The Skeptics Wink and Nod.

Here is an informative little video by a guy named Steve Mould who does a lot of “science” videos on youtube.  Its all (ostensibly) about how simple little processes can make “meaningful” structures from stochastic processes-and he uses magnetic shaped little parts to show this.  Its a popular channeled followed by millions, and is often referenced by other famous people in the science community-and his fans love it.

And hey, it does show how meaningful structures CAN form from random processes.  Right?  So you can learn from this.  Wink, wink.  Nod, nod. And all the skeptics will know exactly what he is really saying.  Cause we are all part of the clique that knows this language-the language of the skeptic propagandist.  I mean, he almost hides it, the real message, it is just under the surface, and the less skeptically aware, the casualist, might even miss it.  The casualist might not learn as much about Steve Mould and what he is trying to say here-but the skeptic knows.  “See, atheism is true! Spread the word!” Steve has given the wink. The same wink used by DeGrasse Tyson, and Sean Carroll, Lawrence Krauss, Brian Greene, and on and on.  You know the one.

And for 95% of his viewers, whether they know it or not, they got his message.  I mean, look, its plain as day, right?  He just showed you, that is certainly a meaningful structure that arose from random processes, isn’t it?  Its defintely meaningful, its a, a, a , well, it’s shape that, we have a, a  name for…that’s kind of…anyway, defintely random, I mean other than the magnets and the precut shapes, and the little ball with nothing else inside, and the shaking only until its just right then stopping kind of way…That’s random kind of right???

But there are 5% percent of his viewers that spotted his little wink and nod, and said, hold on a second.  If you want us to believe that your little explanation about how simply life can form from nonsense without a plan, how blind exactly do you want us to be?  95%, they are hooked, you got them (Ryan StallardThere are so many creationist videos this obliterates. Especially 4:18.). But some likeGhryst VanGhod helpfully point out: “this is incorrect. the kinesin travels along fibres within the cell and takes the various molecules exactly where they need to be, they are not randomly “jumbling around in solution”. https://youtu.be/gbycQf1TbM0  ” and then you get to see a video that tells you just a few more of the things that are ACTUALLY happening which are even more amazing if you weren’t already skeptical (the real kind).

And if you go through some more of the comments you will notice a few more (real) skeptics, not the wink and nod kind, and you will start to notice why the wink nod propogandist skeptics everywhere you look in modern culture are a very puposefully designed cancer on knowledge and thought.

1,212 thoughts on “The Skeptics Wink and Nod.

  1. And now for something completely different. I hope nobody minds me derailing the previous highly intellectual exchange.

    Rumraket: What I’m saying is that the purpose exists only as an idea in your head when you think about the protein and try to characterize what it does.

    True.

    Rumraket: I could say the protein’s function is to weigh X number of daltons, or to serve as a sink for carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen. Or to take up the space it occupies. Those are among the real effects it has. I could pick any of the effects or attributes of the protein and call that it’s purpose, or it’s function.

    Also true, but I would argue that some of those functions are more intuitive and therefore better suited as descriptions of its function. There is a reason why alcohol dehydrogenase is not called “weighs-hundredfortysix-kilodaltonase”.

    Rumraket: What example?

    I meant the attribution of function to proteins. Sorry if that was unclear.

    Rumraket: I don’t see how you could possibly disagree with that. What is it based on that isn’t ultimately an arbitrary imposition on whatever effects it might have?

    As stated above, I believe some attributes of biological organisms are more plausibly described in teleological terms than others. If you say the purpose of a human heart is to weigh approximately 300 grams then that sounds a bit contrived, no?

    Rumraket: Are there any studies where they try to directly compare teaching approaches where they teach students to understand some physical or chemical process, using teleological vs non-teleological language?

    Not that I am aware of. I was just going by gut-feeling here.

  2. Alan Fox: You are attacking straw men again.

    A strawman, what?? Are you making up new meanings for words again?

    What is the strawman? Scientists believing that life could be a computer simulation is not a strawman. Heaven knows what you think a strawman means.

  3. phoodoo: What is the strawman?

    This: Scientists believing that life could be a computer simulation…

    A more accurate claim would be that some scientists (and some people who are not scientists) suggest the logical possibility that life is a simulation.I doubt that anyone putting the idea forward believe the idea as actual reality. Citations would prove me wrong.

    Heaven knows what you think a strawman means.

    Instead of attacking the view someone actually holds, one erects a false, usually weaker, position and attacks that instead. This is often heavily laden with innuendo “you say this but what you really mean is…” while obfuscating rather than clarifying, God forbid asking what someone’s view actually is and accepting their answer. Recognize yourself now?

  4. Corneel: And now for something completely different.

    Your comment could be the opening post of a new thread. Readers might take more notice and may not see it buried deep in the comments here. Why not?

  5. Alan Fox: I doubt that anyone putting the idea forward believe the idea as actual reality.

    Because that would be idiotic, right?

    Of course of course, IF someone believed that, we can both agree, totally idiotic. Absurdly stupid. Imbecilic.

  6. phoodoo: Of course of course, IF someone believed that, we can both agree, totally idiotic. Absurdly stupid. Imbecilic.

    Nope, they’d be mistaken. I’ve never seen a justification for any version of solipsism that deals satisfactorily with surprisal. Your constant use of hyperbole undermines your credibility, I find.

  7. Neil deGrasse Tyson Thinks There’s a ‘Very High’ Chance the Universe is Just a Simulation

    But on the other hand, astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, who was hosting the debate, said that he thinks the likelihood of the universe being a simulation “may be very high.”

    https://www.businessinsider.com/neil-degrasse-tyson-thinks-the-universe-might-be-a-simulation-2016-12

    “Um, um, but he didn’t…I mean, he said very high, but not, not very very, ..um, ah, he meant…wait, I mean, simulation doesn’t mean what you thi…Um, I was talking about another Degrasse Tyson, ..I never said any such thing, what are you talking about, what post. Niche, Niche, Grandma!!!!”

  8. Larry King: “Neil, are we living in a simulation”

    Degrasse Tyson “I find it very hard to argue against that possibility.”

    “Yea, but, but, ..um..so what, he doesn’t…um….What’s your God look like then?!!”

  9. phoodoo,

    Following phoodoo’s link (well done phoodoo, that wasn’t hard.

    Earlier this year, at the 2016 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate at the American Museum of Natural History, which addressed the question of whether the universe is a simulation, the esteemed panelists took a stab at explaining how we know about that question. Depending on whether you want reality to be real or not, the answers from some panelists may be more comforting than the responses from others.

    Physicist Lisa Randall, for example, said that she thought the odds that the universe isn’t “real” are so low as to be “effectively zero.”

    A satisfying answer for those who don’t want to sit there puzzling out what it would mean for the universe not to be real, to be sure.

    But on the other hand, astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, who was hosting the debate, said that he thinks the likelihood of the universe being a simulation “may be very high.”

    There you go, Tyson is reported as saying he thinks the likelihood may be very high. I think, if that is still his view, he is mistaken.

  10. phoodoo,

    Could I suggest there are two separate issues here. What someone is alleged to believe via their reported remarks and depending on how one interprets them (this is what Corneel touched on above) is one. And this segues into language and communication, and how clarity of language plus the effort to understand points others are making are skills not evenly distributed among humans. This, I’ve already suggested, would make a good topic for a new thread.

    Whether solipsism of some form is the reality rather than our imagination is another. Phoodoo and Alan apparently both agree that solipsism is not convincing. I’m not sure if anyone present wants to argue the contrary.

  11. phoodoo: “Um, um, but he didn’t…I mean, he said very high, but not, not very very, ..um, ah, he meant

    When you put fake quotes inside quotation marks it says more about you then the people you are inventing words for.

  12. Corneel,

    To be sure, it seems difficult to do biology without talking about functions — so if function-talk is basically teleological, then we can’t do biology in non-teleological terms.

    In the history of the concept of teleology, there are at least the following important conceptual shifts:

    1. from locating purposiveness in the essential structure of each type of organism to locating purposiveness in the providential plan that God has intended for Creation

    2. rejecting the explanatory usefulness of the providential plan that God has intended for Creation in favor of mechanistic explanations that are suited for mathematical formalization and experimental manipulation;

    3. a few centuries of debate between preformationists and epigeneticists, which is orthogonal to the concurrent debate about whether life can be explained in mechanistic terms (but I’m not 100% sure of that!)

    4. the rise of Darwinian evolutionary theory which seems to provide a non-providential, non-intentional explanation for the emergence of biological functions aka adaptive traits.

    5. the rise of cybernetics as an attempt to mechanize teleology in terms of circular causality

  13. Would phoodoo agree that Nick Bostrom is a prominent exponent of the “we are in a simulation” idea. I see there is a webpage of his dedicated to the subject. There’s also a PDF of a paper by Bostrom called ARE YOU LIVING IN A COMPUTER SIMULATION? The introduction:

    Many works of science fiction as well as some forecasts by serious technologists and futurologists predict that enormous amounts of computing power will be available in the future. Let us suppose for a moment that these predictions are correct. One thing that later generations might do with their super‐powerful computers is run detailed simulations of their forebears or of people like their forebears. Because their computers would be so powerful, they could run a great many such simulations. Suppose that these simulated people are conscious (as they would be if the simulations were sufficiently fine‐grained and if a certain quite widely accepted position in the philosophy of mind is correct). Then it could be the case that the vast majority of minds like ours do not belong to the original race but rather to people simulated by the advanced descendants of an original race. It is then possible to argue that, if this were the case, we would be rational to think that we are likely among the simulated minds rather than among the original biological ones. Therefore, if we don’t think that we are currently living in a computer simulation, we are not entitled to believe that we will have descendants who will run lots of such simulations of their forebears. That is the basic idea. The rest of this paper will spell it out more carefully.

    Hmm. Whilst it seems reasonable to suppose computing power will remain on an upward trend, I’m not convinced about increasing sophistication. The limit is that no sentient entity can comprehend something more complex than itself. So no programmer can produce a simulation more complex than a programmer. The only way to improve programmers is via evolution.

  14. Rumraket:
    CharlieM: Why would that be worse for me? Looking at life in the present there is a vast range of complexity. But there is no evidence of any living system below the level of the cell.

    Rumraket: But that’s just false. I just described that evidence above. While we do not directly have a living system below the level of the cell, it is false to say there is no evidence of such a thing.

    Why do you state demonstrated falsehoods?

    I hope you are aware that it is possible to have evidence for a thing, without having the thing itself. This is such a basic thing I shouldn’t have to say it.

    I’ll rephrase my comment. There is no evidence of any living system below the level of the cell existing at a time when an earth devoid of life was speculated to have existed.

    A soup of sugars some of which are ribose is not a living system. A mixture containing amino acids, or fatty acids, or phosphoric acid can be included in a living system but by itself it is not a living system.
    .

    CharlieM: I could speculate that life has trimmed down the number of amino acids that are used in proteins.

    Rumraket: You could speculate that, but it would be inconsistent with the evidence from phylogenetics and metabolic pathway synthesis of amino acids, which show the repertoire of amino acids used to make proteins and in the genetic code expanded over time from a smaller set to the 20 we see today. I already cited papers on that.

    Why are you ignoring evidence from phylogenetics and comparative biochemistry? What is your explanation for the consilience in the results of the different methods of inferring ancestral amino acid alphabets and the abiotic distributions derived from experiments in nonbiological chemistry and observed in carbonaceous chondrites? These are prima facie evidence that supports a physical chemical origin of life from simpler beginnings. And you have no answer. And should you deign to even attempt to provide one, wouldn’t that be speculation?

    Belief: Life must have emerged from simpler beginnings. Task: Find a way to demonstrate that life emerged from simpler beginnings. Example: How Structure Arose in the Primordial Soup

    From the link above:

    The earliest amino acid letters in the code were likely the simplest in structure, those that can be made from purely chemical means, without the assistance of a protein helper. (For example, the amino acids glycine, alanine and glutamic acid have been found on meteorites, suggesting they can form spontaneously in a variety of environments.) These are like the letters A, E and S—primordial units that served as the foundation for what came later.

    It is interesting that they make the comparison with the letters of an alphabet. The precursor to these written letters were the spoken words used in communication. And these words that convey much more meaning than the letters derived from them. But they have not passed the test of time in the way that the letters have. Just because the letters are still available to us and they are more simple than the words does not mean they preceded the words.

    Rumraket: What was your position on speculation again, Charlie?

    Speculating is an extremely beneficial activity. But nobody should believe that speculation becomes fact just because it aligns with consensus opinion.

    Rumraket: I’m tired of seeing you magic-thinking sycophants invoke life’s origins and complexity as if you have ANY fucking valid point to make on this. The fact is science is not just getting nearer explaining the origin of life every year by accounting for basic biochemical facts of life.

    Just this year we found a pre-biotic basis for why ATP is used as the universal energy currency of life:
    Why ATP? Abiotic chemistry provides an answer .

    So never mind all the things we can’t yet explain how originated, you guys can’t even explain ANY of the shit we already have explanations for. You just make shit up, literally.

    A wishing intending disembodied mind that can make shit appear into thin air did it. And this is somehow not “speculative”, or a “just-so story”?

    I don’t need to go as far as arguing about minds in this discussion. The level of the field-like etheric life principle is sufficient.
    From your ATP link:

    Our results suggest that ATP became established as the universal energy currency in a prebiotic, monomeric world, on the basis of its unusual chemistry in water.

    The chemical elements and basic molecules that exist are all ideally suited to being used in living processes. But just like with individual letters the difficulty is in arranging them into a meaningful whole. Take a sack full of scrabble tiles and toss them onto the floor and some will no doubt be arranged to make up simple words. Meaningful sentences will be just about impossible to form.

    So how likely is it that in some small space the situation arises where ATP and RNA and all the other ingredients and conditions come together in just the right way, not only to assemble a structure complex enough to have the potential to replicate itself but to actually do so?

    I’m out of time. I’ll take a closer look at your links and continue when I have some free time.

  15. Alan Fox,

    Interesting to see so much commentary on the simulation argument! I might teach some of that the next time I teach intro to philosophy!

    My prejudice is that Bostrom is probably eliding the distinction between an indefinitely detailed model and an infinitely detailed model. We can imagine post-human beings that can construct models far more detailed than anything that we can construct. But only an infinitely complex model would be indistinguishable from reality.

    That’s just an off-the-cuff remark based on a cursory reading of Bostrom’s original paper, several years ago.

  16. Kantian Naturalist: But only an infinitely complex model would be indistinguishable from reality.

    That’s my view. I really think there’s a brick wall of complexity that human minds can’t penetrate but no similar physical limit to what humans can imagine. But, what’s the problem, speculation is good exercise for the grey matter.

  17. phoodoo: Well, it certainly makes the bearded guy scenario seem much more plausible no?

    It has no bearing on the bearded guy hypothesis. If you pick your favoured notions because they are less ridiculous than they could be …

  18. A quick comment.

    It is interesting to note how OOL researchers find ways to demonstrate that narrowly constrained chemical processes can build the components required to make life. Everything necessary for life is there in the chemistry and physics. What is missing is the coordinated activity that brings all these separate components together in living systems.

    Chemistry and physics provide the means which living systems use in order to function in a similar way that the letters of the alphabet can make up words which are then used to create written compositions.

    Is it any wonder that scientists can manipulate chemicals into forming molecules that living systems are so adept at using.

  19. Allan Miller: It has no bearing on the bearded guy hypothesis. If you pick your favoured notions because they are less ridiculous than they could be …

    What’s the name of people who don’t believe in the simulated world hypothesis? I wonder how many societies exist of groups of people who don’t believe in the simulated world hypothesis. Is there like guerilla people who don’t believe in the simulated world hypothesis groups that edit wikepedia pages to promote non-belief in the simulated world hypothesis? Militant people who don’t believe in the simulated world hypothesis.

    It would be interesting to attend a forum of people who don’t believe in the simulated world hypothesis.

  20. Alan Fox,

    One thing I do know, you and your ilk spend A LOT of time talking about people who believe the world was created, and you want to know all about their belief in what the bearded guy is like, is the bearded guy good, why did the bearded guy do this, and why not that, do you believe in the bearded guy out of a false sens eof comfort, maybe you have some mutation that is a precurser to believing in the bearded guy, and about how you just would hate to believe in the bearded guy…

    Not once have I heard you or anyone else talk about the people who blieve the world might be simulated. It takes me pointing about the obvious hypocracy for you to say, “Well, they are wrong, but, but..”

    Just more notes of hypocracy, that’s all. You don’t want to believe in the bearded guy. That colors all of your thinking.

  21. Kantian Naturalist: To be sure, it seems difficult to do biology without talking about functions — so if function-talk is basically teleological, then we can’t do biology in non-teleological terms.

    But it is more than that KN, right? All those books and authors you refreced aren’t using teleological talk because its more convenient. They are saying life IS teleological.

    That is quite different from saying its convenient to talk in that way.

    And by the way, the reason its convenient to talk in that way, instead of talking in ridiculous neo-Darwin terms, is because the neo-darwin idea is also ridiculous. If you talk about a cell doing all these amazing these with motors, and pumps, and complicated systems, and you say it accidentally ended up with a motor by freak mutation, and that just so happened to be useful, it sounds really stupid.

    Because it is.

  22. There are whole wars fought between the ‘alakazamists’ and those who insist it was more of a vague arm-wave, with no verbalisation.

  23. phoodoo: If you talk about a cell doing all these amazing these with motors, and pumps, and complicated systems, and you say it accidentally ended up with a motor by freak mutation, and that just so happened to be useful, it sounds really stupid.

    Useful? Useful to whom? Useful to do what?

    Useful to the cell so it can outcompete other cells that lack that particular feature? Sounds like Darwinism to me. Or useful to a Designer to do … what exactly? If there is a purpose, then what is that purpose? If there is a plan then what is that plan? If there is a Designer then who is He and how and when did He implement his Design? How can you even tell that the Design wasn’t implemented through evolution by natural selection on random mutations?

    See, the only reason why ID doesn’t sound equally stupid to you is because you haven’t yet thought through the details. Once you start filling in the blancs you will eventually have to give some thought to what your equivalent of “alakazam” looks like, which frankly I don’t believe you can make sound any better than random mutation.

  24. phoodoo: One thing I do know, you and your ilk spend A LOT of time talking about people who believe the world was created, and you want to know all about their belief in what the bearded guy is like, is the bearded guy good, why did the bearded guy do this, and why not that, do you believe in the bearded guy out of a false sens eof comfort, maybe you have some mutation that is a precurser to believing in the bearded guy, and about how you just would hate to believe in the bearded guy…

    Said the guy who started an OP about evolution. It seems phoodoo is literally unable to understand irony.

  25. phoodoo: And by the way, the reason its convenient to talk in that way, instead of talking in ridiculous neo-Darwin terms, is because the neo-darwin idea is also ridiculous. If you talk about a cell doing all these amazing these with motors, and pumps, and complicated systems, and you say it accidentally ended up with a motor by freak mutation, and that just so happened to be useful, it sounds really stupid.

    Because it is.

    Until someone proposes something better then we’ll stick with the stupid version thanks.
    Do you have anything better to propose?

  26. I’d like to hear phoodoo’s not-stupid version of the origin of, well, anything biological at all.

    phoodoo, the floor is yours.

  27. phoodoo:
    Alan Fox,

    One thing I do know, you and your ilk spend A LOT of time talking about people who believe the world was created, and you want to know all about their belief in what the bearded guy is like, is the bearded guy good, why did the bearded guy do this, and why not that, do you believe in the bearded guy out of a false sens eof comfort, maybe you have some mutation that is a precurser to believing in the bearded guy, and about how you just would hate to believe in the bearded guy…

    Not once have I heard you or anyone else talk about the people who blieve the world might be simulated.It takes me pointing about the obvious hypocracy for you to say, “Well, they are wrong, but, but..”

    Just more notes of hypocracy, that’s all.You don’t want to believe in the bearded guy.That colors all of your thinking.

    Mind-reading isn’t your forte, phooodoo.

    The only place discussion of religious belief happens for me is here (and perhaps a couple of comments at Peaceful Science). It never happens in my real life. Several of our friends, I suspect, are into new age stuff but “live and let live” means nobody needs to argue for their personal beliefs. It’s a non-issue for me other than everyone deserves the freedom to make their own choices.

    Same for simulations. The essential point is these choices have no consequences. Enjoy your life as if it’s the only one you’ll get.

    ETA My ilk?

    *shakes head and chuckles*

  28. Rumraket:
    CharlieM: RNA plays an important role in protein synthesis and given the amount of rRNA in ribosomes its not surprizing that RNA alone can make some progress on the path to building a protein.

    Rumraket: Now this is a hilarious rationalization, given that up until this point every creationist I have ever debated the question of the RNA-world with, have made sure to insist and point out with exaggerated confidence that there was no evidence that ribosomal RNA alone could catalyze peptide bond formation without proteins around to help it.
    It is comical to witness this kind of historical change in response directly.

    Why do you think my views have anything to do with any creationists you have dealt with who you say have questioned RNA’s enzymatic capabilities? Have I ever questioned this aspect of RNA?

    Rumraket: So just to point out, this is also, again, prima facie evidence for the RNA-world hypothesis.

    CharlieM: But this will only happen under pre-set isolated conditions in a solution loaded with molecules such as amino acids and magnesium.

    Rumraket: Another vacuous rationalization. It only happens when the conditions that enable it’s occurrence are met, and doesn’t happen when they’re not. Yeah it also won’t take place inside the sun, or in a vacuum. I guess it can’t happen at all.

    Well of course conditions have to be just right for it to happen. I think the rRNA needs the associated protein to protect and stabilize it and without this protection its enzyme activities would be very precarious and unsustainable. This is equivalent to our development from a zygote. Our skeletal system condenses to support our bodies as the need arises. Blastulas don’t need solid support but post natal humans do. Likewise adult insects need exoskeletons.

    Any RNA world origin would have to come with some sort of protective boundary and an energy source. Sounds like a cell to me. 🙂

    Rumraket: Incidentally, iron can substitute for magnesium in the ribosome:
    Multiple prebiotic metals mediate translation.

    Yes, it’s the processes that are fundamental and there are a range of materials that these processes could employ.

    CharlieM: So we could say that this achievement of constructing a short polypeptide was a cooperation between humans and some of the rRNA derived from the ribosome.

    Rumraket: We could say a lot of things(some of which would be false), but it’s also a prediction of the RNA world hypothesis and therefore evidence for it. Humans being inventive does not predict that RNA should have certain catalytic capacities. The RNA world does.

    RNA molecules are not just going to pop into existence by themselves. The ingredients have to be supplied and as I said a protective barrier and an energy source would have been a necessity.

  29. Allan Miller: CharlieM:
    This process [translation] is fundamental and vital for living systems and no living cell could exist without it.

    Allan Miller: Hey, you biologists, bet you dint know any of that didja? Bet you feel pretty dumb about denying something purposely shoving it all around now, don’t you?

    Glad you agree that processes are more fundamental than the materials by which they are expressed. 🙂

  30. DNA_Jock: to Allan Miller,

    I am particularly enjoying the “so I did a bit more reading up on translation and I discovered all these enzymes that charge tRNAs. Thought you should know about them…” aspect of Charlie’s presentation. It’s a recurring theme.
    The thing to remember is that he is not having a conversation. He is writing things that make him feel better.
    One of my favorites:

    CharlieM: “I would say that this impedes the normal spontaneous molecular diffusion rate thus altering the stochasticity of the system. The random walks of tRNAs are significantly curtailed.”

    DNA_Jock: Yeah, he would say that.

    Regarding peptidyl transferase, I vividly remember my mentor introducing me to what he referred to as the “bootstrap problem” with protein synthesis: if you need a protein to make a protein, how did the whole process get started?
    For added immediacy, the conversation took place in the lab where he and his colleague developed the rabbit reticulocyte lysate system for in vitro translation.

    My hope is that we all learn from these exchanges. I go by the assumption that, while some people might be experts in the field under discussion, not everyone reading these posts will be. I like to say what I think without worrying too much about who I am replying to.

    And if I do venture into some technical aspects, what I say will be scrutinized and corrected where wrong. I’m not sure why anyone would be offended if I discuss their area of expertise. All of you experts and budding experts seem only to happy to keep me right. 🙂

  31. Alan Fox: CharlieM: And what about the ribosome production that is constantly occurring in your cells as we speak? Will jostling molecules bring these complexes together?

    Apparently!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribosome_biogenesis

    Apparently not:

    From your link:

    Ribosome biogenesis is the process of making ribosomes. In prokaryotes, this process takes place in the cytoplasm with the transcription of many ribosome gene operons. In eukaryotes, it takes place both in the cytoplasm and in the nucleolus. It involves the coordinated function of over 200 proteins in the synthesis and processing of the three prokaryotic or four eukaryotic rRNAs, as well as assembly of those rRNAs with the ribosomal protein…

    The maturation of the 60S subunit requires the help of about 80 factors…

    The pathway of 60S cytoplasmic maturation remains incomplete as far as current knowledge is concerned…

    Because ribosomes are so complex, a certain number of ribosomes are assembled incorrectly and could potentially waste cellular energy and resources when synthesizing non-functional proteins. To prevent this, cells have an active surveillance system to recognize damaged or defective ribosomes and target them for degradation.

  32. Alan Fox:
    CharlieM: Maybe DNA_Jock would be interested in answering that question. (Alan Fox: From the above, should we call the triple covalent bond between the two carbons in an acetylene molecule high energy or low energy?)

    Alan Fox: It’s not a trick question. It’s simply a labelling convention. Bond energy is referring to the energy required to break a chemical bond.

    I know. I just wasn’t sure why you were asking me. From what I’ve read it’s about 812kJ/mol. which is a great deal higher than a hydrogen bond.

  33. Alan Fox: CharlieM,

    What in the above refutes jostling?

    If all the polymers that make up the large ribosome subunit were put in a very small container of cytosol and agitated do you think a functional unit would result?

    It takes a great deal more than jostling to put a ribosome together.

  34. CharlieM: If all the polymers that make up the large ribosome subunit were put in a very small container of cytosol and agitated do you think a functional unit would result?

    Yes. How can we test it?

  35. CharlieM: If all the polymers that make up the large ribosome subunit were put in a very small container of cytosol and agitated do you think a functional unit would result?

    You didn’t answer the question.

  36. Rumraket: CharlieM: If all the polymers that make up the large ribosome subunit were put in a very small container of cytosol and agitated do you think a functional unit would result?

    Rumraket: You didn’t answer the question.

    Why would I want to refute jostling? There’s more jostling going in cells than in the Tokyo subway at rush hour.

  37. CharlieM: Why would I want to refute jostling? There’s more jostling going in cells than in the Tokyo subway at rush hour.

    It’s the age isn’t it? One forgets what one said just a few comments ago.

    And what about the ribosome production that is constantly occurring in your cells as we speak? Will jostling molecules bring these complexes together?

  38. Corneel:
    CharlieM: Why would I want to refute jostling? There’s more jostling going in cells than in the Tokyo subway at rush hour.

    Corneel: It’s the age isn’t it? One forgets what one said just a few comments ago.

    CharlieM: And what about the ribosome production that is constantly occurring in your cells as we speak? Will jostling molecules bring these complexes together?

    Obviously I need to be more precise with my wording. Will jostling molecules assemble into a functional sub-unit in a similar way that jostling twelve magnetic shapes will produce a hollow dodecahedral object? The clue was in the word “complexes”. A haphazardly assembled globule of ribosome proteins and rRNA units will not make a functional large or small complex of a ribosome no matter how much jostling goes on..

  39. CharlieM: A haphazardly assembled globule of ribosome proteins and rRNA units will not make a functional large or small complex of a ribosome no matter how much jostling goes on..

    How do you know this? Have you done any testing?

    PS See my first comment in this thread.

  40. CharlieM:
    Why would I want to refute jostling?

    Ask yourself that, you argued as if you were trying to do exactly that.

    First Alan Fox writes:

    Alan Fox:
    And what about the ribosome production that is constantly occurring in your cells as we speak? Will jostling molecules bring these complexes together?

    Apparently!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribosome_biogenesis

    And then you respond:

    CharlieM:
    Apparently not:

    From your link: [quoted material from the link]

    So Alan brings a link he thinks supports jostling, you then respond by quoting something you appear to take to refute it, and now when questioned why you think it does, you say you’re not even trying to. Well then what are you trying to?

  41. CharlieM: Obviously I need to be more precise with my wording. Will jostling molecules assemble into a functional sub-unit in a similar way that jostling twelve magnetic shapes will produce a hollow dodecahedral object? The clue was in the word “complexes”. A haphazardly assembled globule of ribosome proteins and rRNA units will not make a functional large or small complex of a ribosome no matter how much jostling goes on..

    You just declare this to be so. What is it about the world “complexes” that is supposed to tell us that the molecules randomly moving around will not adopt the shape and structure of a ribosomal “complex” in a way similar to the toy example with the viral capsid?

    Do you have anything other than just pure assertion?

  42. Rumraket,

    I wonder why no one has tried this before. Just take a couple of beakers, and fill it up with, I don’t even know what you need, what was on the early planet, some salty water maybe, some dirt (was there dirt then?), throw a bit of early air in there and just start shaking it for a while. I guess it could take a long while, but anyway, so new kitten-like lizards, or a brillant fishsquirrel!

    Ethic considerations I guess. Not sure why atheists have ethics, since they are just dirt in a bottle, but…well, would be interesting.

  43. I want to ask Steve Mould a question. If you just put a bunch of dirt and water in a bottle, how long does it take to make ethics.

    Does anyone know?

  44. phoodoo: Ethic considerations I guess. Not sure why atheists have ethics, since they are just dirt in a bottle, but…well, would be interesting.

    Ashes to ashes , dust to dust. What happens to your ethics when you shuffle off this mortal coil?

  45. velikovskys,

    I don’t do much speculating about how in one of the parallel universes there is dog with a lisp that is the smartest being in that universe, and in another it’s a Kangaroo with a wooden leg, and in still another it’s a rock that speaks Lithuanian, since there are an infinite number of them. I am aware that there are many scientists who do however.

    I rarely see discussions about this online though.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.