ATTN JVL, this is the new post dialogue box

Q quotes:'

You both get muddy and the pig likes it.

Right up until the time the pig gets gutted. ET

F/N: History of the yard https://www.sizes.com/units/yard.htm Compare, the toise, roughly, French version fathom, 6 french feet long: https://www.sizes.com/units/toise_local.htm --> See why the metre? kairosfocus

FH, yes, there are several dynamics at work. So, I will pause even as I mourn the sudden loss of a young lady I watched grow up, taken by Covid last night in the latest wave here. Okay . . . First, we can see a contrast of encyclopedias, which speaks loudly already, but opens the gateway to deeper analysis (bearing in mind the postulational summary of ID as theory I added to L & FP 55 just a day or two ago):

[NWE:] Intelligent design (ID) is the view that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" [1] Intelligent design cannot be inferred from complexity alone, since complex patterns often happen by chance. ID focuses on just those sorts of complex patterns that in human experience are produced by a mind that conceives and executes a plan. According to adherents, intelligent design can be detected in the natural laws and structure of the cosmos; it also can be detected in at least some features of living things . . . . ID also is not considered by its theorists to be an "argument from ignorance"; that is, intelligent design is not to be inferred simply on the basis that the cause of something is unknown (any more than a person accused of willful intent can be convicted without evidence). According to various adherents, ID does not claim that design must be optimal; something may be intelligently designed even if it is flawed (as are many objects made by humans). [Wiki:] Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".[1][2][3][4][5] Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[6] ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore not science.[7][8][9] The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a Christian, politically conservative think tank based in the United States.

In fact, this site has a certain degree of significance regarding what ID is, and Wikipedia's malicious twisting and gaslighting towards slander and ideological agendas, turning on untruth, are plain. Save to those locked into what I have termed crooked yardstick thinking, complete with two crooked yardstick effects:

CYE 1: If one makes a crooked yardstick his standard for straight, accurate, upright then automatically, what is truly such cannot match crookedness and will be rejected and resisted by those under the spell of a crooked yardstick. (This can include dismissing a self evidently naturally straight and upright plumb line.) CYE 2: As there is but one way to be straight but there are infinitely many ways to be bent or twisted, those locked into one crooked yardstick standard will also be polarised from those who adhere to different brands of crookedness.

The predictable result is intractable conflict and despairing of the possibility of straightness, much less, of confident knowledge of what is straight. Eventually, those pointing to a plumb line will be seen as rude, condescending, arrogant, oppressive, fascists etc. Until, things crash. So, I draw attention:

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds [–> key, evidence backed postulate, cf those of Newtonian dynamics and special then general relativity, thermodynamics and statistical thermodynamics, postulational cores can be brief but sweeping in impact] that [First, Evidence-backed Programmatic Postulate:] certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained [–> explicit reference to logic of abductive reasoning] by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. [2nd, Operational Postulate:] Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. [3rd, Empirical Warrant/Point of test or potential falsification postulate:] An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences. [Evidence Corollary:] Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the “messages,” and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life. [4th, Designs and Signs Postulate:] as we ourselves instantiate [thus exemplify as opposed to “exhaust”], intelligent designers act into the world, and create artifacts. When such agents act, there are certain characteristics that commonly appear, and that – per massive experience — reliably mark such artifacts. It it therefore a reasonable and useful scientific project to study such signs and identify how we may credibly reliably infer from empirical sign to the signified causal factor: purposefully directed contingency or intelligent design. [–> definition of design, note, abductive inference from observed sign to signified cause.]

These are actually taken from the WAC's, as is:

[Supplement, on evidence:] [a] FSCI — function-specifying complex information [e.g. blog posts in English text that take in more than 143 ASCII characters, and/or — as was highlighted by Yockey and Wickens by the mid-1980s — as a distinguishing marker of the macromolecules in the heart of cell-based life forms], or more broadly [b] CSI — complex, independently specified information [e.g. Mt Rushmore vs New Hampshire’s former Old Man of the mountain, or — as was highlighted by Orgel in 1973 — a distinguishing feature of the cell’s information-rich organized aperiodic macromolecules that are neither simply orderly like crystals nor random like chance-polymerized peptide chains], or [c] IC — multi-part functionality that relies on an irreducible core of mutually co-adapted, interacting components. [e.g. the hardware parts of a PC or more simply of a mousetrap; or – as was highlighted by Behe in the mid 1990’s — the bacterial flagellum and many other cell-based bodily features and functions.], or [d] “Oracular” active information – in some cases, e.g. many Genetic Algorithms, successful performance of a system traces to built-in information or organisation that guides algorithmicsearch processes and/or performance so that the system significantly outperforms random search. Such guidance may include oracles that, step by step, inform a search process that the iterations are “warmer/ colder” relative to a performance target zone. (A classic example is the Weasel phrase search program.) Also, [e] Complex, algorithmically active, coded information – the complex information used in systems and processes is symbolically coded in ways that are not preset by underlying physical or chemical forces, but by encoding and decoding dynamically inert but algorithmically active information that guides step by step execution sequences, i.e. algorithms. (For instance, in hard disk drives, the stored information in bits is coded based a conventional, symbolic assignment of the N/S poles, forces and fields involved, and is impressed and used algorithmically. The physics of forces and fields does not determine or control the bit-pattern of the information – or, the drive would be useless. Similarly, in DNA, the polymer chaining chemistry is effectively unrelated to the information stored in the sequence and reading frames of the A/ G/ C/ T side-groups. It is the coded genetic information in the successive three-letter D/RNA codons that is used by the cell’s molecular nano- machines in the step by step creation of proteins. Such DNA sets from observed living organisms starts at 100,000 – 500,000 four-state elements [200 k – 1 M bits], abundantly meriting the description: function- specifying, complex information, or FSCI.) [(f) evidence of the fine tuned cosmos.] . . . .

So, are you and others willing to accord minimal fairness to design thinkers, by recognising that they may have serious reasons for what they hold? Or will we continue to see the Dawkins slander: ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked? KF kairosfocus

Much of the recent back forth here would have been clarified had objectors been willing to read and take seriously the WAC;s but predictably that is not the way of selective hyperskepticism.

I think that is very optimistic. Fred Hickson

Kairosfocus @83, Thanks, I'll try this out shortly and see what happens. I think my futility needs a little more exercise. (smile). -Q Querius

Q, within the WAC page, there is actually a table of contents with in page links. Much of the recent back forth here would have been clarified had objectors been willing to read and take seriously the WAC;s but predictably that is not the way of selective hyperskepticism.As for Canaanites etc, there are other places with resources. KF kairosfocus

Kairosfocus @78, Thank you for adding the instructions for contacting WP. I also was reminded of the link to Frequently Raised But Weak Arguments Against Intelligent Design. It might be helpful if we could simply paste links to each one rather than wasting energy repeatedly writing our own versions. But what about the Canaanites? LOL -Q Querius

ET @77, Why would you think that any further correspondence with JHolo will produce anything worthwhile. Are you familiar with the old aphorism that goes like this:

Never wrestle with a pig. You both get muddy and the pig likes it.

Nuff said. -Q Querius

JVL @74, It just seemed to me that you've been harassing Kairosfocus for something not under his control. In my experience there are many online organizations that rarely respond to inquiries. Often they're simply not staffed to do so. More popular sites and services might simply be flooded with inquiries. Yes, it can be infuriating, but one shouldn't be quick to assume malice. I started using a cut-and-paste method, after a number of experiences where I spent a lot of time composing a reply only to be locked out and my message erased. One thing that worked for me on a couple of occasions is logging out of my account, closing my browser, and later logging back in. Not always though. Not having a Windows machine certainly reduces the number of possible sources of the problem, but the frequency that you're reporting this problem might mean that WF is triggered by your non-Windows browser or the document processing app you're using. Perhaps the text/character encoding might be involved: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/10088473/why-are-there-different-encoding-types -Q Querius

Why does the recent comments list often not show most recent comments?

It's a glitch in this wordpress template. The only fix would be to wait for (and request) an update from the template-designer, or move the site to a new template. Silver Asiatic

I have added a chart showing how to contact UD. KF kairosfocus

JHolo:

ET’s and LCD’s comments are often little more than sound and fury, signifying nothing

And yours are little more than lies and ignorance. My fury is aimed at liars like yourself. So stop lying and spewing BS. You are just upset because I keep exposing you as a clueless loser. ET

And why is there a long delay between pressing "post comment" and the comment registering? I have to stop myself clicking twice and getting a duplicate-detected message. Fred Hickson

If anyone is interested in fixing some of this site's other glitches, Why does the recent comments list often not show most recent comments? Fred Hickson

Querius: There are many possible attacks that can be generated by infected computers including the infamous hidden backspace characters. Also, some malware is designed to be intermittent. I can see why the scanning process has been left without more detail, which would only help the creators of the malware evade the scans. I don't have any malware; I'm not using a Windows machine. If he doubts your honesty, then he should take it upon himself to contact WP directly to confirm the veracity of your statements. I don't doubt Kairosfocus's honesty, and I've said so. I want to speak with one of the site admins to find out what it is I'm doing that is causing the problem AS IS ADVISED by the people who created the WordPress plug-in, WordFence, that is locking me out. I have looked at WordFence's website to see what it does and what it is capable of doing. By this, I’m NOT suggesting that they’re intentional, although that’s not out of the realm of possibilities. Thank you very much for your trust. All I want to do now is speak with one of the site admins AS IS SUGGESTED BY THE MESSAGE I GET FROM WORDFENCE but no one will even tell me who I need to contact. Why will no one speak with me? JVL

Kairosfocus, I've been following your investigation of the comment lockout problem. WordFence indicates that it

• Checks your content safety by scanning file contents, posts and comments for dangerous URLs and suspicious content. • [Premium] Checks to see if your site or IP have been blacklisted for malicious activity, generating spam or other security issue.

There are many possible attacks that can be generated by infected computers including the infamous hidden backspace characters. Also, some malware is designed to be intermittent. I can see why the scanning process has been left without more detail, which would only help the creators of the malware evade the scans. I think your advice to "compose and clean up in Notepad etc then copy paste and post comment" is a good one. I also think JVL's continued complaints after your multiple assurances that you're most certainly NOT able to lock anyone out from specific posts is simply harassment at this point. If he doubts your honesty, then he should take it upon himself to contact WP directly to confirm the veracity of your statements. I think you've done more than enough at this point. JVL should also look into the possibility of threats originating from his own computer. By this, I'm NOT suggesting that they're intentional, although that's not out of the realm of possibilities. Thank you for your efforts and patience. -Q Querius

JVL, edit remains a live link for owner of a thread, apparently permanently. I saw a typo, tried to fix, but got caught. Further attempts just repeated the problem. I suspect, idle for some time and sudden pick up. KF kairosfocus

Querius: I appreciate it when you provide relevant additional information and insights in your recent posts. They’re as lights in a storm of troll-bot tales: full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

I couldn’t agree more. ET’s and LCD’s comments are often little more than sound and fury, signifying nothing. I was beginning to think that I was the only one who noticed this. JHolo

ET and Lieutenant Commander Data, I appreciate it when you provide relevant additional information and insights in your recent posts. They're as lights in a storm of troll-bot tales: full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Science must follow paths of evidence led by hypotheses. However, when speculations under the magical cloak of millions of years do not lead us to supporting evidence, then science ceases to be science and becomes simply science fiction. -Q Querius

JHolo:

In the same manner, and to the same degree, that mountain formation and much of cosmology are untestable.

Not really. Mountain formation is easily simulated. The alleged evolution of the flagellum via blind and mindless processes is not. Cosmology makes testable predictions. The only predictions borne from evolution by means of blind and mindless processes are genetic diseases and deformities. Intelligent Design is not anti-evolution. So please stop equivocating. ET

ET: JHolo 55- thank you for admitting that the claims of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes are untestable and therefore not scientific.

In the same manner, and to the same degree, that mountain formation and much of cosmology are untestable. That puts evolution in good company. JHolo

JHolo 55- thank you for admitting that the claims of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes are untestable and therefore not scientific.

No, my comment is that evolution has resources that are many orders of magnitude greater than all of the scientists ever to be born will have available to them.

How do you know? Without an origin of life there won't be any evolution. And your comment proved that evolution by means of blind and mindless processes is untestable trope. ET

chuckdarwin- what I said @ 40 is verifiable and a fact. ET

JVL is a clown. Lieutenant Commander Data

Kairosfocus: We can guess from your particular comment on what WF said to you. Why not write them if the general note is not enough: avoid key words, do not post too frequently etc. Write to WordFence? To ask them about how a particular client has configured their plug-in? Really? Clearly you can't tell me what, exactly, I'm doing wrong. Nor can you or will you tell me who at Uncommon Descent can answer my queries. Why not just say: I don't know and I'm not going to tell you who to contact. I would guess within a minute or two Is that an informed guess or just something you came up with? As thread owner EDIT was still open and I saw the typo. Nope, suspicious, then lockout. Wait . . . just a minute . . . I think you need to clarify this comment. You're saying YOU THINK the plug-in rapped your fingers because you left the edit window open too long? How long was that? Would the same rules apply to you (who have thread posting privileges) as to those of us who are allowed to comment only? WF and other security features will have automatic filters. It is likely, rapid repeat edits trigger, suspicious. Again, well intentions guesses aren't actual answers. Such a plague of spam is a good sign of inadequate security. This is a case where silence speaks. Might speak of restricted access because some unknown and unstated conditions are triggered. I don't know why it's so hard to find out what the security conditions for the site are and what we can do to avoid them. I would think it would benefit the site as well as the commenters. JVL

JHolo if A scientist had 400 trillion gallons of water, trillions of tons of other earth-like elements and chemicals, and a few hundred million years at his/her disposal, it might be possible to demonstrate that something like a flagellum, or something equally complex could develop.

:lol: Another one who admits that s/he is just a believer in a fairytale ,but he promises that fairytale is true ...just can be verified, but is true . :) Lieutenant Commander Data

JHolo I can’t help but feel that’s slightly dishonest or do you actually believe science as a whole operates under a wide reaching consensus? BobSinclair

BS: If you feel you need to label people or assign them to ‘camps’ by all means knock yourself out.

It is a trick I have learned from the ID proponents here at UD, who have mastered this tactic. :) JHolo

JHolo If you feel you need to label people or assign them to ‘camps’ by all means knock yourself out. BobSinclair

BS: And with no way to test suck claims we have simple meaningless rhetoric

So, I will put you down in the “plate tectonics are not responsible for mountain formation” camp. JHolo

JHolo And with no way to test suck claims we have simple meaningless rhetoric BobSinclair

BS: You’re entire comment rests on a presumption and as such does not offer a lot of mileage but simple meaningless rhetoric.

No, my comment is that evolution has resources that are many orders of magnitude greater than all of the scientists ever to be born will have available to them. You might as well claim that scientists can’t test the theory that plate tectonics can cause mountain formation. JHolo

JHolo You’re entire comment rests on a presumption and as such does not offer a lot of mileage but simple meaningless rhetoric. BobSinclair

ET: Why is it that no one can demonstrate that evolution by means of blind and mindless processes produced any bacterial flagellum? Why is it that no one can even propose a way to test that claim?

Well, if A scientist had 400 trillion gallons of water, trillions of tons of other earth-like elements and chemicals, and a few hundred million years at his/her disposal, it might be possible to demonstrate that something like a flagellum, or something equally complex could develop. But since this is not available to the average scientist I guess you will be able to get more mileage out of your meaningless comments. JHolo

ET/40 A hat trick so early in the day. Keep it up and you'll be an ID MVP before you know it.... chuckdarwin

JVL: {{Kairosfocus: I am not privy to details of WF policies So, the answer is: no, you do not know what conditions I am meeting to cause the WordFence error. Can you get me in touch with someone who does know so that I can find out what’s causing the problem? --> We can guess from your particular comment on what WF said to you. Why not write them if the general note is not enough: avoid key words, do not post too frequently etc. but generally trigger words, rapid posting, coming from known suspicious URLs, having infections with computer malware and the like would count. Rapid posting . . . how rapid would that be? --> I would guess within a minute or two I suspect the last time I tried to edit a post to fix a typo creating a bad url, it was that too much time had elapsed so my behaviour was suspect. Commenters have only 20 minutes to alter their comments; I would assume that WordFence would know that. --> As thread owner EDIT was still open and I saw the typo. Nope, suspicious, then lockout. I saw too that repeated attempts would go directly to the filter, a frustration but understandable. We’re only allowed so many attempts at editing our comments? Is that what you’re saying? What is ‘the filter’? --> WF and other security features will have automatic filters. It is likely, rapid repeat edits trigger, suspicious. --> Suggestion, compose and clean up in Notepad etc then copy paste and post comment. The tech is not perfect but let us note as a sign that UD does not have frequent adware comments. Not really the point of this conversation though is it? --> Such a plague of spam is a good sign of inadequate security. This is a case where silence speaks. }} KF kairosfocus

JHolo- Why is it that no one can demonstrate that evolution by means of blind and mindless processes produced any bacterial flagellum? Why is it that no one can even propose a way to test that claim? ET

I am pointing commenters to the updated thread. kairosfocus

Kairosfocus: I am not privy to details of WF policies So, the answer is: no, you do not know what conditions I am meeting to cause the WordFence error. Can you get me in touch with someone who does know so that I can find out what's causing the problem? but generally trigger words, rapid posting, coming from known suspicious URLs, having infections with computer malware and the like would count. Rapid posting . . . how rapid would that be? I suspect the last time I tried to edit a post to fix a typo creating a bad url, it was that too much time had elapsed so my behaviour was suspect. Commenters have only 20 minutes to alter their comments; I would assume that WordFence would know that. I saw too that repeated attempts would go directly to the filter, a frustration but understandable. We're only allowed so many attempts at editing our comments? Is that what you're saying? What is 'the filter'? The tech is not perfect but let us note as a sign that UD does not have frequent adware comments. Not really the point of this conversation though is it? JVL

JHolo Your robotomorphic appeal fails.

Not really. Your darwinism can't explain the concept of proofreading, error correcting, cell signalling. Chemistry don't do that ,only code embedded in chemistry do that. Lieutenant Commander Data

KF, you full well know that the molecular images and animations often used here at UD and other ID sites to show the “designed” nature of things like protein synthesis and the flagellum are simply high-level models to assist in the understanding of the chemistry involved. And, as models, they have their limitations, one being the misleading suggestion that they function as intelligently designed mechanisms. Your robotomorphic appeal fails. JHolo

FH Hydrogen bonding is the explanation for water’s amazing properties and hydrogen bonding is the biological explanation of base pairing.

As ET said ,you have to try a different argument because surprise, surprise all the chemistry (including hydrogen ) is part of the same design. Or do you really think that your poor hydrogen just happen to exist by chance and after that is allowed in the scene a Designer to act? :) Nope! Designer designed everything including chemical rules otherwise how in the world would be possible to use hydrogen for all higher levels of complexity we see manifested in life? Lieutenant Commander Data

Fred Hickson:

Remember there’s no argument things, such as living organisms, are designed. The discussion is about what, when and how.

There isn't any evidence that nature produced life and its diversity, so that can be dismissed. The ONLY thing capable of producing coded information processing systems is intelligent agency volition. Living organisms are ruled by coded information processing systems. So, only people who deny reality say otherwise.

Jerry is pointing out that water molecules are the most amazing things. Hydrogen bonding is the explanation for water’s amazing properties and hydrogen bonding is the biological explanation of base pairing.

Where did nature the hydrogen and oxygen from? Did nature produce itself? Did nature produce the laws that govern it? How can we test such things? ET

"FH, you full well know" there is a live thread on ID, the design inference, design theory and the design movement.

"FH, you full well know" is an unnecessary jibe. A link to the thread you are referring to, or even just its title, would have been helpful. Fred Hickson

LCD

Another designed feature...

Remember there's no argument things, such as living organisms, are designed. The discussion is about what, when and how.

I have no doubt that FH has the answer to all these: “the hydrogen bond ” explains everything.

Not just me. Jerry is pointing out that water molecules are the most amazing things. Hydrogen bonding is the explanation for water's amazing properties and hydrogen bonding is the biological explanation of base pairing. Fred Hickson

FH, you full well know there is a live thread on ID, the design inference, design theory and the design movement. Further discussion on this side track should be taken there. Likewise, if you wish to comment on the semiosis view, which boils down to a telecommunication layercake and protocols. I am about to add the F/N above, there. KF kairosfocus

Illustrations added at the top as a footnote to the OP, Onward discussions on the side track topic should go to the L&FP 55 thread, where there is appropriate context https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/lfp-55-defining-clarifying-intelligent-design-as-inference-as-theory-as-a-movement/ kairosfocus

Kairosfocus FH, RNA world, you know, is gross speculation on a bruised reed of evidence.

:) There is even more to translation process: how is recruited the correct tRNA (that have the required anticodon) and how is allowed access into ribosome (A site ) ? Another designed feature: The spatial conformation of tRNA allows for a wobble effect that is preplanned design to reduce the error rate by being versatile( a U residue in the wobble position of the codon can form either a normal base pair with an A residue or an unusual base pair with a G residue in the tRNA. Similarly, inosine, which is a modifed purine base that is found in tRNA, can pair with A or G residues in the wobble position of the mRNA) Another designed feature: When "a wrong" tRNA is bound by the mRNA resulting in a codon/anticodon mismatch then the proofreading mechanism that detect the error trigger the activation of the release factor to shut down the operation that would create a "wrong" protein. Another designed feature: In real life multiple ribosomes are moving along the mRNA at the same time forming a structure known as a polyribosome. Interestingly, the polyA tail( at the 3' end )of the mRNA, can interact with the initiation component( located at the 5' end )of the mRNA making a circular configuration that allows ribosomes which complete translation and terminate at the 3' end of the mRNA to reinitiate immediately a new round of translation at the 5' end of the mRNA . I have no doubt that FH has the answer to all these: "the hydrogen bond " explains everything . :lol: Lieutenant Commander Data

My comments expose you and yours as the pathetic losers, pathological liars and cowardly equivocators that you are. Have you ever added anything informative to any discussion? I have never seen it. ET

And you should chip in too, ET. I'm sure your comments will be as informative and constructive as always. Namaste! Fred Hickson

Fred Hickson:

why don’t you start a thread for Upright Biped and his Semiotic Theory and the progress with it he has made since 2012?

' The only progress is that it has been confirmed. And you and yours don't have anything to account for what we observe. ET

DNA based life is impossible without an existing suite of specific, specialized proteins and a specific coded information processing system. The alleged RNA world is purely imaginary and as such can explain away just about anything. ET

KF why don't you start a thread for Upright Biped and his Semiotic Theory and the progress with it he has made since 2012? I will certainly chip in. Fred Hickson

KF

FH, you are far too educated not to know the highly speculative nature of the RNA world hypothesis.

You could have asked. Yes I do think RNA world is speculative in some respects. Strawman versions are more so. RNA world is not an OoL hypothesis, though, and in the form that I see offered, it attempts to explain UB's conundrum the egg and chicken, for both DNA and protein. This it does neatly and with enough evidence so far that I'm persuaded. (I may have mentioned 15-20 years ago I favored Robert Shapiro's view but no longer. I changed my mind) Fred Hickson

Fred Hickson:

RNA World

There isn't any evidence for any RNA world, Fred. Science requires evidence and you don't have any. ET

Fred Hickson:

Are there?

Yes, there are. Again, your ignorance is not an argument. ET

FH, you are far too educated not to know the highly speculative nature of the RNA world hypothesis. I could go on to other points but you are doing an excellent job of exposing fundamental hostility warping ability to recognise or acknowledge fairly obvious points, here Drexler on molecular nanotech position arm robots and my having alluded to same as relevant to tRNA. It looks like, you having taken a cross-thread and distract gambit yet again, I need to add a f/n to OP and redirect to the still open thread for future comments. KF kairosfocus

30 Kairosfocus May 14, 2022 at 4:29 am

FH, RNA world, you know...

If I may say, this is a regular fault of yours. You can find out what people think by asking them and accepting in good faith what they tell you. You instead turn dialogue into monologue. Is it any wonder the number of commenters has diminished?

...is gross speculation on a bruised reed of evidence.

Typical example!

That tRNA acts as a position arm robot in the context of Drexler, is far more direct.

At the most charitable, that is an analogy, a bad one. The d-arm isn't called an arm because it resembles a human arm. It's part of a macromolecule

But then, it is not hard to see the roots of your hyperskepticism and refusal to acknowledge things like how...

...Another example!

...D/RNA functions as a digital memory storage device

DNA is a template in those organisms that use DNA as a template (which is most of them). RNA functions as both template and catalyst in in vivo protein synthesis and as a template instead of DNA in, for example, one rather famous virus. "Digital memory storage device" sounds like something you'd find in a computer. In other words, another bad analogy.

...or how coded algorithms stored in that way are used in protein assembly.

There you go again! Coded algorithms! It's physical templates all the way down.

It is but a step of further denial to refuse to see that tRNA has an anti codon at one end, a CCA tip at the other...

I agree that tRNAs have an anticodon loop and an acceptor stem. You could have asked and saved yourself that bit of nonsense.

...and how AAs are loaded based on work of enzymes. Not to mention which came first chicken egg causal loops. KF

Now we get to the nub of Upright Biped's semiotic "argument". I think he'd make his own case better than you are managing for him. Do you think he might pop in? Fred Hickson

FH, RNA world, you know, is gross speculation on a bruised reed of evidence. That tRNA acts as a position arm robot in the context of Drexler, is far more direct. But then, it is not hard to see the roots of your hyperskepticism and refusal to acknowledge things like how D/RNA functions as a digital memory storage device, or how coded algorithms stored in that way are used in protein assembly. It is but a step of further denial to refuse to see that tRNA has an anti codon at one end, a CCA tip at the other and how AAs are loaded based on work of enzymes. Not to mention which came first chicken egg causal loops. KF kairosfocus

JVL, I am not privy to details of WF policies but generally trigger words, rapid posting, coming from known suspicious URLs, having infections with computer malware and the like would count. I cited Discus as a comparable security oriented technology not as more or less the same. I suspect the last time I tried to edit a post to fix a typo creating a bad url, it was that too much time had elapsed so my behaviour was suspect. I saw too that repeated attempts would go directly to the filter, a frustration but understandable. The tech is not perfect but let us note as a sign that UD does not have frequent adware comments. KF kairosfocus

RNA World, KF. Evidence suggests RNA was acting as both template and catalyst prior to DNA adopting the template role and prior to proteins as catalysts. Indeed, RNA still plays a pivotal role as both template and catalyst in cellular metabolism. Fred Hickson

Kairosfocus: wordfence is a security service similar to disqus. Yes, I know what WordFence is; in the past I gave a link to its homepage and published some quotes. Disqus is not the same thing at all: https://disqus.com Since you didn't answer my questions I'll ask versions of them again: what WordFence settings or protocols am I violating when I get banned from commenting on a thread? If I know what triggers I'm triggering I can possibly avoid them. If you don't know then just say so. If you don't know then can you tell me who could answer those questions for this site please? JVL

JVL and FH, wordfence is a security service similar to disqus. None of these services is wholly satisfactory but they are better than the alternative given the amount of antisocial and outright criminal behaviour on the Internet. See https://wordpress.org/plugins/wordfence/ KF kairosfocus

FH, chicken-egg loops are common issues on origin of life studies; here, which comes first, the tRNA that helps to assemble proteins (including enzymes) or the enzyme that loads it with the correct AA. Second, a position-arm device with a tool tip is reasonably describable in such terms. Third, you may find it advisable to reconsider given here on: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/casey-luskin-asks-can-claims-about-punctuated-equilibrium-accommodate-the-scientific-data/#comment-754466 KF PS, Just for information for those willing to think outside the box, https://www.writingsbyraykurzweil.com/the-drexler-smalley-debate-on-molecular-assembly

. . . It was left to Eric Drexler to found the modern field of nanotechnology, with a draft of his seminal Ph.D. thesis in the mid 1980s .. . Drexler described a Von Neumann Kinematic Constructor, which for its “sea of parts” used atoms and molecular fragments, as suggested in Feynman’s speech. Drexler’s vision cut across many disciplinary boundaries, and was so far reaching, that no one was daring enough to be his thesis advisor, except for my own mentor, Marvin Minsky. Drexler’s doctoral thesis (premiered in his book, Engines of Creation in 1986 and articulated technically in his 1992 book Nanosystems) laid out the foundation of nanotechnology and provided the road map still being pursued today. Von Neumann’s Universal Constructor, as applied to atoms and molecular fragments, was now called a “universal assembler.” Drexler’s assembler was universal because it could essentially make almost anything in the world. A caveat is in order here. The products of a universal assembler necessarily have to follow the laws of physics and chemistry, so only atomically stable structures would be viable. Furthermore, any specific assembler would be restricted to building products from its sea of parts, although the feasibility of using individual atoms has been repeatedly demonstrated. Although Drexler did not provide a detailed design of an assembler, and such a design has still not been fully specified, his thesis did provide extensive existence proofs for each of the principal components of a universal assembler, which include the following subsystems: - The computer: to provide the intelligence to control the assembly process. As with all of the subsystems, the computer needs to be small and simple. Drexler described an intriguing mechanical computer with molecular “locks” instead of transistor gates. Each lock required only 5 cubic nanometers of space and could switch 20 billion times a second. This proposal remains more competitive than any known electronic technology, although electronic computers built from three-dimensional arrays of carbon nanotubes may be a suitable alternative. - The instruction architecture: Drexler and his colleague Ralph Merkle have proposed a “SIMD” (Single Instruction Multiple Data”) architecture in which a single data store would record the instructions and transmit them to trillions of molecular-sized assemblers (each with their own simple computer) simultaneously. Thus each assembler would not have to store the entire program for creating the desired product. This “broadcast” architecture also addresses a key safety concern by shutting down the self-replication process if it got out of control by terminating the centralized source of the replication instructions. However, as Drexler points out[1], a nanoscale assembler does not necessarily have to be self-replicating. Given the inherent dangers in self-replication, the ethical standards proposed by the Foresight Institute contain prohibitions against unrestricted self-replication, especially in a natural environment. - Instruction transmission: transmission of the instructions from the centralized data store to each of the many assemblers would be accomplished electronically if the computer is electronic or through mechanical vibrations if Drexler’s concept of a mechanical computer were used. - The construction robot: the constructor would be a simple molecular robot with a single arm, similar to Von Neumann’s kinematic constructor, but on a tiny scale. The feasibility of building molecular-based robot arms, gears, rotors, and motors has been demonstrated in the years since Drexler’s thesis . . . - The robot arm tip: Drexler’s follow-up book in 1992, Nanosystems: molecular machinery, manufacturing, and computation, provided a number of feasible chemistries for the tip of the robot arm that would be capable of grasping (using appropriate atomic force fields) a molecular fragment, or even a single atom, and then depositing it in a desired location. We know from the chemical vapor deposition process used to construct artificial diamonds that it is feasible to remove individual carbon atoms, as well as molecular fragments that include carbon, and then place them in another location through precisely controlled chemical reactions at the tip. The process to build artificial diamond is a chaotic process involving trillions of atoms, but the underlying process has been harnessed to design a robot arm tip that can remove hydrogen atoms from a source material and deposit it at desired location in a molecular machine being constructed. In this proposal, the tiny machines are built out of a diamond-like (called “diamondoid”) material. In addition to having great strength, the material can be doped with impurities in a precise fashion to create electronic components such as transistors. Simulations have shown that gears, levers, motors, and other mechanical systems can also be constructed from these carbon arrays. Additional proposals have been made in the years since, including several innovative designs by Ralph Merkle [2]. In recent years, there has been a great deal of attention on carbon nanotubes, comprised of hexagonal arrays of carbon atoms assembled in three dimensions, which are also capable of providing both mechanical and electronic functions at the molecular level. - The assembler’s internal environment needs to prevent environmental impurities from interfering with the delicate assembly process. Drexler’s proposal is to maintain a near vacuum and build the assembler walls out of the same diamondoid material that the assembler itself is capable of making. - The energy required for the assembly process can be provided either through electricity or through chemical energy. Drexler proposed a chemical process with the fuel interlaced with the raw building material. More recent proposals utilize nanoengineered fuel cells incorporating hydrogen and oxygen or glucose and oxygen. Although many configurations have been proposed, the typical assembler has been described as a tabletop unit that can manufacture any physically possible product for which we have a software description. Products can range from computers, clothes, and works of art to cooked meals. Larger products, such as furniture, cars, or even houses, can be built in a modular fashion, or using larger assemblers. Of particular importance, an assembler can create copies of itself. The incremental cost of creating any physical product, including the assemblers themselves, would be pennies per pound, basically the cost of the raw materials. The real cost, of course, would be the value of the information describing each type of product, that is the software that controls the assembly process. Thus everything of value in the world, including physical objects, would be comprised essentially of information. We are not that far from this situation today, since the “information content” of products is rapidly asymptoting to 100 percent of their value. In operation, the centralized data store sends out commands simultaneously to all of the assembly robots. There would be trillions of robots in an assembler, each executing the same instruction at the same time. The assembler creates these molecular robots by starting with a small number and then using these robots to create additional ones in an iterative fashion, until the requisite number of robots has been created. Each local robot has a local data storage that specifies the type of mechanism it is building . . .

In short, there was a molecular nanotech background context for my terms, apart from the rather obvious one of simple recognition of tRNA's function. But then, one can also see the neck-head beak structures of a bird as a similar position arm robot with a built in sensor turret. Ponder, birds building nests and feeding their young with worms. kairosfocus

KF

Notice, the tRNA is in effect a molecular nanotech position-arm robot with a CCA universal joint tool tip at one end and an anticodon key-lock fit element at the other. Chemically, any AA can attach to any TRNA but there is enzyme control of which goes to which, hence, loading. Enzymes are of course proteins synthesised by the protein synthesis process, there is a chicken-egg first reflexive causal loop. And so forth.

I mean... Nope, words fail me. Robot arms? Chicken-egg?. First understand, KF, then criticize. Fred Hickson

Re Wordfence. What is it designed to achieve? Is there something useful it is doing to offset the false positives. An ID experiment is called for. Disable the plugin and observe the result. Fred Hickson

And there are people who insist that Stonehenge is a natural formation.

Are there? Depends what the antonym of "natural" is, I guess. Unnatural? Well, I don't think the structure is unnatural and not heard anyone promoting the idea. Supernatural? Did von Däniken claim this for his space aliens? Didn't catch on. Artificial? The etymology (from the Latin "made by artisans") seems spot on. Stonehenge was envisaged, designed and built by people with purpose and for a purpose, even we do not know the names of individuals nor the precise details of their reasons. Fred Hickson

Kairosfocus: you have been triggering WF spam, hacking etc protocols What are they? If I know what they are I can attempt to avoid them. JVL

Plus glacial deposits, like drop stones. And drop stones from prehistoric floods. Earthquakes flaking off huge stones. ET

Lieutenant Commander Data @13,

“Evolved almost inevitably”

Wow, "inevitably" is a way-cooler way to say MUSTA or MIGHTA, but it means the same thing. ET @18, The term that geologists use is "differential erosion." -Q Querius

JVL:

But my point was that people were taking the idea seriously and doing research about it. And that clearly is true.

And there are people who insist that Stonehenge is a natural formation. ET

JVL, as for speculations on D/RNA codons and protein codes, you are looking at guesswork. Worse, it compounds it by imagining there were prior metabolic process flow networks and linked cell replication etc that were unobserved. Rube Goldberg would have been proud. The highly speculative nature is clear from your clips. As it is, I can again refer you to L&FP 55, OP, the communication system chart from Yockey, as annotated. See https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/lfp-55-defining-clarifying-intelligent-design-as-inference-as-theory-as-a-movement/ Note there, the blue curved dotted box. When tRNA folds, its anticodon is at one end and a tip for attaching AAs is at the other, out of range of chemical determination. In effect, CODON =A-C ----CCA tip, with AA load point. The tip carries the common code CCA, and can load to any AA at the COOH end. The loading enzyme detects the configuration of the tRNA and loads the required AA, this is where the encoding happens. And, it happens at a universal joint. This has been used to generate novel AA chains. KF PS, again, Wikipedia's admissions:

While the specific nucleotide sequence of an mRNA specifies which amino acids are incorporated into the protein product of the gene from which the mRNA is transcribed, the role of tRNA is to specify which sequence from the genetic code corresponds to which amino acid.[3] The mRNA encodes a protein as a series of contiguous codons, each of which is recognized by a particular tRNA. One end of the tRNA matches the genetic code in a three-nucleotide sequence called the anticodon. The anticodon forms three complementary base pairs with a codon in mRNA during protein biosynthesis. On the other end of the tRNA is a covalent attachment to the amino acid that corresponds to the anticodon sequence. Each type of tRNA molecule can be attached to only one type of amino acid, so each organism has many types of tRNA. Because the genetic code contains multiple codons that specify the same amino acid, there are several tRNA molecules bearing different anticodons which carry the same amino acid. The covalent attachment to the tRNA 3’ end is catalyzed by enzymes called aminoacyl tRNA synthetases. During protein synthesis, tRNAs with attached amino acids are delivered to the ribosome by proteins called elongation factors, which aid in association of the tRNA with the ribosome, synthesis of the new polypeptide, and translocation (movement) of the ribosome along the mRNA. If the tRNA's anticodon matches the mRNA, another tRNA already bound to the ribosome transfers the growing polypeptide chain from its 3’ end to the amino acid attached to the 3’ end of the newly delivered tRNA, a reaction catalyzed by the ribosome . . . . The acceptor stem is a 7- to 9-base pair (bp) stem made by the base pairing of the 5?-terminal nucleotide with the 3?-terminal nucleotide (which contains the CCA 3?-terminal group used to attach the amino acid) . . . The CCA tail is a cytosine-cytosine-adenine sequence at the 3? end of the tRNA molecule. The amino acid loaded onto the tRNA by aminoacyl tRNA synthetases, to form aminoacyl-tRNA, is covalently bonded to the 3?-hydroxyl group on the CCA tail.[9] This sequence is important for the recognition of tRNA by enzymes and critical in translation.[10][11] . . . The anticodon arm is a 5-bp stem whose loop contains the anticodon.[6] The tRNA 5?-to-3? primary structure contains the anticodon but in reverse order, since 3?-to-5? directionality is required to read the mRNA from 5?-to-3?.

Notice, the tRNA is in effect a molecular nanotech position-arm robot with a CCA universal joint tool tip at one end and an anticodon key-lock fit element at the other. Chemically, any AA can attach to any TRNA but there is enzyme control of which goes to which, hence, loading. Enzymes are of course proteins synthesised by the protein synthesis process, there is a chicken-egg first reflexive causal loop. And so forth. kairosfocus

JVL, you have been triggering WF spam, hacking etc protocols. KF kairosfocus

Right here is the error message I just got when trying to post at: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/casey-luskin-asks-can-claims-about-punctuated-equilibrium-accommodate-the-scientific-data/#comment-754615

A potentially unsafe operation has been detected in your request to this site Your access to this service has been limited. (HTTP response code 403) If you think you have been blocked in error, contact the owner of this site for assistance. Block Technical Data Block Reason: A potentially unsafe operation has been detected in your request to this site Time: Fri, 13 May 2022 20:43:28 GMT About Wordfence Wordfence is a security plugin installed on over 4 million WordPress sites. The owner of this site is using Wordfence to manage access to their site. You can also read the documentation to learn about Wordfence's blocking tools, or visit wordfence.com to learn more about Wordfence.

This happens to me all the time. JVL

ET: On the whole, it appears that the aptamer experiments, although suggestive, fail to clinch the case for the stereochemical theory of the code. As noticed earlier, the affinities are rather weak, so that even the conclusions on their reality hinge on the adopted statistical models. But my point was that people were taking the idea seriously and doing research about it. And that clearly is true. JVL

JVL Genetic code evolved almost inevitably, study finds The idea that the genetic code may have originated via chemical affinities

:lol: JVL , this is not science . "Evolved almost inevitably" is allowed to Shakespeare or Milton not to scientific "researchers". PS: Search for "Cellular signal processing", "signal transduction" to get a taste about the complexity of a cell.Figure that : There are like in human society : NEWS TV "public signalling processes "(endocrine system ) and FBI "private signalling processes" ( the nervous system) :) Lieutenant Commander Data

Origin and evolution of the genetic code: The universal enigma:

On the whole, it appears that the aptamer experiments, although suggestive, fail to clinch the case for the stereochemical theory of the code. As noticed earlier, the affinities are rather weak, so that even the conclusions on their reality hinge on the adopted statistical models. Even more disturbing, for different amino acids, the aptamers show enrichment for either codon or anticodon sequence or even for both (76), a lack of coherence that is hard to reconcile with these interactions being the physical basis of the code.

ET

OK, thank you. So, there aren't any chemical affinities between mRNA and amino acids in the current system. ET

ET: Sigh. The Genetic Code and RNA-Amino Acid Affinities

A significant part of the genetic code likely originated via a chemical interaction, which should be experimentally verifiable. One possible verification relates bound amino acids (or perhaps their activated congeners) and ribonucleotide sequences within cognate RNA binding sites. To introduce this interaction, I first summarize how amino acids function as targets for RNA binding. Then the experimental method for selecting relevant RNA binding sites is characterized. The selection method's characteristics are related to the investigation of the RNA binding site model treated at the outset. Finally, real binding sites from selection and also from extant natural RNAs (for example, the Sulfobacillus guanidinium riboswitch) are connected to the genetic code, and by extension, to the evolutionary progression that produced the code. During this process, peptides may have been produced directly on an instructive amino acid binding RNA (a DRT; Direct RNA Template). Combination of observed stereochemical selectivity with adaptation and co-evolutionary refinement is logically required, and also potentially sufficient, to create the striking order conserved throughout the present coding table.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28333103/ published in 2017. The chemical basis for the origin of the genetic code and the process of protein synthesis

The major thrust is to understand just how the process of protein synthesis, including that very important aspect, genetic coding, came to be. Two aspects of the problem: the chemistry of active aminoacyl species; and affinities between amino acids and nucleotides, and specifically, how these affinities might affect the chemistry between the two are stressed.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19830017073 published in 1982. So, not a new idea. Evolution of the Genetic Code: The Ribosome-Oriented Model

There are currently three major theories on the origin and evolution of the genetic code: the stereochemical theory, the coevolution theory, and the error-minimization theory. The first two assume that the genetic code originated respectively from chemical affinities and from metabolic relationships between codons and amino acids. The error-minimization theory maintains that in primitive systems the apparatus of protein synthesis was extremely prone to errors, and postulates that the genetic code evolved in order to minimize the deleterious effects of the translation errors. This article describes a fourth theory which starts from the hypothesis that the ancestral genetic code was ambiguous and proposes that its evolution took place with a mechanism that systematically reduced its ambiguity and eventually removed it altogether. This proposal is distinct from the stereochemical and the coevolution theories because they do not contemplate any ambiguity in the genetic code, and it is distinct from the error-minimization theory because ambiguity-reduction is fundamentally different from error-minimization. The concept of ambiguity-reduction has been repeatedly mentioned in the scientific literature, but so far it has remained only an abstract possibility because no model has been proposed for its mechanism. Such a model is described in the present article and may be the first step in a new approach to the study of the evolution of the genetic code

https://philpapers.org/rec/BAREOT-9 published in 2015. Genetic code evolved almost inevitably, study finds

Researchers studying the beginnings of human life on Earth say that the development of the genetic code was an inevitable consequence of naturally-occurring chemical relationships between nucleotides and amino acids. By piecing together how 'Ida' and 'Luca' - what scientists call the initial Darwinian ancestor and the last universal common ancestor - assembled themselves from the chemicals thought to be present on the primordial Earth, international research teams are closer to understanding how organisms developed the ability to, not only self-replicate, but store genetic information.

https://www.bionews.org.uk/page_92305 published in 2010. The idea that the genetic code may have originated via chemical affinities is not new and has been examined for quite a while. So, can we dispense with the idea that no one is taking this idea seriously or that it's not a real possibility? Not saying you agree with it but can you at least admit it's a viable option? If you think it's not a viable option then can you at least have the respect to give specific and clear biological and chemical reasons why it isn't? If you have a real, clear and scientific objection then please give it. JVL

JVL:

You could do a literature search and read some research.

I have. It's a given that I have done so more than you have. So, you can huff and bluff all you want. ET

ET: I would love to hear about the alleged chemical affinities between mRNA codons and amino acids. You could do a literature search and read some research. I know you'd rather I did a lot of work tracking down references for you but I've been down that road before and I can't recall a time when that ever generated a different response from what you had already given. From your point of view that's because the work I cite doesn't contradict your statements but it's pretty clear that some of it does and you don't really want to engage with the actual work and research. IF you're really interested you'll search out things that might question your beliefs; I do that for myself all the time because I want to know if I'm wrong. If you're sure you're right to the point that you don't actually have a falsification criteria that you can not only specify but stick with . . . then you won't bother. I'll leave it up to you. JVL

Kairosfocus: I fully believe that you, personally, would not limit access to the site without first giving fair warning and explaining why. I also believe you are being completely honest regarding your understanding of the phenomena. What I also know is that I frequently get banned from threads after publishing a few replies. I know not to make my replies too long; I know not to use profanity; I try not to cast aspersions on other people's view s or opinion (but I suspect I tread the line sometimes). Recently all the bans have been generated by WordFence with a particular error saying I was trying to do something 'illegal' or not allowed. This makes no sense whatsoever as I do not think I am clearly violating any site rule. Disagreeing with some views is NOT verboten I hope. If I need to slow down the frequency of my replies I can do that. If I need to limit the number of my replies . . . I can work on that. What I don't know and, it seems, no one knows is why I am frequently falling foul of the site security as that is what WordFence is about. There must be some setting that I am tripping. I wish someone could tell me what was causing the fouls. It must tripped for individual threads since being banned from one does not (immediately anyway) mean being banned from others. Sometimes thread bans last days and days, sometimes not. If my transgression is based on some objective measure then it potentially could affect any commenter. I would think the site admins would want to be sure that the observed site behaviour is what they want. JVL

Thank you, Kairosfocus! This problem has also happened to me randomly but infrequently. Usually, I also see my comments appear instantly as Martin_r noted, but sometimes not. You've posted that there have been these kinds of problems several times before, but I noticed that some people here jumped to the conclusion that they were being "locked out" of a thread and then others ungenerously piled on about UD. I think they owe you an apology. -Q Querius

i can understand JVL's paranoia .... I also run a WORD PRESS blog (http://www.stuffhappens.info) and as far as i know, there is an optional settings, that comments have to be approved by moderator before published. So in theory, JVL's comments can be 'banned' by not approving it. But i doubt this is the case with UD, because all comments (not only JVL's) have to be approved one by one before published, and i can't imagine that UD administrator spends so much time with approving comments, moreover, my comments appear instantly ... so obviously, there is no moderator approving the comments one by one... martin_r

Oh. I thought it was a thread for JVL to post comments to and answer questions so he didn't muck up other threads ET

ET, you cross threaded. This is to show JVL that authors cannot target particular commenters here at UD. KF kairosfocus

I would love to hear about the alleged chemical affinities between mRNA codons and amino acids. Especially given the fact that the two molecules never touch. Is it some new phenomena called chemical affinities at a distance? ET

ATTN JVL, this is the new post dialogue box kairosfocus