Discussion:
Scientific Discoveries That Suggest Evolution Is False?
(too old to reply)
jillery
2024-07-09 08:23:58 UTC
Permalink
MSN has been posting a lot of nonsense from Creationists and cdesign
proponentsists recently. The following is an example:

<https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/mind-and-soul/scientific-discoveries-that-suggest-evolution-is-false/ss-BB1oN5KV?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=c43911ee82944a5598ad288c0bead685&ei=19#image=1>

<https://tinyurl.com/4na2jfrp>

From the article:

*************************************
For example, Darwin’s theory does a good job with the finch birds,
explaining how variations in weather patterns result in changes in the
shape and structure of the finch beaks. However, that mechanism does
not do a good job of explaining the origins of birds or other major
animal groups in the first place. So basically, innovation, no but
modification, yes.
**************************************

The above should sound very familiar to regular T.O. readers, as it's
boilerplate from "Darwin's Doubt".

The following is a good example of the "innovation" which Darwin's
theory explains just fine, no intelligent designer required or
necessary:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitroplast>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiont>

<https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(24)00182-X.pdf>

<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adk1075>


To my knowledge, nitroplasts haven't been mentioned in T.O. before.
They are a newly-discovered organelle in some algae, likely evolved
from endosymbiotic bacteria, just as are mitochondria and
chloroplasts.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
John Harshman
2024-07-09 15:06:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by jillery
MSN has been posting a lot of nonsense from Creationists and cdesign
<https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/mind-and-soul/scientific-discoveries-that-suggest-evolution-is-false/ss-BB1oN5KV?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=c43911ee82944a5598ad288c0bead685&ei=19#image=1>
<https://tinyurl.com/4na2jfrp>
*************************************
For example, Darwin’s theory does a good job with the finch birds,
explaining how variations in weather patterns result in changes in the
shape and structure of the finch beaks. However, that mechanism does
not do a good job of explaining the origins of birds or other major
animal groups in the first place. So basically, innovation, no but
modification, yes.
**************************************
They lost me at "finch birds".
Post by jillery
The above should sound very familiar to regular T.O. readers, as it's
boilerplate from "Darwin's Doubt".
The following is a good example of the "innovation" which Darwin's
theory explains just fine, no intelligent designer required or
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitroplast>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiont>
<https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(24)00182-X.pdf>
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adk1075>
To my knowledge, nitroplasts haven't been mentioned in T.O. before.
They are a newly-discovered organelle in some algae, likely evolved
from endosymbiotic bacteria, just as are mitochondria and
chloroplasts.
I'm sure there's some important reason why they don't count, just like
mitochondria don't count.
jillery
2024-07-10 03:48:56 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 08:06:55 -0700, John Harshman
Post by John Harshman
Post by jillery
MSN has been posting a lot of nonsense from Creationists and cdesign
<https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/mind-and-soul/scientific-discoveries-that-suggest-evolution-is-false/ss-BB1oN5KV?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=c43911ee82944a5598ad288c0bead685&ei=19#image=1>
<https://tinyurl.com/4na2jfrp>
*************************************
For example, Darwin’s theory does a good job with the finch birds,
explaining how variations in weather patterns result in changes in the
shape and structure of the finch beaks. However, that mechanism does
not do a good job of explaining the origins of birds or other major
animal groups in the first place. So basically, innovation, no but
modification, yes.
**************************************
They lost me at "finch birds".
Post by jillery
The above should sound very familiar to regular T.O. readers, as it's
boilerplate from "Darwin's Doubt".
The following is a good example of the "innovation" which Darwin's
theory explains just fine, no intelligent designer required or
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitroplast>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiont>
<https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(24)00182-X.pdf>
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adk1075>
To my knowledge, nitroplasts haven't been mentioned in T.O. before.
They are a newly-discovered organelle in some algae, likely evolved
from endosymbiotic bacteria, just as are mitochondria and
chloroplasts.
I'm sure there's some important reason why they don't count, just like
mitochondria don't count.
Obviously because mitochondria have no fingers or toes.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
J. J. Lodder
2024-07-10 17:46:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Harshman
Post by jillery
MSN has been posting a lot of nonsense from Creationists and cdesign
<https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/mind-and-soul/scientific-discoveries-th
at-suggest-evolution-is-false/ss-BB1oN5KV?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=c43911ee82944a5598ad288c0bead685&ei=19#image=1>
Post by John Harshman
Post by jillery
<https://tinyurl.com/4na2jfrp>
*************************************
For example, Darwin's theory does a good job with the finch birds,
explaining how variations in weather patterns result in changes in the
shape and structure of the finch beaks. However, that mechanism does
not do a good job of explaining the origins of birds or other major
animal groups in the first place. So basically, innovation, no but
modification, yes.
**************************************
They lost me at "finch birds".
Come on, any city slicker knows
that there are finch birds and float birds,

Jan
erik simpson
2024-07-09 15:21:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by jillery
MSN has been posting a lot of nonsense from Creationists and cdesign
<https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/mind-and-soul/scientific-discoveries-that-suggest-evolution-is-false/ss-BB1oN5KV?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=c43911ee82944a5598ad288c0bead685&ei=19#image=1>
<https://tinyurl.com/4na2jfrp>
*************************************
For example, Darwin’s theory does a good job with the finch birds,
explaining how variations in weather patterns result in changes in the
shape and structure of the finch beaks. However, that mechanism does
not do a good job of explaining the origins of birds or other major
animal groups in the first place. So basically, innovation, no but
modification, yes.
**************************************
The above should sound very familiar to regular T.O. readers, as it's
boilerplate from "Darwin's Doubt".
The following is a good example of the "innovation" which Darwin's
theory explains just fine, no intelligent designer required or
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitroplast>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiont>
<https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(24)00182-X.pdf>
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adk1075>
To my knowledge, nitroplasts haven't been mentioned in T.O. before.
They are a newly-discovered organelle in some algae, likely evolved
from endosymbiotic bacteria, just as are mitochondria and
chloroplasts.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
I've noticed MSN showing up in GoogleNews (science) category lately.
It's pretty much all crap and should be ignored.
jillery
2024-07-10 03:52:40 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 08:21:36 -0700, erik simpson
Post by erik simpson
Post by jillery
MSN has been posting a lot of nonsense from Creationists and cdesign
<https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/mind-and-soul/scientific-discoveries-that-suggest-evolution-is-false/ss-BB1oN5KV?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=c43911ee82944a5598ad288c0bead685&ei=19#image=1>
<https://tinyurl.com/4na2jfrp>
*************************************
For example, Darwin’s theory does a good job with the finch birds,
explaining how variations in weather patterns result in changes in the
shape and structure of the finch beaks. However, that mechanism does
not do a good job of explaining the origins of birds or other major
animal groups in the first place. So basically, innovation, no but
modification, yes.
**************************************
The above should sound very familiar to regular T.O. readers, as it's
boilerplate from "Darwin's Doubt".
The following is a good example of the "innovation" which Darwin's
theory explains just fine, no intelligent designer required or
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitroplast>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiont>
<https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(24)00182-X.pdf>
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adk1075>
To my knowledge, nitroplasts haven't been mentioned in T.O. before.
They are a newly-discovered organelle in some algae, likely evolved
from endosymbiotic bacteria, just as are mitochondria and
chloroplasts.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
I've noticed MSN showing up in GoogleNews (science) category lately.
It's pretty much all crap and should be ignored.
It's both unethical and irresponsible to post Creationist and ID
claims as hard facts without identifying them as baseless opinions and
without identifying the source of these opinions.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
erik simpson
2024-07-10 05:03:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by jillery
On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 08:21:36 -0700, erik simpson
Post by erik simpson
Post by jillery
MSN has been posting a lot of nonsense from Creationists and cdesign
<https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/mind-and-soul/scientific-discoveries-that-suggest-evolution-is-false/ss-BB1oN5KV?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=c43911ee82944a5598ad288c0bead685&ei=19#image=1>
<https://tinyurl.com/4na2jfrp>
*************************************
For example, Darwin’s theory does a good job with the finch birds,
explaining how variations in weather patterns result in changes in the
shape and structure of the finch beaks. However, that mechanism does
not do a good job of explaining the origins of birds or other major
animal groups in the first place. So basically, innovation, no but
modification, yes.
**************************************
The above should sound very familiar to regular T.O. readers, as it's
boilerplate from "Darwin's Doubt".
The following is a good example of the "innovation" which Darwin's
theory explains just fine, no intelligent designer required or
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitroplast>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiont>
<https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(24)00182-X.pdf>
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adk1075>
To my knowledge, nitroplasts haven't been mentioned in T.O. before.
They are a newly-discovered organelle in some algae, likely evolved
from endosymbiotic bacteria, just as are mitochondria and
chloroplasts.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
I've noticed MSN showing up in GoogleNews (science) category lately.
It's pretty much all crap and should be ignored.
It's both unethical and irresponsible to post Creationist and ID
claims as hard facts without identifying them as baseless opinions and
without identifying the source of these opinions.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
Hey, it's Microsoft. Remember the classic choice: Abort Retry Ignore.
Always go with Ignore.
jillery
2024-07-15 07:27:11 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 22:03:39 -0700, erik simpson
Post by erik simpson
Post by jillery
On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 08:21:36 -0700, erik simpson
Post by erik simpson
Post by jillery
MSN has been posting a lot of nonsense from Creationists and cdesign
<https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/mind-and-soul/scientific-discoveries-that-suggest-evolution-is-false/ss-BB1oN5KV?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=c43911ee82944a5598ad288c0bead685&ei=19#image=1>
<https://tinyurl.com/4na2jfrp>
*************************************
For example, Darwin’s theory does a good job with the finch birds,
explaining how variations in weather patterns result in changes in the
shape and structure of the finch beaks. However, that mechanism does
not do a good job of explaining the origins of birds or other major
animal groups in the first place. So basically, innovation, no but
modification, yes.
**************************************
The above should sound very familiar to regular T.O. readers, as it's
boilerplate from "Darwin's Doubt".
The following is a good example of the "innovation" which Darwin's
theory explains just fine, no intelligent designer required or
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitroplast>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiont>
<https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(24)00182-X.pdf>
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adk1075>
To my knowledge, nitroplasts haven't been mentioned in T.O. before.
They are a newly-discovered organelle in some algae, likely evolved
from endosymbiotic bacteria, just as are mitochondria and
chloroplasts.
I've noticed MSN showing up in GoogleNews (science) category lately.
It's pretty much all crap and should be ignored.
It's both unethical and irresponsible to post Creationist and ID
claims as hard facts without identifying them as baseless opinions and
without identifying the source of these opinions.
Hey, it's Microsoft. Remember the classic choice: Abort Retry Ignore.
Always go with Ignore.
Ignoring willful stupidity lets it grow and fester, as history and
recent events continue to demonstrate.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
erik simpson
2024-07-15 15:54:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by jillery
On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 22:03:39 -0700, erik simpson
Post by erik simpson
Post by jillery
On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 08:21:36 -0700, erik simpson
Post by erik simpson
Post by jillery
MSN has been posting a lot of nonsense from Creationists and cdesign
<https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/mind-and-soul/scientific-discoveries-that-suggest-evolution-is-false/ss-BB1oN5KV?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=c43911ee82944a5598ad288c0bead685&ei=19#image=1>
<https://tinyurl.com/4na2jfrp>
*************************************
For example, Darwin’s theory does a good job with the finch birds,
explaining how variations in weather patterns result in changes in the
shape and structure of the finch beaks. However, that mechanism does
not do a good job of explaining the origins of birds or other major
animal groups in the first place. So basically, innovation, no but
modification, yes.
**************************************
The above should sound very familiar to regular T.O. readers, as it's
boilerplate from "Darwin's Doubt".
The following is a good example of the "innovation" which Darwin's
theory explains just fine, no intelligent designer required or
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitroplast>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiont>
<https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(24)00182-X.pdf>
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adk1075>
To my knowledge, nitroplasts haven't been mentioned in T.O. before.
They are a newly-discovered organelle in some algae, likely evolved
from endosymbiotic bacteria, just as are mitochondria and
chloroplasts.
I've noticed MSN showing up in GoogleNews (science) category lately.
It's pretty much all crap and should be ignored.
It's both unethical and irresponsible to post Creationist and ID
claims as hard facts without identifying them as baseless opinions and
without identifying the source of these opinions.
Hey, it's Microsoft. Remember the classic choice: Abort Retry Ignore.
Always go with Ignore.
Ignoring willful stupidity lets it grow and fester, as history and
recent events continue to demonstrate.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
https://xkcd.com/386/
jillery
2024-07-16 02:53:58 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 08:54:57 -0700, erik simpson
Post by erik simpson
Post by jillery
On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 22:03:39 -0700, erik simpson
Post by erik simpson
Post by jillery
On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 08:21:36 -0700, erik simpson
Post by erik simpson
Post by jillery
MSN has been posting a lot of nonsense from Creationists and cdesign
<https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/mind-and-soul/scientific-discoveries-that-suggest-evolution-is-false/ss-BB1oN5KV?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=c43911ee82944a5598ad288c0bead685&ei=19#image=1>
<https://tinyurl.com/4na2jfrp>
*************************************
For example, Darwin’s theory does a good job with the finch birds,
explaining how variations in weather patterns result in changes in the
shape and structure of the finch beaks. However, that mechanism does
not do a good job of explaining the origins of birds or other major
animal groups in the first place. So basically, innovation, no but
modification, yes.
**************************************
The above should sound very familiar to regular T.O. readers, as it's
boilerplate from "Darwin's Doubt".
The following is a good example of the "innovation" which Darwin's
theory explains just fine, no intelligent designer required or
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitroplast>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiont>
<https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(24)00182-X.pdf>
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adk1075>
To my knowledge, nitroplasts haven't been mentioned in T.O. before.
They are a newly-discovered organelle in some algae, likely evolved
from endosymbiotic bacteria, just as are mitochondria and
chloroplasts.
I've noticed MSN showing up in GoogleNews (science) category lately.
It's pretty much all crap and should be ignored.
It's both unethical and irresponsible to post Creationist and ID
claims as hard facts without identifying them as baseless opinions and
without identifying the source of these opinions.
Hey, it's Microsoft. Remember the classic choice: Abort Retry Ignore.
Always go with Ignore.
Ignoring willful stupidity lets it grow and fester, as history and
recent events continue to demonstrate.
https://xkcd.com/386/
That's what everybody does on T.O., including you. A subtle
distinction is people like me criticize the willfully stupid, while
people like you criticize people like me. Perhaps it has something to
do with free will. I leave as an exercise which behavior is better
for the froup.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
Kerr-Mudd, John
2024-07-17 09:11:10 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 22:53:58 -0400
Post by jillery
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 08:54:57 -0700, erik simpson
Post by erik simpson
Post by jillery
On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 22:03:39 -0700, erik simpson
[]
Post by jillery
Post by erik simpson
Post by jillery
Post by erik simpson
Hey, it's Microsoft. Remember the classic choice: Abort Retry Ignore.
Always go with Ignore.
Ignoring willful stupidity lets it grow and fester, as history and
recent events continue to demonstrate.
https://xkcd.com/386/
That's what everybody does on T.O., including you. A subtle
distinction is people like me criticize the willfully stupid, while
people like you criticize people like me. Perhaps it has something to
do with free will. I leave as an exercise which behavior is better
for the froup.
Seems like criticising criticism is 'en vogue' here. Despite (because?)
there are so few regulars.

You're all a bunch of critics!
</paraphrase LoB>
--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.
erik simpson
2024-07-17 19:59:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 22:53:58 -0400
Post by jillery
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 08:54:57 -0700, erik simpson
Post by erik simpson
Post by jillery
On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 22:03:39 -0700, erik simpson
[]
Post by jillery
Post by erik simpson
Post by jillery
Post by erik simpson
Hey, it's Microsoft. Remember the classic choice: Abort Retry Ignore.
Always go with Ignore.
Ignoring willful stupidity lets it grow and fester, as history and
recent events continue to demonstrate.
https://xkcd.com/386/
That's what everybody does on T.O., including you. A subtle
distinction is people like me criticize the willfully stupid, while
people like you criticize people like me. Perhaps it has something to
do with free will. I leave as an exercise which behavior is better
for the froup.
Seems like criticising criticism is 'en vogue' here. Despite (because?)
there are so few regulars.
You're all a bunch of critics!
</paraphrase LoB>
You're right that the number of participants here is declining rapidly,
and there isn't a lot of disagreement among those left. The
creationists are gone, and with R. Dean the last of the ID (whatever
that ever meant) proponents are also gone. Occasional interesting
topics may appear, and I appreciate the comments from those better
informed than I am. For Jillery, I didn't intend any criticism of you
in your or Ron O's determination to call out willful stupidity where you
find it. There's certainly plenty of it around.
*Hemidactylus*
2024-07-19 23:15:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by erik simpson
Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 22:53:58 -0400
Post by jillery
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 08:54:57 -0700, erik simpson
Post by erik simpson
Post by jillery
On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 22:03:39 -0700, erik simpson
[]
Post by jillery
Post by erik simpson
Post by jillery
Post by erik simpson
Hey, it's Microsoft. Remember the classic choice: Abort Retry Ignore.
Always go with Ignore.
Ignoring willful stupidity lets it grow and fester, as history and
recent events continue to demonstrate.
https://xkcd.com/386/
That's what everybody does on T.O., including you. A subtle
distinction is people like me criticize the willfully stupid, while
people like you criticize people like me. Perhaps it has something to
do with free will. I leave as an exercise which behavior is better
for the froup.
Seems like criticising criticism is 'en vogue' here. Despite (because?)
there are so few regulars.
You're all a bunch of critics!
</paraphrase LoB>
You're right that the number of participants here is declining rapidly,
and there isn't a lot of disagreement among those left. The
creationists are gone, and with R. Dean the last of the ID (whatever
that ever meant) proponents are also gone. Occasional interesting
topics may appear, and I appreciate the comments from those better
informed than I am. For Jillery, I didn't intend any criticism of you
in your or Ron O's determination to call out willful stupidity where you
find it. There's certainly plenty of it around.
I haven’t been paying much attention here lately. I have JTEM engaged
threads flagged pink and there seems to be a few lately. Not sure how much
longer I’ll follow usenet.
jillery
2024-07-19 03:19:26 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 10:11:10 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 22:53:58 -0400
Post by jillery
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 08:54:57 -0700, erik simpson
Post by erik simpson
Post by jillery
On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 22:03:39 -0700, erik simpson
[]
Post by jillery
Post by erik simpson
Post by jillery
Post by erik simpson
Hey, it's Microsoft. Remember the classic choice: Abort Retry Ignore.
Always go with Ignore.
Ignoring willful stupidity lets it grow and fester, as history and
recent events continue to demonstrate.
https://xkcd.com/386/
That's what everybody does on T.O., including you. A subtle
distinction is people like me criticize the willfully stupid, while
people like you criticize people like me. Perhaps it has something to
do with free will. I leave as an exercise which behavior is better
for the froup.
Seems like criticising criticism is 'en vogue' here. Despite (because?)
there are so few regulars.
You're all a bunch of critics!
</paraphrase LoB>
The ultimate reward for trolls is not just to get attention, but is to
get the regulars to critize each other. When that happens, I imagine
the provocateurs quivering in orgasmic delight. That's one way
mindlessly dismissive stereotypes like the cited XKCD meme aid and
abet willfully stupid behavior.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
Kerr-Mudd, John
2024-07-19 08:02:33 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 23:19:26 -0400
Post by jillery
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 10:11:10 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 22:53:58 -0400
Post by jillery
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 08:54:57 -0700, erik simpson
Post by erik simpson
Post by jillery
On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 22:03:39 -0700, erik simpson
[]
Post by jillery
Post by erik simpson
Post by jillery
Post by erik simpson
Hey, it's Microsoft. Remember the classic choice: Abort Retry Ignore.
Always go with Ignore.
Ignoring willful stupidity lets it grow and fester, as history and
recent events continue to demonstrate.
https://xkcd.com/386/
That's what everybody does on T.O., including you. A subtle
distinction is people like me criticize the willfully stupid, while
people like you criticize people like me. Perhaps it has something to
do with free will. I leave as an exercise which behavior is better
for the froup.
Seems like criticising criticism is 'en vogue' here. Despite (because?)
there are so few regulars.
You're all a bunch of critics!
</paraphrase LoB>
The ultimate reward for trolls is not just to get attention, but is to
get the regulars to critize each other. When that happens, I imagine
the provocateurs quivering in orgasmic delight. That's one way
mindlessly dismissive stereotypes like the cited XKCD meme aid and
abet willfully stupid behavior.
I doubt anyone is bothering to troll here (though JTEM does like to be
overly aggressive) . There do seem to be some long held grievances though.

Death of Usenet is coming soon anyway.
--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.
jillery
2024-07-21 12:32:33 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 19 Jul 2024 09:02:33 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 23:19:26 -0400
Post by jillery
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 10:11:10 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 22:53:58 -0400
Post by jillery
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 08:54:57 -0700, erik simpson
Post by erik simpson
Post by jillery
On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 22:03:39 -0700, erik simpson
[]
Post by jillery
Post by erik simpson
Post by jillery
Post by erik simpson
Hey, it's Microsoft. Remember the classic choice: Abort Retry Ignore.
Always go with Ignore.
Ignoring willful stupidity lets it grow and fester, as history and
recent events continue to demonstrate.
https://xkcd.com/386/
That's what everybody does on T.O., including you. A subtle
distinction is people like me criticize the willfully stupid, while
people like you criticize people like me. Perhaps it has something to
do with free will. I leave as an exercise which behavior is better
for the froup.
Seems like criticising criticism is 'en vogue' here. Despite (because?)
there are so few regulars.
You're all a bunch of critics!
</paraphrase LoB>
The ultimate reward for trolls is not just to get attention, but is to
get the regulars to critize each other. When that happens, I imagine
the provocateurs quivering in orgasmic delight. That's one way
mindlessly dismissive stereotypes like the cited XKCD meme aid and
abet willfully stupid behavior.
I doubt anyone is bothering to troll here (though JTEM does like to be
overly aggressive) . There do seem to be some long held grievances though.
Death of Usenet is coming soon anyway.
JTEM and his posts are perfect examples of trolls IMO. Apparently
your mileage varies.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
RonO
2024-07-22 00:40:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 23:19:26 -0400
Post by jillery
On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 10:11:10 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 22:53:58 -0400
Post by jillery
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 08:54:57 -0700, erik simpson
Post by erik simpson
Post by jillery
On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 22:03:39 -0700, erik simpson
[]
Post by jillery
Post by erik simpson
Post by jillery
Post by erik simpson
Hey, it's Microsoft. Remember the classic choice: Abort Retry Ignore.
Always go with Ignore.
Ignoring willful stupidity lets it grow and fester, as history and
recent events continue to demonstrate.
https://xkcd.com/386/
That's what everybody does on T.O., including you. A subtle
distinction is people like me criticize the willfully stupid, while
people like you criticize people like me. Perhaps it has something to
do with free will. I leave as an exercise which behavior is better
for the froup.
Seems like criticising criticism is 'en vogue' here. Despite (because?)
there are so few regulars.
You're all a bunch of critics!
</paraphrase LoB>
The ultimate reward for trolls is not just to get attention, but is to
get the regulars to critize each other. When that happens, I imagine
the provocateurs quivering in orgasmic delight. That's one way
mindlessly dismissive stereotypes like the cited XKCD meme aid and
abet willfully stupid behavior.
I doubt anyone is bothering to troll here (though JTEM does like to be
overly aggressive) . There do seem to be some long held grievances though.
Death of Usenet is coming soon anyway.
The reality is that once the ID scam died on TO some of the regulars
started to feed on each other. That started to become an issue a decade
ago as the ID scam subsided. Philip Johnson quit the ID scam in 2006,
and by 2007 supporters like Mike Gene and Salvador Cordova were
admitting that the ID science had never existed. After the double bait
and switch on both Texas and Louisiana in 2013, and the ID perps removal
of the paragraph about teaching ID in the public schools from their
education policy. ID was pretty much dead as a public issue for several
years. It wasn't until 2017 that the ID perps had to run the bait and
switch on the Utah creationist rubes that wanted to teach ID in their
public schools and were too stupid understand what had been going down
for over 15 years. With the decline of the ID scam over a decade ago
the regulars turned on themselves, probably as convenient targets.

Usenet isn't the only thing going out. After the ID perps shot
themselves in the head by putting up the Top Six best evidences for
IDiocy, not enough IDiotic creationists were dishonest and stupid enough
to keep trying to support the scam and the ID perps had to pull the plug
on Uncommon Descent. The ID scam didn't just die on TO. The ARN
discussion group died after Dover. The ISCID (IDiot science
organization) closed the doors in 2008. In 2009 the ID Network threw in
the towel and started COPE to keep selling the obfuscation and denial
switch scam without having ID in the name of their organization. I
noticed that the ID Network is back in business, but it looks like they
are not serious about the effort and are just using ID as bait like the
Discovery Institute because creationists aren't interested in supporting
the obfuscation and denial switch scam without associating it with the
ID creationist scam. There just are not enough legitimate creationist
issues to discuss. The ID perps have kept selling the teach ID scam to
the rubes, but ID has only been used as bait for the last 22 years.
Every single instance that any creationist group has tried to actually
teach the junk the bait and switch has gone down and all the rubes get
is the obfuscation and denial switch scam that the ID perps tell the
creationists has nothing to do with ID. The ID perps have been the most
effective suppression of teaching creationism in the public schools for
the last two decades. The IDiotic type creationists have never listened
to the science side of the issue, but when the guys who sold them the
scam tell you not to do it, most creationist rubes listen. Nearly all
of them have dropped the issue instead of bending over for the switch
scam.

Ron Okimoto
J. J. Lodder
2024-07-21 15:40:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 22:53:58 -0400
Post by jillery
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 08:54:57 -0700, erik simpson
Post by erik simpson
Post by jillery
On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 22:03:39 -0700, erik simpson
[]
Post by jillery
Post by erik simpson
Post by jillery
Post by erik simpson
Hey, it's Microsoft. Remember the classic choice: Abort Retry Ignore.
Always go with Ignore.
Ignoring willful stupidity lets it grow and fester, as history and
recent events continue to demonstrate.
https://xkcd.com/386/
That's what everybody does on T.O., including you. A subtle
distinction is people like me criticize the willfully stupid, while
people like you criticize people like me. Perhaps it has something to
do with free will. I leave as an exercise which behavior is better
for the froup.
Seems like criticising criticism is 'en vogue' here. Despite (because?)
there are so few regulars.
And some regulars here have very sensitve knees
that will jerk at the slightest tap.
(nobody in particular in mind of course)

Jan
jillery
2024-07-22 09:21:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 22:53:58 -0400
Post by jillery
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 08:54:57 -0700, erik simpson
Post by erik simpson
Post by jillery
On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 22:03:39 -0700, erik simpson
[]
Post by jillery
Post by erik simpson
Post by jillery
Post by erik simpson
Hey, it's Microsoft. Remember the classic choice: Abort Retry Ignore.
Always go with Ignore.
Ignoring willful stupidity lets it grow and fester, as history and
recent events continue to demonstrate.
https://xkcd.com/386/
That's what everybody does on T.O., including you. A subtle
distinction is people like me criticize the willfully stupid, while
people like you criticize people like me. Perhaps it has something to
do with free will. I leave as an exercise which behavior is better
for the froup.
Seems like criticising criticism is 'en vogue' here. Despite (because?)
there are so few regulars.
And some regulars here have very sensitve knees
that will jerk at the slightest tap.
(nobody in particular in mind of course)
Jan
And some regulars here love to act the troll. Apparently willful
stupidity is all they know.

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

JTEM
2024-07-09 17:17:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by jillery
MSN has been posting a lot of nonsense from Creationists and cdesign
<https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/mind-and-soul/scientific-discoveries-that-suggest-evolution-is-false/ss-BB1oN5KV?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=c43911ee82944a5598ad288c0bead685&ei=19#image=1>
<https://tinyurl.com/4na2jfrp>
Oh, come on! It starts with "Darwin's theory of evolution" so right
away you know it's useless. I mean, if it was printed on paper you
could at least wipe your ass with it but, as a web page is has no
justification for existing.

You might as well get angry at a "Science" story that begins with:

"The pixies that live in my garden explained that..."
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5
RonO
2024-07-09 21:39:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by jillery
MSN has been posting a lot of nonsense from Creationists and cdesign
<https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/mind-and-soul/scientific-discoveries-that-suggest-evolution-is-false/ss-BB1oN5KV?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=c43911ee82944a5598ad288c0bead685&ei=19#image=1>
<https://tinyurl.com/4na2jfrp>
*************************************
For example, Darwin’s theory does a good job with the finch birds,
explaining how variations in weather patterns result in changes in the
shape and structure of the finch beaks. However, that mechanism does
not do a good job of explaining the origins of birds or other major
animal groups in the first place. So basically, innovation, no but
modification, yes.
**************************************
The above should sound very familiar to regular T.O. readers, as it's
boilerplate from "Darwin's Doubt".
The following is a good example of the "innovation" which Darwin's
theory explains just fine, no intelligent designer required or
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitroplast>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiont>
<https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(24)00182-X.pdf>
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adk1075>
To my knowledge, nitroplasts haven't been mentioned in T.O. before.
They are a newly-discovered organelle in some algae, likely evolved
from endosymbiotic bacteria, just as are mitochondria and
chloroplasts.
Nitroplasts haven't seemed to have garnered much scientific interest.
The bacteria seems to have been identified in 1998 and classified as an
endosymbiont in 2013. Wiki claims that they are researching how to
transfer the endosymbiont to crop plants. Some crop plants (legumes)
can produce nitrogen fixing root nodules that protect nitrogen fixing
bacteria. The nitrogen fixing bacteria are anaerobic and have to be
protected against oxygen. Photosynthetic cyanobacteria can fix
nitrogen, and supposedly could fix nitrogen before they evolved aerobic
photosynthesis, and they had to adapt the anaerobic nitrogen fixing to
their oxygen generating carbon compound production. Apparently they fix
nitrogen at night when photosynthesis is turned off and not producing
oxygen. The nitroplasts, must do the same thing. It will likely be
tricky to adapt them to crop plants. You don't want them taking up
space in the leaves that need to be packed with chloroplasts, so they
would need to be reverse regulated. Then need to be fully formed and
active in the roots (chloroplasts exist in root cells, but they are not
fully formed and functional) and need to be limited in number in the
leaves, and somehow you need to keep oxygen away from them in the root
cells. This will be hard to do because root cells are still aerobic and
need oxygen. Some plants like rice that can survive flooding can
tolerate lower oxygen levels, but most plants can't.

Ron Okimoto
Post by jillery
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
jillery
2024-07-10 04:03:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by RonO
Post by jillery
MSN has been posting a lot of nonsense from Creationists and cdesign
<https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/mind-and-soul/scientific-discoveries-that-suggest-evolution-is-false/ss-BB1oN5KV?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=c43911ee82944a5598ad288c0bead685&ei=19#image=1>
<https://tinyurl.com/4na2jfrp>
*************************************
For example, Darwin’s theory does a good job with the finch birds,
explaining how variations in weather patterns result in changes in the
shape and structure of the finch beaks. However, that mechanism does
not do a good job of explaining the origins of birds or other major
animal groups in the first place. So basically, innovation, no but
modification, yes.
**************************************
The above should sound very familiar to regular T.O. readers, as it's
boilerplate from "Darwin's Doubt".
The following is a good example of the "innovation" which Darwin's
theory explains just fine, no intelligent designer required or
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitroplast>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiont>
<https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(24)00182-X.pdf>
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adk1075>
To my knowledge, nitroplasts haven't been mentioned in T.O. before.
They are a newly-discovered organelle in some algae, likely evolved
from endosymbiotic bacteria, just as are mitochondria and
chloroplasts.
Nitroplasts haven't seemed to have garnered much scientific interest.
The bacteria seems to have been identified in 1998 and classified as an
endosymbiont in 2013. Wiki claims that they are researching how to
transfer the endosymbiont to crop plants. Some crop plants (legumes)
can produce nitrogen fixing root nodules that protect nitrogen fixing
bacteria. The nitrogen fixing bacteria are anaerobic and have to be
protected against oxygen. Photosynthetic cyanobacteria can fix
nitrogen, and supposedly could fix nitrogen before they evolved aerobic
photosynthesis, and they had to adapt the anaerobic nitrogen fixing to
their oxygen generating carbon compound production. Apparently they fix
nitrogen at night when photosynthesis is turned off and not producing
oxygen. The nitroplasts, must do the same thing. It will likely be
tricky to adapt them to crop plants. You don't want them taking up
space in the leaves that need to be packed with chloroplasts, so they
would need to be reverse regulated. Then need to be fully formed and
active in the roots (chloroplasts exist in root cells, but they are not
fully formed and functional) and need to be limited in number in the
leaves, and somehow you need to keep oxygen away from them in the root
cells. This will be hard to do because root cells are still aerobic and
need oxygen. Some plants like rice that can survive flooding can
tolerate lower oxygen levels, but most plants can't.
Ron Okimoto
IIUC the recent newsworthy bit about nitroblasts is their existence as
organelles, using proteins from the hosts' nuclear DNA.

Also, according to this:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atelocyanobacterium_thalassa>
************************************
Unlike many other cyanobacteria, the genome of A. thalassa does not
contain genes for RuBisCO, photosystem II, or the TCA cycle.
Consequently, A. thalassa lacks the ability to fix carbon via
photosynthesis. Some genes specific to the cyanobacteria group are
also absent from the A. thalassa genome despite being an evolutionary
descendant of this group. With the inability to fix their own carbon,
A. thalassa are obligate symbionts that have been found within
photosynthetic picoeukaryote algae.
***********************************

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
RonO
2024-07-10 14:50:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by jillery
Post by RonO
Post by jillery
MSN has been posting a lot of nonsense from Creationists and cdesign
<https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/mind-and-soul/scientific-discoveries-that-suggest-evolution-is-false/ss-BB1oN5KV?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=c43911ee82944a5598ad288c0bead685&ei=19#image=1>
<https://tinyurl.com/4na2jfrp>
*************************************
For example, Darwin’s theory does a good job with the finch birds,
explaining how variations in weather patterns result in changes in the
shape and structure of the finch beaks. However, that mechanism does
not do a good job of explaining the origins of birds or other major
animal groups in the first place. So basically, innovation, no but
modification, yes.
**************************************
The above should sound very familiar to regular T.O. readers, as it's
boilerplate from "Darwin's Doubt".
The following is a good example of the "innovation" which Darwin's
theory explains just fine, no intelligent designer required or
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitroplast>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiont>
<https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(24)00182-X.pdf>
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adk1075>
To my knowledge, nitroplasts haven't been mentioned in T.O. before.
They are a newly-discovered organelle in some algae, likely evolved
from endosymbiotic bacteria, just as are mitochondria and
chloroplasts.
Nitroplasts haven't seemed to have garnered much scientific interest.
The bacteria seems to have been identified in 1998 and classified as an
endosymbiont in 2013. Wiki claims that they are researching how to
transfer the endosymbiont to crop plants. Some crop plants (legumes)
can produce nitrogen fixing root nodules that protect nitrogen fixing
bacteria. The nitrogen fixing bacteria are anaerobic and have to be
protected against oxygen. Photosynthetic cyanobacteria can fix
nitrogen, and supposedly could fix nitrogen before they evolved aerobic
photosynthesis, and they had to adapt the anaerobic nitrogen fixing to
their oxygen generating carbon compound production. Apparently they fix
nitrogen at night when photosynthesis is turned off and not producing
oxygen. The nitroplasts, must do the same thing. It will likely be
tricky to adapt them to crop plants. You don't want them taking up
space in the leaves that need to be packed with chloroplasts, so they
would need to be reverse regulated. Then need to be fully formed and
active in the roots (chloroplasts exist in root cells, but they are not
fully formed and functional) and need to be limited in number in the
leaves, and somehow you need to keep oxygen away from them in the root
cells. This will be hard to do because root cells are still aerobic and
need oxygen. Some plants like rice that can survive flooding can
tolerate lower oxygen levels, but most plants can't.
Ron Okimoto
IIUC the recent newsworthy bit about nitroblasts is their existence as
organelles, using proteins from the hosts' nuclear DNA.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atelocyanobacterium_thalassa>
************************************
Unlike many other cyanobacteria, the genome of A. thalassa does not
contain genes for RuBisCO, photosystem II, or the TCA cycle.
Consequently, A. thalassa lacks the ability to fix carbon via
photosynthesis. Some genes specific to the cyanobacteria group are
also absent from the A. thalassa genome despite being an evolutionary
descendant of this group. With the inability to fix their own carbon,
A. thalassa are obligate symbionts that have been found within
photosynthetic picoeukaryote algae.
***********************************
They can no longer do aerobic photosynthesis so do not produce oxygen
themselves, but have retained the anaerobic nitrogen fixing capability.
They must have evolved some way to avoid the oxygen produced by the
picoeukaryote algae chloroplasts or only fix nitrogen at night like
other cyanobacteria that can still run aerobic photosynthesis.

Ron Okimoto
Post by jillery
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
Loading...