is that such "Tests" are not
a valid means of making determinations. These "Prizes"
don't ever have to be paid out, even for evolution,
which you insist is real.

Randi's "Prize" testing was always rigged. He never
tested stated claims. He always "Tested" something
else.

He would have said it was to rip the frauds out of
their comfort zone, prevent them from performing
some stage trick that they practiced. Which might
be fine but he always failed to deconstruct the
claim and legitimately test it.

--
http://jtem.tumblr.com

G wrote:

> Of course it was impossible to win Randi's prize, you had to demonstrate
> psychic or paranormal powers, and no such thing exists.

Ah! You're a scientific illiterate! Why didn't you
just say so!

In order to "Win" the prize, in theory, you had to pass
a test.

Claimants who say that they could achieve some paranormal
feat, and Randi would test something else.

Every time.

Randi would pretend that both sides "Agreed" to the
conditions of the test, but that was never true. It was
never an "Agreement," it was an ultimatum: "You perform
this test or walk away."

And, again, the test NEVER mapped to the claimed
paranormal abilities.

But even if you complied with the conditions imposed
upon you, they never had to and never would pay you the
money. The law simply was never going to force them to.

In one example where I know for a fact that someone
passed a test, Randi gave out some "Code" and asked
people to tell him what it meant. It turned out to be
the Library of Congress number for a book of his, I
believe, and the people who identified it never
collected a dime.

If you were scientifically literate, you might (and I
did say "Might") be able to deconstruct a claim, come
up with an accurate test. Randi certainly could, but
never once did.

Partly because he himself was a performer, he did
magic tricks. He knew how, what was involved. So he
wanted to avoid a situation where someone who designed
and practiced a trick got to perform it. He wanted to
take people out of their comfort zone. But he never
did that in a scientifically valid way.

Again: Deconstruct the problem. What are you denying?
What are you doubting? Be as specific as you can. How
do you test THAT specific point?

Randi never did that.

--
http://jtem.tumblr.com

G wrote:

> Of course. Can you prove that the proof that no paranormal or psychic powers
> exist does not exists?

The point is that people DO insist that evolution is real,
even as the origin of species, and that it is proven.

Yet, they STILL can't win a prize for proving it!

Because such prizes -- ALL such prizes -- are bogus. They
are not a valid means for testing what is or is not real.

--
http://jtem.tumblr.com

Ernest Major wrote:

> On 20/03/2024 03:36, erik simpson wrote:
>> On 3/19/24 5:25 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>> erik simpson wrote:
>>>> On 3/19/24 10:06 AM, Richmond wrote:
>>>>> Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> THIS IS A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY TO BECOME WEALTHY. A $10,000.000 PRIZE.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IF EVOLUTION IS A REALITY OF NATURE.  THERE IS NO REASON FOR SOMEONE
>>>>>> _NOT_ TO WIN THIS PRIZE.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> EVOLUTION 2.0 PRIZE KEY FACTS: Evolution 2.0 is a $10 million
>>>>>> technology prize backed by a private equity investment group formed to
>>>>>> identify a naturally occurring code.  The Prize came about from the
>>>>>> group’s inaugural meeting May 31, 2019, at The Royal Society of Great
>>>>>> Britain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The judges are: George Church. Denis Noble, Michael Ruse
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://evo2.org/theprize/
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you mean by code? Like a dress code?
>>>>>
>>>> I have sneaking suspicion nobody's going to win this.  This isn't
>>>> new; it's been around since 2006, maybe earlier.  There's even a book:
>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-2-0-Breaking-Deadlock-Between/dp/1940363802
>>>>
>>>> The usual "atheists vs. ID proponents" are featured.
>>>>
>>> What do you know about the the  3 judges or the Royal Society of Great
>>> Britain?
>>>
>> Zero.
>>
> What is puzzling me is why it is referred to as the Royal Society of
> Great Britain. It's the The Royal Society of London for Improving
> Natural Knowledge, commonly referred to as the Royal Society. (To
> disambiguate from the Royal Societies of Edinburgh and New Zealand one
> would normally refer to it as the Royal Society of London.)

Maybe that's a different society. One that's......Invisible

On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 11:40:41 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<me@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 2024-03-20 10:04:24 +0000, Richmond said:
>
>> Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>>>> Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>>>>>> The prize isn't for identifying a naturally occurring code. It's for
>>>>>>> causing one to spontaneously form.
>>
>>> Please explain exactly where in the wording in the site where the
>>> prize depends on spontaneously forming. The genetic code exist, There
>>> can be no life and no evolution without genetic information.
>>
>> I was responding to Ernest Major. I haven't even visited the site as I
>> am not in the habit of clicking on links willy-nilly.
>
>I made that mistake this morning. I clicked on a plausible-looking link
>in Wikipedia and found myself on a pornography site, from which it
>proved very difficult to escape.

Some people have more trouble than others escaping from pornography
sites.

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

On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 09:27:08 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>:

>On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 10:06:39 +0000, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
>
>>G <g@nowhere.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> erik simpson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have sneaking suspicion nobody's going to win this.
>>>>
>>>> Now close the circle: It's as worthless as Randi's prize for
>>>> "Proving" the paranormal. It's equally as impossible to force a
>>>> payout.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Of course it was impossible to win Randi's prize, you had to
>>> demonstrate psychic or paranormal powers, and no such thing exists.
>>>
>>
>>How do you know? Can you prove it?
>>
>That's a bit disingenuous. Can you prove there's no
>invisible, impalpable elephant in your front yard?
>
>Rationally, "proving" the nonexistence of something which
>has never been demonstrated to exist is trivial; simply
>point to the lack of evidence of its existence, and invite
>the claimant of existence to show you are wrong by providing
>such evidence.
>>
<crickets>

No real surprise.
>
--

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