Tuesday, August 21, 2012

I'll Show You Mine ! Seriously!

You may need a microscope though.

And PS - this of many life processes was created by primordial pond scum ooze ?  I don't think so.


  1. Great. Just great. Now I can envision my DNA moving around like a King Cobra snake that later transforms itself into psychedelic broccoli, I may never all asleep again, ever.

    1. Mustang, that's some amazing stuff right there innit? Especially that fax/scanner/copier thing near the end.

    2. PS, All that from Primordial Ooze. Yea, right.

  2. Before we had primordial ooze, we had the Big Bang, remember? Or at least that's what our public high school chemistry teacher told us.

    1. Fredd, The Big Bang, Yes, I wasn't there. Or maybe I was and forgot ? Anyway, there are plenty of award winning and recognized scientists who are sure this whole thing isn't some random event.

      But this stuff sure is interesting.

  3. PSYCHEDELIC BROCCOLI! .Mustang, that's great!
    I have no sound on my computer as of yesterday....I wish I could hear the video! :-(

  4. We can determine what likely emerged from primordial ooze by experiment, specifically the Miller-Urey experiment if you want to look it up. We don't need anything as elaborate as a modern genome to get started, it need only self-replicate in order for natural selection to gain purchase and start shaping it towards something more recognisable as life.

    So well done, you got one right. Modern life molecules crawling spontaneously and instantaneously out of ooze didn't happen. Did you honestly think someone was claiming that?

    1. Jez, I can't imagine anyone claiming that a DNA strand crawled out of the ooze. I find your tack insulting.

      Well, I don't believe in macro-evolution. Micro-evolution yes. Enjoy.

    2. Sorry you found that insulting, but I was simply interpreting your post. You should have said something like "this of many life processes was created through the natural selection of random variations? I don't think so." so we would all have understood you better. Obviously you know that's wrong, but your less scientifically literate readers may have interpreted you as I did, and come away with an insulting caricature of biology's evolutionary claims.

      What is the technical distinction between micro- and macro- evolution?

    3. Hell Jez, I only graduated from 8th grade...

      Well my definition of macro-evolution as useful in most discussions is that man evolved from apes which, going back through the evolutionary process, evolved from fish that grew legs, lungs and walked out of the ocean.
      Scientifically speaking, and I haven't read anything about the 'missing link' for a good while now, but the last thing I did read what that they found a skull and then a jawbone over a half mile away, called it the skull of Lucy I believe and declared it the missing link. Hardly compelling evidence.

      Additionally, evidence over-turning relative scientific theories comes out fairly often. Such as how long humans have lived as artistic, well eating and clothed creatures is now thought to extend back many more thousands of years. Don't remember the number and don't feel like looking it up. But all this gives pause to my confidence in much of any 'science;.

      I believe 99+% of science through the ages is in the trash can, and a lot of it heads there day after day.

      Any thoughts on that?

      Micro-evolution then being the constant evolution within a species. Man having always being humanoid man.

      But I wasn't there, so I'm certainly not offended by people believing what they want about it.

    4. yeah but in those days passing 8th grade really meant somehing, right?

      There are several recorded instances of populations splitting into distinct species, see for example these mice: http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/04_00/island_mice.shtml . So we know for an absolute fact that evolution is less micro than that -- it can cross the species barrier. Most creationists I've met don't use the word "species" to define micro-evolution.

      Here's the quickest way to get up to speed on human paleontology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils.

      What to I think of 99+% of science in the trash can? Well I'm not sure I agree. Einstein didn't exactly put Newton in the trash can -- Newton's still good enough to save lives and make money! Of course I agree that scientific theories can be overturned (or more often amended), but the observations the theories explain are factual. Whether you champion Newton or Einstein, the observed effects of gravity are not in question. Similarly, the effects of evolution are there: we can cause them in labs, we can observe them in the wild, and we can read them from fossils. These are not theoretical (plus or minus the difficulty of reading fossils). It is a fact is that life changed over time, with distinct species of today sharing ancestors in the past -- for this to not be the case, many thousands of independent observations would need to be wrong. The bit that's a theory is the idea that all this change can be accounted for by natural selection. If we find a way to disprove Darwin's theory, that still wouldn't overturn the record of life changing in profound ways through pre-history.

      No, you weren't there at the time, but the past leaves its mark and you are here now, in the same place. I think your best chance at learning what happened in the past is by looking at the remains.

    5. Jez, "What to I think of 99+% of science in the trash can? Well I'm not sure I agree. Einstein didn't exactly put Newton in the trash can -- Newton's still good enough to save lives and make money"

      Just to clarify, I certainly wasn't talking about Newton. Yes, his science is still with us. I'm talking about all the 'science' that we've probably never seen. Theories from folks that didn't even make it a few years. Or in the context of this discussion, if we compare that to today, 99% of what we read in 'the news' or in various journals probably isn't going to stand the test of time.

      ie. Neutrinos can go faster than Light! Oops, maybe not. Or - We Found the Boson ! Well, we sure do think we did. Maybe they will in this case. Personally, I've seen a lot of science fade away. And I think we are generally better equipped to follow the 'scientific method' today than yesteryear, so maybe the science gets better as we move forward. I think there will always be fake science generated from agenda based interests.

    6. Faster than light neutrinos is a good example of mainstream misreporting of science. Some anomalous measurements were taken. The researchers knew they were anomalous precisely because they didn't think they could really be faster than light. They published in this spirit, and the mainstream press went nuts. you can read their original press releases (scroll down for earlier) here: http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/PR19.11E.html

      Here's an excerpt from the initial press release:
      "The strong constraints arising from these observations makes an interpretation of the OPERA measurement in terms of modification of Einstein’s theory unlikely, and give further strong reason to seek new independent measurements."

      And, from the release once the anomaly had been fully explained
      "it is what we all expected deep down. The story captured the public imagination, and has given people the opportunity to see the scientific method in action – an unexpected result was put up for scrutiny, thoroughly investigated and resolved in part thanks to collaboration between normally competing experiments. That’s how science moves forward."

      Bertolucci would be disappointed that it had the opposite effect here, making you less confident in science. Of course, science neither deserves nor demands your faith: your confidence in any theory should only be as strong as the evidence that backs it.

      Newton's gravity is a good example of a theory the main-stream press would be happy to describe as "overturned" in pursuit of a punchier headline.

    7. Jez, Taken the other way, that's an example of science that a lot of people end up believing because they see the original irresponsible claim or reporting of and not the eventual outcome. Though this is not the science in the trash can I'm taking about. Let's get some tickets to Alexandria just prior to Julius's big event and examine all the scrolls there. How many of those would stand up today. Then let's follow it through time and all the sciences, medical, etc, into and out of the dark ages, and even into today.

      Are you disputing that the vast majority of 'science' is in the trash can?

      Obviously, the context of this discussion is one that looks at the damage bad (even though there may have been good intentions) science does to a population.

    8. The Greeks had a lot of good ideas (and a lot of bad ones) but they didn't systematically apply the scientific method. This is why they had a hard time distinguishing their good ideas from their bad ones. The modern scientific era began during the Italian renaissance with Galileo.
      yes, I am disputing that the vast majority of 'science' is in the trash can. I'm restricting my claims to actual science, not the tabloid represantation of it. Even if a new theory "overturns" an old one, it can only do that if it explains the existing observations: the observations from past experiments are never discarded. (If the experiment was badly set up, it still must be explained. Instances of fraud are rare, since we require that experiments be repeatable.)

      Any theory that seriously rivals evolution must explain the record of life varying over time. Those observations won't go away.

      What do you have in mind by damage?

    9. Jez, You should stop micro-focusing on something I mention like the library at Alexandria. I'm talking about the Whole of science. Anyway.

      Ok, I will put you down as one disputer. I am also, as stated, restricting my claims to science as presented by 'scientists'.

      Damage done is the constant din of 'scientists' bolting up from their chairs proclaiming "I Have The Answer". You may require experiments to be repeatable, but there is a lot of science that we are living with today that, not only isn't it repeatable, it isn't even provable in a one off beyond any laughable shadow of doubt. Man Made (Major) Global Climate Change. This is causing all of us to pay more for food and energy. It is causing many people who were on the edge already-food price-wise, to starve and be starving. Those "scientists" deserve a one way ticket to hell.

      In advance, I don't care to dispute 'teh science'. I don't care. Bottom line - if the Earth is getting warmer for any reason, we aren't going to do shit about it because major developing nations like India, China, and most everyone else doesn't give a shit about it. They're more concerned about elevating their standard of living. Same as it ever was.
      But again, don't read this as a rant on AGW. Just one large, yet Miniscule point in the overall beef I have with the obsession and hook/line/sinker buy in people give to 'teh scientists' on a daily basis in ALL fields of science.

    10. Focusing on the particular is how we can discover if we are wrong, and thereby make progress. I recommend a little more micro-focus from you, Kid. I guarantee you'll be wrong less often.

      Anyway I didn't focus on the Greeks, I used them as an example to illustrate why you shouldn't go further back than about 1600AD in your review of science. The Greeks were wrong about eg. the 4 elements, but that's not because of any deficiency in science, it's a deficiency with the Socratic method.

      I am at a loss for examples of a scientist bolting up from his chair saying "I Have The Answer", or an experiment that is not repeatable, or a specific AGW claim that is unsupported -- could you provide some please?

      There is a reasonable point to be made about the interface between science and politics. Please entertain the idea that the science indicates that some political response is wise. Given that, should scientists dispassionately present their results, or should they attempt to persuade non-technical politicians to take the wise action? It's a moral dilemma to do with the unfortunate fact that pure, neutral honesty is often not the most effective form of communication, especially across disciplines. I am not a lawyer, so I don't imagine I would be as moved by a technical legal argument as I would be by a statistical one -- so in one case I'd need to be persuaded by rhetorical means, just as politicians might need to be persuaded about statistics.

      Who is starving as a result of food price rises? The general trend for food prices is very much downward, thanks largely to the appliance of science to agriculture. Anyone struggling today would have starved decades ago if it weren't for science.

      I've already told you that scientists don't deserve or demand any of your faith. I share your beef, in fact I expect I'm more annoyed about it than you are. Where we differ is in how we judge strength of evidence behind certain theories.

      In evolution, I think the evidence is quite strong, and I've provided a link to a catalog of human fossils. Since you admit that your knowledge of that evidence was restricted to one skull, one possibility is that your problem with evolution is due to your ignorance of paleontology.

      In AGW, since you don't care about "teh science", is it fair to chalk your attitude down to lazy cynicism? That's not entirely an insult; I'm as cynical as anyone, but I put some effort into mine :). you say there isn't any proof for AGW: how do you know? you're not interested, remember?

    11. Jez, Well, point so something in my post that would make someone think I was micro-focusing, or even intended to and I'll go down that road. In fact, I micro-focus so infrequently, it would probably make your head spin.

      There is a lot of figurative here, but if Steven Hawking COULD jump up from his chair, I think he would have during his last public appearance (That I read about) where he presented 'the answer' to whether information gets lost in a black hole. Seemed that way to me anyway. Is he right? Who knows.

      "Pythagorean theorem" People in those days had the intelligence, class and dignity to call their discoveries theorem's. Today, everything is presented as fact right out of the box. Salt is bad for you, Oh no wait... Surely you can understand this concept.

      Well, I'd say my claim of 99% of science being in the trash can is correct. It is the stuff you don't hear about or read about anymore because it is in the trash can.

      a specific AGW claim that is unsupported -- could you provide some please?

      -> Nope, don't care to go there. The AGW people are absolutely Rabid, they're even worse than the PETA people. As I said, don't make a damn bit of difference whether it's true or not anyway. Nothing can be done with it. My personal opinion is that it is a Global Tax, designed by socialist countries to suck off one of the last few healthy hosts yet available - The USA.

      Please entertain the idea that the science indicates that some political response is wise.

      -> Quite an interesting subject. I agree that governmental/authoritative/legislative entities should get involved in, for example, stem cell research as it affects human fetuses, since there is great potential for the creation of fetuses for the sole purpose of stem cell harvesting. I and many people consider a human fetus as a human. Nothing is more core to life on Earth itself that individual liberty.

      In contrast, government has no business being involved with Apple Computer and how they create hardware and software products. Unless somehow, individual liberties would be affected as an example.

      More people in poor countries are starving because of the increase in food prices.

      AGW again... How do I know? I have a great nose for BS.

      It deserves mention that it's Not "my" job to disprove AGW since 1.) It hasn't been proven, so there is nothing to disprove, 2.) I'm not interested because it doesn't matter if it is real or not, we aren't going to do shit about it except create more expensive energy and food pricing, resulting in only a negative effect. Why waste the oxygen ?

      My only interest is stopping these assholes artificially jacking up the price of energy and food, and therefore the price of everything else. Not that I can do much about it.

      You want absolute proof? Let's revisit in 20 years, or 100 years.

      I say the Earth is a self-correcting system all in itself. Surely it goes through major change, from snowball to tropical, but in the end, outside of the dinosaurs going extinct, apocalyptic worldwide scenarios have never panned out. Given we (life itself) have been here 4.5 billion years, I'll go with the percentages.

    12. Actually it's your own head that's spinning, not the world revolving around you as you seem to think -- but I doubt even Galileo could convince you otherwise.

      The last appearance of Hawkins that I read about concerning information and black holes was the one where he conceded his bet with John Preskill, ie he was admitting he'd been wrong.

      You misunderstand the term "theorem" -- it actually means something which is proven. Pythagoras' Theorem is not in any way conjecture, you can deduce its truth entirely from logic following from the definition of a right-angled triangle. Here's a whole bunch of proofs: http://www.cut-the-knot.org/pythagoras/index.shtml .

      Presenting scientific results as facts is not a problem of science, it's a problem of journalism. (Too much salt is bad for you, but that's precisely what "too much" means, so the statement is a tautology. The amount of salt which is "too much" is interesting science, there are interesting trials and meta-analyses available. Government health advice is only partially based on this evidence, for some goddamned reason.)

      Theories can be discarded, but experimental results and observations cannot. Theories which have achieved mainstream acceptance are rarely discarded, although they are often embellished and cumulatively improved. See above for examples and explanation.

      In fact science doesn't have a trash can in the sense that discarded papers are still available. Once it's published, it's visible and searchable forever.

      A great nose for BS? Ever notice how it's harder to smell yourself?
      I think the validity of an opinion should be proportional to the amount of effort applied to generating it (among other things). I fear it takes very little effort to apply your nose test, and that you are insufficiently humble about the results.

      You can expect more food price hikes as the oil becomes more scarce and the weather less predictable. At least those hikes won't be "artificial". Cold comfort, maybe.

      1) AGW is a scientific prediction. Science doesn't prove things, ever. Look it up if you don't believe me.
      2) No, not just pricier energy, we'll also fund research into less damaging energy sources for example.

      I'd say the dinosaurs going extinct was pretty damned apocalyptic, and you're crazy for suggesting otherwise. Your nose test is shit. Think about it instead! You think we'd survive an extinction event on that scale? Can't you see that we'd at least get our hair mussed. Modern humans have only been around for a couple of hundred thousand years. I agree that general life will stick around come what may, but homo sapiens is going to have to earn its keep.

    13. Jez, I think you're a little OCD on this one. Look at the post again. It's not a thesis on creationism and evolution, just a thought or two.

      Take yourself a bit too seriously? I'd say no, you take yourself a Lot too seriously. ;-)
      Are you a compulsive last word kind of guy too? ;-)

      So, what causes you to go bipolar over the subjects of creationism and the global climate thing-a-ma-bob that seems to get redefined every other month as more and more conflicting climate events occur? Hmmmmmmmmm? haha.

      Oil, Scarce? It's only scarce because of agendas. "Money making agendas". There are trillions of barrels of oil under the United States. Enough to last until some asshole politician actually delivers on their promise to give us cars that run on self-replicatin and non-polluting Unicorn Shit.

      Ask a tough question, and I'll give you the answer up front. Answer: Money.

      Journalism vs Science - Where do the journalists get their information ? Who was it that ran out drooling and gave the Neutrino information to the journalists?
      AGW a scientific prediction? Will you take your passion for that to the politicians please? tia.

      I said the dinosaurs WAS apocalyptic. "Reading Comprehension". Google it.

      Oh yea, human life is quite vulnerable to an exhaustive list of enemies. You're sure about the 200,000 years huh ? :)

      My Nose? Often, Rational Welterschwang wins out. There is a lot of intelligence that comes out of the blue. Right? Newton didn't rely on scientific conclusions. He made them.

    14. Conversation isn't OCD. I'm not bipolar (is that the word you really mean?) about creationism & global warming, it's just that some of your mistakes are hard to resist correcting.

      Oil is scarce because we burn it far more rapidly than the earth lays it down. Inevitably we will exhaust our supply at some point.

      Money doesn't explain it, because there's more to be made by producing oil than opposing it. If money were the motivation, they'd be working for oil companies.

      you have a problem with the CERN press releases I linked? What did the OPERA scientists announce that was untoward?

      I'm glad to see you did recognise the dinosaur extinction event was apocalyptic. There have been at least 5 major extinction events in the Earth's history, don't be comforted by the misapprehension that the dinosaur apocalypse was a one-off.

      Newton made his conclusions, but then he tested them. That's the important step, which I urge you to try.

    15. Jez, IN your opinion... which you're free to have. God's greatest gift. Free Will.

      Oil - we have a thousand years of oil - plenty enough to allow the clean tech to come to proper fruition without over-burdening society and Starving People. Dig?

      Money does explain it. C/mon Jez, if we were doing things that made sense, we'd have Thorium Molten Salt reactors all over the world and we wouldn't be polluting the air with cancer causing Coal and Oil combustion to generate electricity.

      What don't you understand about the 'journalists' getting the speed of light Neutrino information from someone involved in the project?

      So, outside of the Dino's what were the other 4 ? And yes, of course I know that a planet killer event could happen tomorrow, bit I'm going with the percentages.

      Newton, Again Reading Comprehension Jez. Go back and see what my point was. :)

    16. Well, if I can impress only one point upon you, let it be this: not all opinions are equal. Free will does not make every idea equally valid: some are silly, and some are wise. Some are backed by evidence, others are convenient, some are appealing aesthetically, others appeal to our sense of reason, etc. Evidence-backed opinions are worth more than any others. In my opinion. And in the measurable outcomes of trials.

      I disagree that we have 1000 years of oil. Our biggest 20 or so oil reserves have about 1.3 trillion barrels left, and in 2010 we consumed 87 million barrels a day. If both those numbers stay the same (they won't) that works out at about 40 years. Of course we'll discover more oil, but we'll also consume it faster. Where does your thousand years number come from?

      Money is an excellent explanation for why the petrol industry remains so firmly entrenched in our economies. Neither environmentalists nor a truly free market would make it that way. We would all be better off with more diversity.

      Journalists got their neutrino information from the press releases. You have access to those releases: please point to what you think the OPERA scientists shouldn't have said.

      The one you know about happened 65.5 million years ago. To put that in context, the two earlier events happened just 53 million years from one another, so the next event could be "due".
      Also, note that the dinosaurs suffered with the K-T event, the preceding events worked to their advantage, clearing room for them to become dominant. So too the K-T event cleared room for mammals, first rodents but ultimately us, to become dominant.

      Interesting isn't it? I'd say it's more interesting than a dubious story about a talking snake in a garden. Plus, it's backed by evidence. Nobody has to threaten anyone with torture or excommunication for not believing it, its evidence speaks for itself, and if contradictory evidence arises, we'll change the story. Don't you think that's better?

      I confess I don't know what you mean by "Welterschwang". Your point is something to do with Newton's ideas coming out of the blue, or is it something else? Writing skills, Kid. Try writing it again, but better.
      Anyway, Newton really did test his ideas. That's true.

    17. I've given you all the points I wish to impress. Do with them what you will. We'll both have different impressions of reality in 10 years.

      The 1000 years of oil comes from oil execs intimately familiar with the geological discovery research. Shell comes to mind as one of those testifying in an interview. I don't have a link. In 1970, they said we'd be out by the year 2000. Demand AND supply increased beyond forecasts. I'll go with historical references over forecasts any day. Again, I'm not trying to get you or anyone to believe anything. My thoughts, my experience, my blog. Maybe you should start a blog if you don't have one, you seem to have a lot you want to say.

      Armageddon - Yep, could happen tomorrow. Comet, asteroid, super volcano (ala Yellowstone) or something unexpected. Again, I'm just going with the percentages.

      I like your rodent evolution idea as it pertains to lawyers anyway!

      There is much of the figurative in the Bible. Do I thihk going with physical evidence is better. IN some cases. At the 10,000 foot level I'm quite sure we now very little abuot our little universe. We've always been overly arrogant, and there is no reason to think that's changed much.

      Rational Welterschwang is the concept of a person internally, without external input, to now what is right in a given situation. Kind of like instinct, That's the gist of it.

      Goo luck.

    18. LOL, you cynically ascribe everyone's utterances to greed except the oil execs'.

      I agree that there remains far more that is unknown than known, but still IMO it's more arrogant to deny physical evidence than to follow it.

      Are you making the point that Newton's work contained a lot of intuition? That's true, but it's the rigorous testing that allowed him to recognise which of his intuitions were valuable, and which to discard.

    19. Oil Execs are greedy ? Dude that's pretty lame. These people are actually providing something regardless whether you feel it meets the criteria for a quality product from all angles or not. I don't personally from an environmental standpoint. I think petroleum products are a big contributor to cancers. But I don't want to pay $1,000 a gallon for Unicorn shit either. This is not an ideal situation we got here. Right?

      Since you brought up the greed of the oil execs, and hey let's shoot the moon here - All of the wealthy folks eh? I would like you to balance that with the knowledge that the majority of the 'Execs" at the US Dept of Energy have been stealing tax money and haven't provided Jack. It's no secret they spend their time having sex parties. Their mandate is to reduce our dependence on foreign energy (oil for all intents) and they've done the opposite. So put an oil exec in one hand who actually contributes to us all being able to travel at a reasonable cost versus a whole bunch of government assholes who steal my hard earned tax money and provide Negative ROI in the other hand. Guess which one I toss.

      Ditto the Dept of Education. Education gets worse every year that goes by. Ditto every other federal department and may state departments. The EPA stands in the way of progress. When do we focus on the Zero contribution of thee money sucking pigs that have Zero motivation for change because they don't have to turn a profit?? They just take what they need until the whole thing falls apart like a 2012 Greek Tragedy.

      Jez, 100 years or so ago, we had filthy wood fired steam trains, less than a 100, we had steel mills in Pittsburgh that were polluting so bad they had to keep the street lights on during the day. I lived in Pittsburgh in the 60's and 70's and while those things were operating you could actually see the crap falling down on you.

      We've made tremendous progress, led not by government, but by public/private enterprise that found a way to get it done for one reason. Profit. If you don't like it - take away the profit, put government in the way and watch how fast we devolve into a pile of shit.

      It's happening right now in America. obama gets another 4 and this place is done. Stamp a ticket.

      I agree completely with sentence 2 and 3. Answer=Yes. As to sentence 2, I do not feel I'm denying any physical evidence. I personally believe in an afterlife for a number of personal and experiential reasons that are private. Your mileage may vary and that's Ok with me. Just don't take your 'evidence' and find a way to negatively impact my life. I think you'd agree?

  5. Yeaaa, the kid got one right.
    Only wish the evolution crowd would get one right.
    The end times will be apparent when we start cloning and gene manipulation,
    and DNA Mirroring are common place - as in the Day's of Noah.
    The Giants had the knowledge from their fallen angel fathers - experimented
    and came up with half man and half horse, half man and half fish, half man and half bird,
    etc,etc. Cyclops - Myths are based on real occurrences.

    1. They Say, Well I stand by my claims that I was not there. :) Otherwise, in my opinion, and people are free to theirs, we are not some advanced form of bacteria.

      Won't they be surprised.

  6. Exponentially intricate and complex--
    Let's move on ---it was all by accident---

    no CREATOR involved-


    Thank you Kid- the video tells it all - and -- exhibits a truly beautiful CREATION!!!

    1. Carol-CS, It is fascinating. Especially the mechanical replication of the DNA.

  7. what is fascinating is that we have researches who can break this all down for the purpose of medical research and crime solving.

    Pond scum,who knows but I doubt it because even pond scum came from somewhere.

    1. Lisa, yes, we have scientists who can look at what has been created and go to great lengths to figure it out. But it's the creation part that is on another level of course.

      Pond scum did come from somewhere. I think of it this way. Some scientists are talking to God and they say, we can create life just like you did from dirt, and they pick up some dirt and create life. God say's Whoa, Get your own dirt !