At his blog Sandwalk, one of our favourite commenters, Larry Moran, who has wracked up a ton of loyalty points in terms of free ID literature, points out that various people have made a mistake in writing to Suzan Mazur, author of Paradigm Shifters, complaining about the Royal Society’s go-slow on the new reno (Darwin replacement).
It looks to me like the organizers of this meeting didn’t think very carefully about the can of worms they were opening. When you have speakers like Denis Noble and Jim Shapiro you are just inviting trouble. When you try to lecture Suzan Mazur about paradigm shifting you are bound to regret it.
I’m beginning to think this meeting isn’t going to happen. The Royal Society is going to end up looking very bad and there’s no easy way to fix the problem short of cancelling the meeting. More.
I (O’Leary for News ) am beginning to think that this meeting will happen with or without the Royal Society but that it will be better for the Royal Society to host it.
Institutions get old and die. Is the Royal Society one of them?
See also: Royal Society says quit talking paradigm change Because they are in the midst of one. Hey, I just write the news around here, but all I ever say in these cases is, if nothing happened, why are all the Emergency Services here? Keep talking. Just keep talking. Distract yourself.
Larry Moran gets Suzan Mazur wrong (” When journalists who publish in key venues become interested in an otherwise obscure train wreck, we can reasonably suspect that a shift is taking place. That’ why we call it “news” and not “olds.””)
and
What the fossils told us in their own words
Follow UD News at Twitter!
When you have speakers like Denis Noble and Jim Shapiro you are just inviting trouble.
Trouble? Will there be, what, riots in the street or something?
Oh yes, and – much worse – really, really bad hors d’oeuvres and dreadful music. Boring conversation partners. Overpriced accommodations. We will be overcharged for the riot as well. Those people can usually be hired cheaper during fine weather but the RS is likely a tourist trap so … .
So Larry Moran wants the meet canceled because it might make the Royal Society look bad?
Larry Moran, if he is so concerned with looking good rather than being right, should have thought of that little detail a few years ago with his response to ENCODE research. He certainly did not come out of that exchange looking very good. Indeed, he, and few other crogidy old Darwinists, came across to most onlookers looking like grumpy old die-hards who refused to admit they were wrong even when faced of tremendous empirical evidence to the contrary.
No, Larry Moran is not one to be lecturing anybody on the finer details of trying to look good in the public eye since he has made quite an unattractive spectacle of himself in the past.
Hey look bornagain77, Moran’ll have to put up with AWFUl food due to Brexit. Have some pity, will you? This is probably merely self-defence on his part. You and I could make do with the local chip cart, but …
News 🙂 ,,,
on a more serious note
Of semi related interest to ‘just inviting trouble’ Noble and Shapiro, is this recent article from Jonathan Wells in Salvo:
Larry Moran (me) does not want the meeting cancelled. I’ve already booked my flight to London and reserved a place to stay. I’m really looking forward to meeting some of those people. I love the controversy and the fights.
However, I do think the Royal Society is going to regret its decision to host the meeting. This is not a group that enjoys negative publicity and there’s going to be a lot of negative publicity.
I’m predicting that they may cancel the meeting because the IDiots and the kooks are gloating about destroying evolution.
It will be interesting to see how many ID people show up. I’m betting that Denyse O’Leary won’t be there. I’ll buy her a beer if she comes.
bornagain77 whines,
Indeed, he, and few other crogidy old Darwinists, came across to most onlookers looking like grumpy old die-hards who refused to admit they were wrong even when faced of tremendous empirical evidence to the contrary.
The ENCODE leaders retracted their claim in 2014. They say their views about the demise of junk DNA were misinterpreted by the media.
A huge majority of knowledgeable evolutionary biologists and molecular biologists now agree that most of our genome is junk.
bornagain77 and his diehard friends are the ones who refuse to admit they were wrong. Many ID proponents have conceded that there’s a lot of junk DNA in our genome.
Larry Moran at 6, Denyse O’Leary would be happy to be there but will do no travelling while certain persons in their nineties are still with us. Do however, save me a beer.
However, I am negotiating for a cheaper riot. We want something comparatively genteel. We need not employ persons known to the authorities.
Added; We absolutely would not want property damage or inconvenience to persons. But someone above had suggested there might be a riot and we felt it our duty to provide a genteel one.
Larry Moran @7,
If most of our genome is junk, then where is the information stored for the (adult) body plan? Where is the information stored for e.g. the brain? And where is the information stored for how to build all this?
Stephen Meyer:
Larry Moran, it seems that some researcher(s) at your own university disagree with you about junk DNA.
Moreover, the story behind the so-called retraction of ENCODE is interesting. The main response of Darwinian die-hards, to the ENCODE findings of widespread functionality in the genome, was to assume that Darwinian evolution was true.
In other words, the die hards smuggled in the assumption of evolution by arguing that the ‘conservation of sequences’ between organisms, which assumes evolution as true from the outset, is what determines true functionality in the genome, instead of the actual empirically demonstrated functionality of a sequences determining true functionality as ENCODE did in its research in looking for actual biochemical function.
To call this tactic of ‘assuming your conclusion’ unscientific and dishonest is to put it mildly!
Much more detail on the fallacious reasoning of Darwinists in response to ENCODE research is discussed in the following lecture video:
Moreover, the Darwinian assumption that conservation of sequence equals important functionality is now known, empirically, to be wrong
Of related note: ENCODE also discovered “highly non-random patterns of RNA production–patterns which indicate that these vast quantities of RNA transcripts aren’t junk”
Interesting to see two fellow Canadians on opposite ends of the ongoing argument.
At the end of the day it doesn’t matter what they will discuss at that meeting if it takes place.
Science research continues to provide more discoveries shedding light on the wonderful molecular and cellular choreographies seen in the biological systems, unveiling an amazing informational complexity that can be explained only one way.
Origenes asks,
If most of our genome is junk, then where is the information stored for the (adult) body plan? Where is the information stored for e.g. the brain? And where is the information stored for how to build all this?
Those are difficult, and loaded, questions. It would take a long time to explain why the questions have no meaning.
Let’s try another approach. Surely you can agree that professional biologists are interested in such questions, right? If those experts accept the evidence that 90% of our genome is junk, which most of them do, then this seems to be a paradox, right?
The apparent paradox can be resolved in two ways. Either these experts do not see a need to encode body plans and brain in our genome OR the evidence for junk DNA is wrong.
Which do you think is more likely?
Here’s a hint. The pufferfish genome is only about 12% of the size of our genome but pufferfish have bodies and brains. Clearly, they don’t need a lot of extra DNA to make their bodies.
Humans don’t need it either.
@bornagain77
I’m very familiar with the work of my colleagues at the University of Toronto.
If you want to know what they did and what they think of junk DNA then you should read their paper. Don’t rely on press releases for your scientific information.
University of Toronto press release distorts conclusions of RNA paper
Larry Moran:
I read your linked post. I think you overdid it. The writer of the press release simply added information to provide context for the actual results, and, I think she was rather clear in pointing out, more than once, that what the authors were doing was presenting a technique they used that provided them fairly reliable results, and, hence, could be used in elucidating function for non-characterized RNA—you know, the true “RNA-world.”
All of chemistry, including biochemistry, is, at bottom, quantum physics. Long stretches of bases, with only a small amount of them ‘linking’ to other RNA bases, doesn’t mean that the remaining bases, representing the majority of the sequence, doesn’t serve a vital function, as its “purpose” might simply be to provide the right amount of binding power, along with the ability to modulate this bond strength when needed. So, time will tell here. And solid state physics might pave the way for understanding what is taking place in the cell. In the meantime, let’s not take a very restrictive view of all of this.
As to the twenty thousand, now twenty-five thousand, genes in human DNA, I think it is supremely silly to call functional segments of RNA “RNA genes.” What confusion this will bring about. But, perhaps, this is exactly what evo’s are trying to do. You know, it’s all about genes. So, even though the whole understanding of the genome is changing, the language remains the same. How convenient! And deceptive.
Larry Moran,
Well, not if those professional biologists are capable of understanding that DNA is simply at the wrong level to explain body plans (see #9 — Stephen Meyer).
Well, assuming that these experts don’t offer any other storage medium, the first option is clearly absurd, so, unfortunately for you, that leaves us with option two.
Are you pulling my leg? There is not enough storage space to encode for a body plan in the pufferfish genome, so this information is somehow not necessary? Information is necessary to build proteins, but information is not necessary to build brains, because such things *somehow* self-organize without information and instructions? Is that how ‘experts’ reason?
Doesn’t logic inform them that information for body plans must be stored somewhere else?
Of related interest: It should be noted that these two following studies came out at just about the same time as the severely biased 8.2%, theoretical, ‘conservation of sequences’ study from die-hard Darwinists which had assumed that evolution true from the outset. i.e. “if it ain’t conserved it ain’t functional”
These empirical, rather than theoretical, studies had drastically different conclusions than the Darwinists did as to the functionality of supposed ‘junk’ DNA.
In this discussion of junk DNA, it is important to lay the proper groundwork for the debate and note that Darwinists have no right whatsoever to claim ANY functionality for the genome, much less do they have a right to claim whether it is 10% or 100%. That is to say, Darwinists have yet to empirically demonstrate the origin of even a single functional protein and/or gene by unguided material processes, and as such, scientifically speaking, they forfeit any right to make any claims as to any percent functionality in the genome.
And although there are a few different methods that empirically demonstrate that the genome is not nearly as worthless as die hard Darwinists have theoretically presupposed, (90% according to Moran), this following method of empirically demonstrating widespread functionality in the genome is my favorite since it uproots Darwinian evolution from its philosophical, i.e. from its reductive materialistic, roots.
Namely, the falsification of the materialistic foundation of Darwinian evolution has to do with the astonishing process of DNA repair.
Of note: DNA repair machines ‘Fixing every pothole in America before the next rush hour’ is analogous to the traveling salesman problem. The traveling salesman problem is a NP-hard (read: very hard) problem in computer science; The problem involves finding the shortest possible route between cities, visiting each city only once.
‘Traveling salesman problems’ are notorious for keeping supercomputers busy for days.
Yet it is exactly this type of ‘traveling salesman problem’ that quantum computers excel at:
It is also interesting to note that man has yet to build a quantum computer of any significant size
Moreover, since it is obvious that there is not a material CPU (central processing unit) in the DNA, or cell, busily computing answers to this monster ‘every pothole in America’ logistic problem, in a purely ‘classical’ fashion, by crunching bits, then it is readily apparent that this monster ‘every pothole in America’ traveling salesman problem, for DNA repair, is somehow being accomplished by ‘non-local’ quantum computation.
That DNA is capable of carrying out such a high level of quantum computation is revealed in the following lecture:
Moreover, it is important to note that quantum information is its own distinct physical entity that is separate from matter and energy.
In fact, in quantum mechanics it is quantum information that is primarily conserved, not matter and energy:
Moreover, quantum information requires a non-local, beyond space and time, cause in order to explain its existence:
Thus, since the materialistic foundation of Darwinian evolution holds that information, like consciousness, is simply ’emergent’ from a material basis, and yet quantum mechanics shows that information is its own distinct entity that is separate from matter and energy, and also shows that this information needs a ‘non-local’ cause to explain its existence in biology, then Darwinian evolution is directly falsified in its primary claim that the information life is emergent from a material basis.
Besides providing direct empirical falsification of neo-Darwinian claims that say information is emergent from a material basis, the implication of finding ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, and ‘conserved’ quantum information in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every DNA and protein molecule, is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious.
That pleasant implication, or course, being the fact that we now have strong physical evidence suggesting that we do indeed have an eternal soul that lives beyond the death of our material bodies.
supplemental note:
Verses and Music:
Larry:
It would look very bad for the Royal Society to cancel one of their own events. Think how it would play out: “World’s Oldest Scientific Society Cancels Evolution Conference Featuring Darwin Critics” That would be like a neon sign, shouting: “Royal Society Fears that Darwinian Evolutionary Mechanism Can’t Withstand Scientific Criticism.” It would be a very, very dumb move. Far better to run the conference and attempt to “spin” the results than to back out for fear that the results won’t be good.
All of chemistry, including biochemistry, is, at bottom, quantum physics. Long stretches of bases, with only a small amount of them ‘linking’ to other RNA bases, doesn’t mean that the remaining bases, representing the majority of the sequence, doesn’t serve a vital function, as its “purpose” might simply be to provide the right amount of binding power, along with the ability to modulate this bond strength when needed.
This attempt to explain RNA biochemistry is painful. It ignores all we know about RNA structure and function, and about the numbers and composition of what are being called here “RNA genes”.
Seriously, PaV, whatever you are trying to say, it seems to have no connection with anything we know about what RNA and how it works in the cell. Whatever your point, it is irrelevant to the matters of biology, development, and evolution.
Well, not if those professional biologists are capable of understanding that DNA is simply at the wrong level to explain body plans (see #9 — Stephen Meyer).
None of the things Meyer mention can be separated from DNA. Which makes the odd claims of am Meyer, Wells, et al. quite incorrect. Try as they might, development and all it entails cannot be disconnected from DNA, and thus from the inexorable pull of naturally-occurring heritable genetic variation.
How wrong are the anti-evolutionists? It compels them (Meyer, specifically*) to claim that there cannot be viable mutations in genes encoding cytoskeleton proteins. This claim is ludicrous and wrong, and the reality of the matter dooms one of the IDists favorite delusions.
(*Actually happened when Steve Matheson and I debated Meyer back in 2010.)
Wow ‘Denyse for News'(Heh:), says Larry says something, Larry arrives and says he didn’t; who to believe? I’ll stick with the honesty of Larry, as he has ‘booked my tickets’, and Denyse has not! Surely that speaks volumes? And when the meet(ing) has ended will Denyse confidently explain to us exactly what happened, and what Larry said? Perhaps we should wait for the ‘big media’ reporting on what Larry said, before we jump to conclusions about what Larry said. That is unless you put your faith in Suzan, or ‘Denyse for News'(Heh:), to give you an ‘unbiased’ account.
I believe, ‘paradigm shift’ refers to the way evolutionary biologists study the mechaniams by which evolution took place, and is taking place, it in no way implies they are trying to replace evolution with wand waving.
as to:
“Whatever your point, it is irrelevant to the matters of biology, development, and evolution.”
Actually, biologist have missed the boat big time in regards to quantum mechanics:
Moreover, body plans simply are not reducible to DNA sequences as Darwinists dogmatically claim:
Of related note, in a short introduction, Dr. Noble quickly lists several methods of inheritance that are independent of DNA
“DNA is not the be all and end all when it comes to inheritance.”
Yes it is!
What else is there? What other mechanism expresses proteins that code for various structures and functions? If you, or Noble could find one, you and Noble would be Nobalized.
Quantum mathematics was literally a God send for you, wasn’t it? Something so utterly impenetrable to only a few gifted mathmaticians on earth, that you could use its vagueness, and seemingly counter intuitive conclusions to argue for God. Here is your argument boiled down; “This is really really complicated, only a few people (and Me) understand it, therefore God.” Not even close to being convincing, which is why you publish here and no where else. Quantim mathematics is proof that we don’t understand nature, but are trying to understand, because we are human with an evolved curiosity. Infinately more elegant than you garbled yammerings.
@25
I. Is the genome
(1) a mechanism or
(2) a database used by the biological systems or
(4) an informational repository used by the biological organisms or
(5) a data repository used by the biological organisms or
(6) a combination of the above or
(7) none of the above (i.e. something else) or
simply don’t know?
Arthur Hunt @20 @21
Just curious – your name links to a blog that apparently hasn’t been updated since April 2013?
Is that observation accurate? Maybe not.
If it is, then can you explain why?
Again, just curious. In the last 3 years the amount of interesting scientific discoveries related to biology and specifically to RNA has been quite substantial, hasn’t it?
@11
That means it doesn’t matter what anyone says.
What matters is the evidential information coming out of the serious wet and dry labs everywhere.
So far, so good. 🙂
Arthur Hunt @20 @21
Can you help with this?
Thank you.
Anyone is welcome to help with the issue posted @29.
Sometime ago, in another thread, I asked professor Moran if he knew exactly how morphogen gradients form. Then he replied simply ‘yes’.
Later -after answering few more questions I asked- he declined to continue our discussion because I did not ask honest questions.
Here’s a reference to a recent paper (April 2016) on the same subject:
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-612277
As anyone can see, the authors claim they don’t know exactly how morphogen gradients form.
Professor Moran knew exactly contrary to the conclusions of the referenced paper.
I asked Professor Moran to explain why he wrote that my questions were dishonest, but I don’t recall seeing his answer to that question.
Maybe now he can explain it, before he goes meet with professors Dennis Noble and James Shapiro at the Royal Society in London?
If my questions aren’t clear enough, maybe Denyse O’Leary can translate them to Canadian English? 🙂
Thank you.
Dionisio at 31, Denyse O’Leary (News at UD) will try to help if possible: In Canadian English, “Your question isn’t honest” usually means “Even discussing this is a losing position for me, so I won’t.” One can draw whatever conclusions one wishes from that.
Timaeus at 19 got something right for sure: If the Royal Society did cancel the meet, it would be admitting that Darwin’s tenured asshats can shut down anything they want, to prevent an analysis of their claims. Then the Society itself becomes a sort of fossil. Some living institution will have to do the analysis someday.
Also, the social committee is pleased to report that we have secured an excellent deal from Rent-a-Riot. Retired librarians, museum docents, and classics teachers will lead the assembled in a mild deprecation of how long it took to get even this far, then lead us out to high tea and a tour of the Tower of London, with free Union Jack lapel pins thrown in. No soccer yobs or ASBOs under any circumstances. (The event is being organized by Canadians, after all.)
Noble comments on inheritance apart from DNA here:
🙂
bornagain77 @33
Thank you for posting the transcript of professor D. Noble’s explanation from the given video.
Really appreciate it.
@32
🙂
News @32
Thank you so much for your comments – which are always welcome, because your writing style is very refreshing while pointing straight at the current topics.
Please, keep writing to our delight here.
All,
I have asked the exact same question in another thread. Interestingly, also here the size of the pufferfish’ genome (see #12, Larry Moran) was offered as an argument that there is no need for body plan information.
The Neo-Darwinian reasoning goes like this:
1. All the information necessary is in the genome.
2. There cannot be body plan information in our genome because most of it is Junk-DNA. Moreover it’s even less likely that body plan information is in the tiny pufferfish genome.
Therefore
3. Body plan information is not necessary.
Here Moran’s Neutral Theory is unraveling. It finds itself between a rock and a hard place. The theory needs massive amounts of Junk-DNA as a mechanism to produce evolutionary novelties, but by so positing Neutral Theory disqualifies DNA as storage for body plan information.
The “solution” is the absurd denial that body plan information is necessary.
As to the ‘experts argument’ — see #12, Larry Moran —, again Eric Anderson:
As to body plan information and as to questions that Darwinists absolutely refuse to honestly address, the human body is composed of, among other things, roughly up to a million unique polypeptides generated by the roughly 20,000 genes that compose the roughly billion-trillion protein molecules total, that typify the total protein composition of a single human body.
Moreover, the up to, roughly, one million unique polypeptides in humans, since they are generated by alternative splicing events, and since they ‘exhibit strikingly different interaction profiles’, and since the alternative splicing patterns are very different between even chimps and humans,,,
,,, since the alternative splicing patterns, and therefore the protein interaction profiles, are very different between even chimps and humans, then this presents an insurmountable difficulty for Darwinian explanations as to how the human body plan might have come about.
As Behe’s work in the rarity of unguided Darwinian processes to generate new protein-protein binding sites has shown, proteins simply can’t randomly find “strikingly different interaction profiles” for perhaps “over a million distinct polypeptides”:
And to remind readers, Behe’s ‘Edge’ is not just some theoretical musing as Darwinian explanations invariably are, but his ‘Edge’ has now been confirmed in the laboratory:
Moreover, in regards to body plan information, Stephen Talbott asks a very honest, even a very profound, question in the following article that goes to the very heart of the question of, “exactly where is the body plan information stored that is coordinating all those trillions upon trillions of protein molecules?”.
The answer to that profound, honest, question of ‘what holds that power off for precisely a lifetime?’ is certainly not an answer that Darwinists, who are hell bent on atheism being true, are going to like:
Verse, Quote, and Music
Larry Moran: Thank you for adding fuel to the already raging fire that is consuming your beloved atheistic religion called Darwinism. It brings great joy to my heart to know that you and the rest of that despicable lot will be caged up in a room tearing into each other like raging primates…which is what you all are. Hopelessly deluded and willfully blind morons!
No need to be niminy-piminy about it, TWSYF.Tell Larry what you really think.
Just read a hilarious article in the American veterans’ blog, VeteransToday.com, by an English barrister called Shrimpton. He writes ‘with respect’ or ‘no offence intended’, after writing anything deeply disrespectful or deeply offensive !
The dogma that Evolution is unguided and has only an “appearance of design” is crumbling, Defense of that dogma has become laughable haha. “Mount Improbable” is eroding quickly.
Athur Hunt:
Arthur, what you write here makes it abundantly clear that you have completely misunderstood the import of what I stated. Shouldn’t the starting point, then, be one of asking me what I meant by the statement you’re reacting to before you react?
There were three parts to my reply. The first part had to do with Larry Moran’s negative take regarding the author of the press release. The second part had to do with the results that were actually being presented in the press release. And the third part addressed the issue of so-called “RNA genes.”
The first is not at issue. The third has to do simply with the use of the term “gene” for transcripted, but untranslated RNA. It is a confusing term, and should not be used. Find a new term, or else be guilty of charges of obfuscation.
Now, finally, the second part. I was addressing the argument that Larry, and likely you, too, Arthur, are going to make. That is, that the method the authors employ isolates stretches of RNA that only slightly bind to one another. IOW, unless I’m completely mistaken here, were dealing with a large number of RNA bases, a few of which, interact. Then your argument will be, I’m rather sure, something along this line: “Well, you have all these RNA bases, and only a few interact, what is this other than a trivial kind of reaction taking place. This represents no true function. This is just “junk DNA” like we’ve said all along.”
It is against this argument—that you have not made, but, which eventually will be made—that I’m stating what I do.
And, you’ll notice (though you did not quote it), that I said solid state physics will help us understand the kind of function these types of sequences may represent.
I still stand by this statement. And, and again not quoted, I said that time will tell. I’ll likely be dead by then; yet, I stick to my prediction. Then you can assess whether or not my comments were “irrelevant.”
@Denyse O’Leary
Are you going to apologize for lying about my wishes in the title of this post?
I DO NOT WANT the meeting to be cancelled. I never said I wanted the meeting to be cancelled.
I’m trying to square your position of wanting the meeting to go forward with your position of thinking that the meeting will necessarily have a bad end. I’m not News, but I’m trying to figure out what an appropriate headline would be. Perhaps, “Moran thinks that cancelling the Royal Society meeting is its best option, but urges them to have it anyway”?
johnnyb
but I’m trying to figure out what an appropriate headline would be. Perhaps, “Moran thinks that cancelling the Royal Society meeting is its best option, but urges them to have it anyway”?”
A bit wordy but it does have the advantage of being true.
johnnyb @45
This OP quoted professor LM:
“I’m beginning to think this meeting isn’t going to happen. The Royal Society is going to end up looking very bad and there’s no easy way to fix the problem short of cancelling the meeting.”
But your suggested variant for the title is:
“Moran thinks that cancelling the Royal Society meeting is its best option, but urges them to have it anyway”
Does he really urge it?
As far as Junk DNA is concerned, I am quite willing to admit that “Evolution” is a good theory about how to make junk DNA.
I, m personally looking for a theory of how to make specified complex stuff.
Larry Moran at 44: “The Royal Society is going to end up looking very bad and there’s no easy way to fix the problem short of cancelling the meeting.”
Aw, grow up. If a doctor said there was no way to fix something except doing y, what would we assume she meant?
Or did you want it both ways?
If I get there, save me a cider.
news,
Aw, grow up. If a doctor said there was no way to fix something except doing y, what would we assume she meant?
Or did you want it both ways?
Gee news ,he told you what he meant, you assumed wrong,it happens, fix it. Why insult someone because you misunderstood or are you making another claim now?
velikovskys at 50, if there is no way to fix the Royal Society meeting except by cancelling it, we must assume that Moran wants it cancelled. Or else that it should go ahead as a flop. (?!)
This reminds me of a movie star spat:
Star A: You must have been drunk when you said that.
Star B: How dare you suggest I was drunk!
Star A: Madam! I would not dare presume that you would make such a fool of yourself if you were sober!
Now please, let’s all get back to work. I plan to.
news:
velikovskys at 50, if there is no way to fix the Royal Society meeting except by cancelling it, we must assume that Moran wants it cancelled. Or else that it should go ahead as a flop. (?!)
No we have no need to assume anything, he told you he doesn’t want to cancel it. Perhaps he assumes it will flop but is wise enough to realize his assumption is could possibly be wrong. If his assumption proves to be wrong he should admit it. Don’t you agree?
Sorry for the distraction
velikovskys @46
true? Are you serious?
Are you sure johnnyb’s suggested variant for the OP title is accurate? Is it a true reflection of professor LM’s comments?
You may want to try again and read it carefully.
Take your time, there’s no rush. 🙂
Why don’t we all see if it happens or not, and then book tickets? I want the scones and the Union Jack lapel flag.
Denyse O’Leary says,
Larry Moran at 44: “The Royal Society is going to end up looking very bad and there’s no easy way to fix the problem short of cancelling the meeting.”
Aw, grow up. If a doctor said there was no way to fix something except doing y, what would we assume she meant?
I would assume she wants to do “y.”
If I said, the doctor thinks that there’s no way to fix something except by doing “y” would you then say “Larry Moran wants to do ‘y’?”
Grow up Denyse … and use your real name instead of hiding behind “News.”
I’ve told you that I don’t want the meeting to be cancelled because I’d love to get into a fight with some of those kooks. I’ve told you that the Royal Society may not feel the same way about the meeting.
Apologize for lying about me in the title.
Larry, old chuff, I call myself News around here because we have a special tilt that puts “News” posts in a special section. Somebody’s idea a long time ago. Don’t really care. It’s almost always me.
You said: If I said, the doctor thinks that there’s no way to fix something except by doing “y” would you then say “Larry Moran wants to do ‘y’?” Yes, if you were a POA and cared about the person, I’d kind of assume that. Yes, I would.
In your heart of hearts, would you be sorry if the meet were cancelled? Wouldn’t it be kind of a thrill for you to wield such power? You used to have that power.
Dionisio:
Are you sure johnnyb’s suggested variant for the OP title is accurate? Is it a true reflection of professor LM’s comments?
lets see” (Moran thinks that cancelling the Royal Society meeting is its best option, but urges them to have it anyway”?”)
Larry Moran (me) does not want the meeting cancelled. I’ve already booked my flight to London and reserved a place to stay. I’m really looking forward to meeting some of those people. I love the controversy and the fights.
So yes, it sounds like if his opinion mattered he could be said to be urging the sponsor not to cancel since he would miss an opportunity to mix it up,biologywise.
LM:However, I do think the Royal Society is going to regret its decision to host the meeting. This is not a group that enjoys negative publicity and there’s going to be a lot of negative publicity.
Since the headline does not specify who the cancellation was “the best option” for, it seems to fall broadly within the truth
You may want to try again and read it carefully.
Take your time, there’s no rush
Thanks for your patience , I hate when there is a time limit for my response.
Velikovskys,
So you hold that News should have based the OP title on what Larry Moran said in this thread, rather than what he said at his blog? IOWs you expect News to have the psychic ability to see events in the future?
Origenes:
So you hold that News should have based the OP title on what Larry Moran said in this thread, rather than what he said at his blog? IOWs you expect News to have the psychic ability to see events in the future?
She does seem to indicate she has the psychic ability to know what is in his heart of hearts but no I don’t have that ability myself.
Velikovskys
“Gee news ,he told you what he meant, you assumed wrong,it happens, fix it. Why insult someone because you misunderstood or are you making another claim now?”
No need for time travel.
Far more than just mutations and natural selection is required to make new body forms.
As Stephen Meyer pointed out:
http://reasonandscience.heaven.....-textbooks
What is not fact:
5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.
6. Blind watchmaker thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural
selection acting on random variations or mutations; the idea that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random variation, and other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, completely suffice to explain the origin of novel biological forms and the appearance of design in complex organisms.
Following is required:
Various codes in the cell
http://reasonandscience.heaven.....n-the-cell
– coding genetic information
– a part of introns (non-coding )
– Splicing Codes
– Metabolic Code
– Signal Transduction Codes
– Signal Integration Codes
– Histone Code
– Tubulin Code
– Sugar Code
– Glycomic Code
Where Do Complex Organisms Come From?
http://reasonandscience.heaven.....-come-from
(a) membrane targets and patterns
(b) cytoskeletal arrays
(c) centrosomes
(d) ion channels, and
(e) sugar molecules on the exterior of cells (the sugar code)
(f) Gene regulatory networks
Origenes @58
Exactly, the OP was titled based on the information available up to the moment News wrote it.
The attempt to do some damage control by Prof. LM does not necessarily imply that News must change the OP.
That’s what the thread is for.
But still where is the text written by Prof.LM where he urges The Royal Society to host the meeting, as johnnyb wrote in his suggested variant for the OP title?
That’s why @53 indicated that velikovskys @46 seems incorrect or inaccurate.
velikovskys does not seem ready to admit it though.
Oh well, what else is new?
Origenes and johnnyb
I think one interlocutor here doesn’t know the definition of the word “urge” that was used by johnnyb in his suggested title for the OP.
Here’s the definition in Merriam Webster dictionary.
Simple Definition of urge
1
: to ask people to do or support (something) in a way that shows that you believe it is very important
2
: to try to persuade (someone) in a serious way to do something
3
: to use force or pressure to move (someone or something) in a particular direction or at a particular speed
Origenes and johnnyb
Some folks here seem to have difficulties to admitting their mistakes.
This is amazing! When do you suppose ID will have their first ‘Royal Society’ like meet(ing)? Larry is understandibly angry at the unprofessional journalism on display, and rather than say the reporting was indeed distorted ‘Denyse for News'(Heh:) tries to bluster it out.
One day I will read here a piece of genuine, original science, but I’m not holding my breath. I fear it will be the continued endless BA tracts, and ‘NEWS-Mazur’ conspiracy accusations.
rvb8:
“Larry is understandibly angry at the unprofessional journalism on display, and rather than say the reporting was indeed distorted ‘Denyse for News'(Heh:) tries to bluster it out.”
___________________________________
From my experience of having many letters published in a leading Catholic national newspaper, the editor has used short eye catching headings. Many times I have thought, but that is not what I would have said, but reading further, the actual point is made clear.
News has quoted in full what professor L Moran has actually said verbatim. Journalistic licence used for eye catching headlines no doubt in order to provoke debate. Mission accomplished. No apologies needed.
mw @64
Point clearly stated.
However, don’t hold your breath expecting that your interlocutor will understand what you just explained so well, if they simply don’t want to understand it. Also keep in mind that some folks may haven’t gotten the memo yet. 🙂
BTW, starting @1673 in the thread pointed by the below link* you may see a few recent paper references that clearly show specific issues being currently investigated. Well, sometime ago professor L.M. strongly affirmed here in this site that he knows exactly how that works. Can anyone explain that situation? Someone affirms to know exactly how something –that is currently under serious investigation– works. Is that the kind of biology they teach at the universities? Has anybody apologized for such a misleading affirmation? No! What professor L.M. did was to write that my questions are not honest. Go figure what he really meant! Well, here in this thread News has kindly offered a possible translation of (part of) what professor L.M. wrote back then.
(*) Here’s the link to the mentioned paper references:
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-612277
Please, note that posts @45-47; 53; 61; 62; are related to the post @45 using the word ‘urges’ and someone affirming that the text that contains such word @45 is true.
Just read carefully and critically the indicated posts (in their chronological sequence) and see how johnnyb’s interlocutor is unwilling to admit something that is so obvious. Really pathetically sad.
#65 addendum
The given link points to posts @1673-1679.
mw @64
Please, also note that your interlocutor apparently hasn’t answered the question @26 (related to his post @25).
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-612271
He doesn’t have to answer it. However, ignoring it may speak volumes about his real motives in this discussion?
Also Arthur Hunt hasn’t answered the questions posted @27 and @29, but maybe hasn’t had time?
Dionisio
Exactly, the OP was titled based on the information available up to the moment News wrote it.
The attempt to do some damage control by Prof. LM does not necessarily imply that News must change the OP.
It was ,per News , based on an assumption, ( “if there is no way to fix the Royal Society meeting except by cancelling it, we must assume that Moran wants it cancelled.) The assumption was incorrect,therefore the headline was untrue. What News chooses to do is up to her.
Just read carefully and critically the indicated posts (in their chronological sequence) and see how johnnyb’s interlocutor is unwilling to admit something that is so obvious. Really pathetically sad.
You assume your conclusion , you have yet to present an argument . Please do. I answered your question
velikovskys
The assumption was incorrect according to you, but not to News. It’s your opinion vs. hers.
Try another argument. That one failed miserably.
Next please?
🙂
velikovskys
You stated that johnnyb’s suggested title was true but it contained the word “urges”.
Where in the discussed professor L.M.’s comments did he “urge” the Royal Society to host the controversial meeting?
velikovskys
Please, note that posts @45-47; 53; 61; 62; are related to the post @45 using the word ‘urges’ and you affirming that the text that contains such word @45 is true.
See question posted @72.
Just read carefully and critically the indicated posts (in their chronological sequence) and see how you seem unwilling to admit something that is so obvious. Really pathetically sad.
velikovskys
Do you know why professor L.M. refers to fellow professors as ‘kooks’?
Is it because he doesn’t like or agree with their opinions?
Can’t a university professor do better than that?
velikovskys
The list of post numbers keep growing:
@45-47; 53; 61; 62; 70-74;
are you still missing the point?
Note that I’m also trying to help the anonymous visitors, onlookers, lurkers, to follow the discussion line easily.
🙂
Dionisio:
The assumption was incorrect according to you, but not to News. It’s your opinion vs. hers.
Try another argument. That one failed miserably.
It is Professor Moran knowledge of himself vs News assumption of what he believes.
You try another argument.
Yes, Dionisio, my interlocutor rvb8, has more than once offered no reply.
However, his/her persisting Christ bashing; continued degrading of UD and constant smashing of the scientific integrity of BA, and others who, like yourself, painstakingly contribute scientific information against classical Darwinism, makes a reply unlikely, or perhaps one of more abuse.
In my opinion, there appears little true scientific honesty in Darwinism, in order to toe the party line. All must dance blindfolded around Darwin’s degrading ditch bound philosophy, while singing evolutionary hallelujahs to Darwin.
Blindfolded, because Darwinists do not see a type of faith underpins their consensus science. Added to that, in this case, the apparently narrow minded blind angry biased comments by rvb8. However, no offence intended.
Still, varifyable experimental proof is still outstanding that theoretically, life comes from non life, and theoretically, a non human will produce a human.
Until that impossible time, less arrogance and more humility rvb8, may apply to us all.
In the mean time, the argument that Darwinism is sound, is beginning to sound more like a bell that has lost its clapper.
velikovskys
Did you miss reading the question @72?
PaV @ 43:
Now, finally, the second part. I was addressing the argument that Larry, and likely you, too, Arthur, are going to make. That is, that the method the authors employ isolates stretches of RNA that only slightly bind to one another. IOW, unless I’m completely mistaken here, were dealing with a large number of RNA bases, a few of which, interact. Then your argument will be, I’m rather sure, something along this line: “Well, you have all these RNA bases, and only a few interact, what is this other than a trivial kind of reaction taking place. This represents no true function. This is just “junk DNA” like we’ve said all along.”
You are completely mistaken here. No one (except you) anywhere has ever suggested that bases that do not crosslink using approaches such as are being discussed are “junk”. That is completely, entirely your own delusion.
The study under discussion used in vivo cross linking to “connect” non-coding RNAs with putative target RNAs, something that would lend credence to the idea that the non-coding RNA had some sort of function (probably regulatory). Noncoding RNAs so identified would, in their entirety, be considered functional.
The problem for ID proponents is, as Larry has stated over (and over, and over, and over, and over ….) and over again, that even if each and every identified noncoding RNA is functional, it doesn’t make even the tiniest dent in the quantity of known so-called junk DNA.
Dionisio@27: I decided to take a break a few years ago, partly because I was ever more tempted to talk about unpublished results from my lab. I suppose that, if the ID vanguard ever came up with something new, I could be talked into occasionally posting.
Dionisio@29: What you are asking for is a course on molecular, biochemical, and genetic mechanisms of development and evolution. My going rate is $75 per hour, and I rather suspect that the course would tie me up for at least 20 hrs per week for most of an academic year. If you are interested, let me know.
Arthur Hunt @80
You answered my question @27. Thank you.
Regarding what I wrote @29, did you read it carefully?
Didn’t you notice this statement?
“Just point to the literature that explains this in details.”
That means you don’t have to squander your priceless time on explaining anything to me. Just point to the specific literature where a hypothetical solution to the problem has been formulated in details, in a comprehensive and logically coherent way. That’s all.
Did you get it now? Let’s hope so.
Try again. Thank you.
Arthur Hunt @80
(follow-up addendum to post @81)
Here’s a hint: The answer to my question @29 is very simple, hence no need for anyone to pay any hourly rate to learn about anything, as you incorrectly suggest.
The fact that you did not realize how easy it is to answer the question @29 might imply something about either your real motives for commenting here or your knowledge level in the referred subject (or both).
Here’s an easy question that requires a simple yes/no answer:
Do you know exactly the answer to the question @29?
Just answer yes or no.
Keep in mind that professor L.M. failed to answer a similar question and then quit our discussion.
And just for your information: the information required to learn biology is available out there online for free. No need to pay any fee to anyone.
Just took a free 2014 video 15 lessons course on Systems Biology by Professor Uri Alon from the Weizmann Institute for Science in Rehovot, Israel, and another 2014 free video 24 lessons course on Systems Biology by MIT professor Jeff Gore. Before took other courses also free online.
For more basic biology courses there are many free online resources available.
BTW, regarding your impressive credentials I can tell you that my IQ score is about the same as my age but it changes in the opposite direction. My communication skills are almost nonexistent, my reading comprehension is very poor (to say it nicely) and my mind operates very slow – when I hear a joke at a weekend social gathering, I usually get it by Tuesday, only after my wife explains it to me. Now you know the rest of the story, as Paul Harvey used to say on the radio when I was commuting to work.
Are you more clear now?
🙂
Dionisio:
You stated that johnnyb’s suggested title was true but it contained the word “urges”.
Where in the discussed professor L.M.’s comments did he “urge” the Royal Society to host the controversial meeting
These comments are from the professor himself:
“Larry Moran (me) does not want the meeting cancelled. I’ve already booked my flight to London and reserved a place to stay I’m really looking forward to meeting some of those people. I love the controversy and the fights.”
Urge: to try to persuade (someone) in a serious way to do something
As I said, the headline was a bit wordy, but it falls within the scope of truth for New’s headlines.
You still have not actually made an argument
Dionisio:
Do you know why professor L.M. refers to fellow professors as ‘kooks’?
He thinks they are kooks
Is it because he doesn’t like or agree with their opinions?
Ask him.
Can’t a university professor do better than that?
You want it in Latin?
Dionisio:
are you still missing the point?
Note that I’m also trying to help the anonymous visitors, onlookers, lurkers, to follow the discussion line easily.
Which point is that?
velikovskys @83
No, that’s not what you wrote before, but it still doesn’t seem correctly accurate anyway.
Let’s review this whole thing again:
johnnyb @45 asked if News’ OP headline should have been written differently:
Then you wrote:
velikovskys @46
True?
Where/when did professor L.M. urge the Royal Society to have that controversial meeting anyway?
Can you show it?
After reading your comments I get the perception that you either don’t read carefully or you lack accuracy in your statements. Maybe both?
Do you care about the contextual meaning of words?
Actually, do you know what that is?
@53 I asked you:
But apparently you didn’t heed the advice. 🙂
Since this is such a simple issue, after seeing your difficulties maintaining a serious conversation, one can get the impression that your real motives for commenting here are not constructive. The name of a popular character from the Norwegian fjords seems to come to mind.
velikovskys @84
Do you accept that a university professor refers to other fellow professors as kooks?
Does the word ‘respect’ mean anything to you?
Does the expression “human dignity” mean something to you?
velikovskys @85
Read the last paragraph @86
Dionisio:
velikovskys @46
“A bit wordy but it does have the advantage of being true.”
True?
Where/when did professor L.M. urge the Royal Society to have that controversial meeting anyway?
Can you show it?
Perhaps the Royal Society monitors Uncommon Descent for the latest from News.
Or as I said
So yes, it sounds like if his opinion mattered he could be said to be urging the sponsor not to cancel since he would miss an opportunity to mix it up,biologywise.”
We don’t want to set too high a bar for truth in headlines, do we? A little mystery and exclamation points get views. That is the nature of art ,taking liberties with the truth to reveal a deeper truth.
But if this is a problem I will amend my statement to
“It is a bit wordy but at least it has the advantage of being partially true. Larry Moran does not want to cancel the meeting, we can only speculate whether Larry Moran wishes should be considered urges or just hopes.
Better? Anything else?
Dionsio:
Since this is such a simple issue, after seeing your difficulties maintaining a serious conversation, one can get the impression that your real motives for commenting here are not constructive.
No difficulty at all, but thanks for the insight. It is just a conversation ,right?
The name of a popular character from the Norwegian fjords seems to come to mind.
High praise,indeed
Dionisio:
Do you accept that a university professor refers to other fellow professors as kooks?
On this blog that seems tame, I guess it depends on why he called them or their ideas kooky.
Does the word ‘respect’ mean anything to you?
A little pushy, aren’t you? One shouldn’t be unnecessarily rude why should a professor be held to some different standard than everyone else in an informal situation?
Does the expression “human dignity” mean something to you?
Sure, are you claiming being called kook on a blog infringes on your ” human dignity”? If so how?
velikovskys @90
It looks as though you’re having difficulties in understanding my questions @87?
Still have not answered them correctly.
Please, keep trying. Read the text @87 carefully.
Take your time. No rush.
Maybe we should ask other commenters here to give you a hand with this?
Bottom line:
johnnyb proposed a title saying the professor L.M. urges the Royal Society to have the controversial meeting.
You stated that johnnyb’s suggested title was true.
I asked you if it was really true.
Also asked you to show where professor L.M. urges the Royal Society to have that controversial meeting.
Still waiting for a comprehensive coherent answer from you.
velikovskys @91
What are your real motives to comment here in this thread and generally in this blog?
velikovskys @92
Does seeing some people treat others disrespectfully implies that we may do the same?