A corrected worksheet targeted for High School students proving that even if Photosynthesis were IC – it would still be evolvable.

This is my second kick at the can and a follow up to my last OP called:

A worksheet targeted for High School students proving once and for all that Photosynthesis is not “Irreducibly Complex”

In deference to Keiths, I have changed the title.

I want to thank participants for their insightful suggestions… yes that includes you Sal. I even included your frog metaphor.

Special thanks go to Mung and to Bill!

A very deep bow and tip of the hat goes to Keiths.

NEW LINK

I would appreciate any feedback and suggestions for improvement before I finalize it and submit to the Biology Teachers’ cyber-community for their perusal.

118 thoughts on “A corrected worksheet targeted for High School students proving that even if Photosynthesis were IC – it would still be evolvable.

  1. Two questions?

    1.Did someone prominent suggest photosynthesis was not evolvable?

    2. Is there any attempt whatsoever in this paper to show how frogs are NOT irreducibly complex?

  2. phoodoo:
    Two questions?
    1.Did someone prominent suggest photosynthesis was not evolvable?

    2. Is there any attempt whatsoever in this paper to show how frogs are NOT irreducibly complex?

    Two questions!

    1. Why does it matter whether they’re prominent?

    2. Why does it matter that Frogs are irreducibly complex?(I agree they are).

  3. Mung – a quick question for you.

    You good with this? Does this latest incarnation of my worksheet address your previous concerns?

    I did my best to couch this exercise in respectful terms and not be dismissive of religious POVs.

    Are the abiogenic origins of Life completely elucidated? Not yet. Details still need to be ironed out. Is the abiogenic origins of Life suggestion becoming more and more cogent? Yes. Does any of this represent a threat to Religion POVs? Only the naiver and sillier versions thereof.

    I draw your attention to an earlier post:

    A worksheet targeted for High School students proving once and for all that Photosynthesis is not “Irreducibly Complex”

  4. I would suggest altering the phrase, “the Cell is nothing more than a chemical reaction chamber”. Maybe you could change it to a phrase along the lines of, “one way of looking at the cell is as a chemical reaction chamber”.

    That leaves the students the option of making up their own minds rather than just having to accept an opinion stated as a fact.

  5. John Harshman:
    I have one simple request: shorter titles.

    Critics complained about the length of Fiona Apple’s album titles, and she responded with this title for one of her albums:

    When the pawn hits the conflicts he thinks like a king
    What he knows throws the blows when he goes to the fight
    And he’ll win the whole thing ‘fore he enters the ring
    There’s no body to batter when your mind is your might
    So when you go solo, you hold your own hand
    And remember that depth is the greatest of heights
    And if you know where you stand, then you know where to land
    And if you fall it won’t matter, cause you’ll know that you’re right

    To be sure, it sort of made the critics’ point.

    Glen Davidson

  6. CharlieM:
    I would suggest altering the phrase, “the Cell is nothing more than a chemical reaction chamber”. Maybe you could change it to a phrase along the lines of, “one way of looking at the cell is as a chemical reaction chamber”.

    That leaves the students the option of making up their own minds rather than just having to accept an opinion stated as a fact.

    Uhmmm… I thought that indeed was fact! What other options besides “Vitalism” were you thinking?

  7. GlenDavidson: Critics complained about the length of Fiona Apple’s album titles, and she responded with this title for one of her albums:

    To be sure, it sort of made the critics’ point.

    Glen Davidson

    Point taken… too funny!

  8. TomMueller,

    Are the abiogenic origins of Life completely elucidated? Not yet. Details still need to be ironed out. Is the abiogenic origins of Life suggestion becoming more and more cogent? Yes. Does any of this represent a threat to Religion POVs? Only the naiver and sillier versions thereof.

    On what basis do you make the claim the origin of life is becoming more cogent? I agree that this should not be a threat to Religion point of view but can you support the claim that we are getting closer? Herbert Yockey claimed in his well known 1977 paper that the origin of life and the origin of matter were perhaps unsolvable problems. This was based the combinatorial problem of getting sufficient protein sequence integrity to get a cell to function.

    A cell has to make at least 40 proteins a minute to stay alive given the life of proteins. It needs to produce proteins in order to metabolize 800 amino acids per minute of 20 different types. In order to make these proteins the cell needs production of amino acids and DNA blueprints that are enabled from proteins. For origin of life as we know it you need all the chickens and eggs to show up at once. This looks beyond serendipity or a lucky accident that happened in the last 4 billion years.

    We know science cannot answer all questions and OOL is a candidate for this list. As Ken Millers text book claims; OOL is one of the most profound problems in all of science.

  9. colewd:
    TomMueller,

    On what basis do you make the claim the origin of life is becoming more cogent?I agree that this should not be a threat to Religion point of view but can you support the claim that we are getting closer?Herbert Yockey claimed in his well known 1977 paper that the origin of life and the origin of matter were perhaps unsolvable problems.This was based the combinatorial problem of getting sufficient protein sequence integrity to get a cell to function.

    Dammit – I wonder how many of us were even alive in 1977? A lot has happened since then! Some quick references written for the non-scientific layman (although I doubt you will bother to read them):
    http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-began
    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39117523

    colewd:
    A cell has to make at least 40 proteins a minute to stay alive given the life of proteins.It needs to produce proteins in order to metabolize 800 amino acids per minute of 20 different types.In order to make these proteins the cell needs production of amino acids and DNA blueprints that are enabled from proteins.For origin of life as we know it you need all the chickens and eggs to show up at once.This looks beyond serendipity or a lucky accident that happened in the last 4 billion years.

    No – you are WRONG! That is exactly why I relied on your responses to guide my writing. Students working together on this worksheet will figure out on their own why what you say is specious sophistry. FTR – I even mention “chicken & egg”

    colewd:
    We know science cannot answer all questions and OOL is a candidate for this list.As Ken Millers text book claims; OOL is one of the most profound problems in all of science.

    Yeah – except for the single salient problem that you are misquoting Ken Miller and misrepresenting his views. You are just as confused about Ken Miller as you were about Behe.

    BTW – you still need to get back to Keiths on that…

    But I will concede one point to you. I agree science cannot answer all questions. I indicated as much on my worksheet which you obviously did not read, or more likely did not comprehend.

    When you find our intersection of agreement, get back to me. You may or may not be delighted to discover that you and I share an opinion that counters Keiths’

  10. Phytoplankton are now shown to be able to make use of extremely low levels of sunlight.

    Researchers have discovered how algae that survive in very low levels of light are able to switch on and off a quantum chemical energy-saving phenomenon during photosynthesis.

    It is thought it helps them harvest energy from the sun much more efficiently allowing them to live in regions otherwise believed to be too dark to support plant life.

    The discovery is likely to vastly expand the photosynthetic environment in the world’s oceans. Life seems to always finds a way.

    The research is published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

    The work is part of an emerging field called quantum biology, in which evidence is growing that quantum phenomena are commonly operating in nature, not just the laboratory. Another observation is that it may explain how birds can navigate using the earth’s magnetic field.

    “Once an algal cell has received sunlight, it needs to get the trapped energy in the light to the reaction centre in the cell as quickly and efficiently as possible. There the energy is converted via photosynthesis into chemical energy for the organism.

    “It was assumed the energy gets to the reaction centre in a random fashion, like a drunk staggering home. But quantum coherence character of the cell allows the it to pre-test every possible pathway simultaneously before sending the light via the most efficient route.”

    “We studied tiny single-celled algae called cryptophytes that thrive in the bottom of pools of water, or under thick ice, where very little light reaches them,” says senior author, Professor Paul Curmi, of the UNSW School of Physics.

    quantum1

    Cryptophyte Light Capturing Molecule
    “Most cryptophytes have a light-harvesting system where quantum coherence is present. But we have also found a class of cryptophytes where it is switched off because of a genetic mutation that alters the shape of a light-harvesting protein.

    “The assumption is that this increases the efficiency of photosynthesis, allowing algae and bacteria to exist on almost no light,” says Professor Curmi.

    In the new study, the team used x-ray crystallography to work out the crystal structure of the light-harvesting complexes from three different species of cryptophytes.

    They found that in two species a genetic mutation has led to the insertion of an extra amino acid that changes the structure of the protein complex, disrupting coherence.

    “This shows cryptophytes have evolved an elegant but powerful genetic switch to control coherence and change the mechanisms used for light harvesting,” says Professor Curmi.

    The next step will be to compare the biology of different cryptophytes, such as whether they inhabit different environmental niches, to work out whether the quantum coherence effect is assisting their survival.

    Understanding the mechanism may even help in the design of more efficient solar power cells.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/111/26/E2666.abstract

  11. J-Mac,

    Please cease and desist with the Quantum Mechanics Canard!

    Ultimately everything can be reduced to a Quantum Level, even a potato sitting on the kitchen counter!

    Nothing you write indicates complexity of an order which cannot evolve!

  12. TomMueller: “the Cell is nothing more than a chemical reaction chamber”.

    Well if you cannot see the problem with the words, “nothing more” then I can’t help you.

    What would you think of changing the phrase to, “the Cell is nothing more than a purposeful, chemical reaction chamber”?

  13. TomMueller:
    J-Mac,

    Please cease and desist with the Quantum Mechanics Canard!

    Ultimately everything can be reduced to a Quantum Level, even a potato sitting on the kitchen counter!

    Nothing you write indicates complexity of an order which cannot evolve!

    You don’t understand J Mac’s point. If the equations for something are “sophisticated,” it, obviously, means that a magical being did it. That it’s descriptions of natural phenomena doesn’t matter. Capisci?

  14. Would anyone here support the last point Tom made in his paper?

    All that was attempted was to provide students the means to make informed opinion regarding scientific questions about evolution, specifically the abiogenic origins of life as plausible, if not proven.

  15. “The largest stumbling block in bridging the gap between nonliving and living still remains. All living cells are controlled by information stored in DNA, which is transcribed in RNA and then made into protein.
    This is a very complicated system, and each of these three molecules requires the other two – either to put it together or to help it work. DNA, for example, carries information but cannot put that information to use, or even copy itself without the help of RNA and protein.”
    Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph Levine, Biology: The Living Science (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall), 1998, p.406-407. (Slide by Chris Macosko)

  16. I agree with Kenneth Miller. The origin of life is still an unsolved problem in science, and the problem he alludes to there seems to be the main issue.

    I would have worded the last part a bit differently myself, because we technically don’t actually know whether DNA, RNA, and protein require each other to be put together. What we know is that, when it comes to cells that exist today, if you remove any one of these components, what is left stops working. The big question is, if something else could have done it’s job before either of them evolved.

  17. TomMueller: Please cease and desist with the Quantum Mechanics Canard!

    Dodging this issue will not resolve it…will it?

    Ultimately everything can be reduced to a Quantum Level, even a potato sitting on the kitchen counter!

    I’m really glad YOU said that because you just contradicted your first sentence…If everything ultimately boils down to quantum mechanics level, as you yourself wrote it, why would you want me to cease and desist the theme? Can you see what I’m getting at?

    Nothing you write indicates complexity of an order which cannot evolve!
    How do you know that? If everything, including the potato sitting on the kitchen counter can be reduced to the quantum level, how do you know the complexity can evolve? Are you familiar with the law of quantum information conservation, perhaps? I doubt that but this doesn’t stop you from making assumption beyond your knowledge….

  18. Rumraket: The big question is, if something else could have done it’s job before either of them evolved.

    First, this assumes facts not in evidence.

    Second, if there was a working system before why on earth would it need to change. You’re basically appealing to a miracle. Life of one sort evolving into life of a completely different sort.

  19. Hi Tom,

    OK, here it goes:

    1. I think that you’re sometimes using a very loaded language. I’d leave the “no more than” and “just a” wording out of it. I understand that you’re trying to say that it’s not magic, but I’d avoid loaded language regardless. More importantly because the wording ssuggest some kind of poor feelings against the things described (like cells and metabolism). I’d say, as someone above suggested, that it should read, for example, “the cell can be thought of as a reaction chamber,” not to “protect” creationist crap, but to avoid giving the idea that you think very lowly of cells. Same for metabolism. Don’t say it’s “nothing more than,” rather say that “a lot of metabolism consists on changes in electron … “. Loaded language is not a very good idea.

    2. You abuse the use of exclamation marks. This is not mere entertainment, right? You’re trying to teach. If you use too many exclamation marks, specially after talking about things as “no more than,” you invite even more confusion. Leave those for the most exiting parts, if at all. Students don’t like being treated like toddlers, specially during their teens.

    3. Irreducible complexity, in its less dishonest forms, is not about reassembly of components into a cell, but about biological complexes where the removal of one part would destroy the function of the complex (the most dishonest ones are about the impossibility for something to evolve, which has quite a burden of proof, and pretty poor philosophy, imbued into it, but whatever). So, the first mention you make about it is plainly wrong. I’d eliminate that sentence.

    4. I don’t like the wording “proves that even if photosynthesis is IC it could still evolve.” Proving sounds a bit unscientific. “Shows” is better than proves, since “shows” is a less philosophically (or mathematically) loaded word. “Shows that, even if photosynthesis is IC, there’s still paths by which it could evolve.” You’re helping students understand that there’s potential solutions to the problem, not giving them a math class, or a full fledged step-by-step history of the evolution of photosynthesis.

    5. Think carefully if you gave enough information to your students to answer the questions you pose. I had the impression that some questions require knowledge well beyond the information in your worksheet.

    6. Don’t try to do too much in a single worksheet. Be a bit more modest. In my experience, students get ideas better if the theme is a bit less convoluted and a bit less ambitious. If it’s going to be about photosynthesis as an example of an IC complex, concentrate on that and forget about assembling cells from a soup of ingredients. You did not touch into reassembly at all. You only touched photosynthesis. That leaves a sense of emptiness. Of promises not fulfilled. In other words. One step at a time my friend.

    These are just suggestions. In the end, what you do is up to you.

    What level are you teaching?

  20. Mung: if there was a working system before why on earth would it need to change. You’re basically appealing to a miracle. Life of one sort evolving into life of a completely different sort.

    And this, ladies and germs, is the clown who is supposed to believe in common descent. I kid you not. ROFL

  21. Oh. I googled and read quite a bit. Apparently it’s true that relativity is not used for clock synchronicity in satellites. Not for positioning at least. The explanation I read made sense. I didn’t keep the web page, but it might be worth for you to try and find further information to see if relativity is used for satellites, and GPS, at all, and how.

    Your point still stands that the different theories of gravitation have different uses, but the second example might be wrong.

  22. TomMueller: Please cease and desist with the Quantum Mechanics Canard!

    Its a canard? How so?

    You do realize that quantum biology is becoming a new emerging field of science don’t you?

  23. Mung: First, this assumes facts not in evidence.

    Nope. It’s a question about whether something else could have performed those functions, not a claim that something did.

    Mung: Second, if there was a working system before why on earth would it need to change. You’re basically appealing to a miracle. Life of one sort evolving into life of a completely different sort.

    This has hidden assumptions (and you talk about facts not in evidence–irony be thy name). You assume that if things changed they “needed” to change. But things can change just because things can change, not out of a “need.” Then you’re assuming that changes require miracles, with the implied further assumption that, if there was different molecules performing some function that DNA/RNA/proteins perform, they were life forms as complicated as those of today.

  24. Entropy:
    Oh. I googled and read quite a bit. Apparently it’s true that relativity is not used for clock synchronicity in satellites. Not for positioning at least. The explanation I read made sense. I didn’t keep the web page, but it might be worth for you to try and find further information to see if relativity is used for satellites, and GPS, at all, and how.

    Your point still stands that the different theories of gravitation have different uses, but the second example might be wrong.

    Do you think Tom is going to issue an apology to me? Somehow I doubt it.

    Do you think he is going to learn a lesson from this? Like perhaps that just because something gets repeated often enough online, and its gets published on sites that claim to be scientific and academic, that also doesn’t make it so?

    Do you think Tom is going to admit that maybe he isn’t always the smartest guy in the room that he thinks he is?

    I doubt it.

  25. phoodoo: Do you think he is going to learn a lesson from this? Like perhaps that just because something gets repeated often enough online, and its gets published on sites that claim to be scientific and academic, that also doesn’t make it so?

    That’d be a very good lesson to learn.

  26. Entropy,

    I really enjoy the “new” Entropy guy… unlike keiths, he tries to be nice at first…
    He is such a Negative Entropy…

  27. Entropy:
    Oh. I googled and read quite a bit. Apparently it’s true that relativity is not used for clock synchronicity in satellites. Not for positioning at least. The explanation I read made sense. I didn’t keep the web page, but it might be worth for you to try and find further information to see if relativity is used for satellites, and GPS, at all, and how.

    Your point still stands that the different theories of gravitation have different uses, but the second example might be wrong.

    LOL!

    Hi Entropy – you are funny! OK… I’ll take the bait and engage

    Regarding clock synchronization, the original exchange went as:

    TomMueller: and we use Einstein’s Theory to synchronize satellite clocks with Earth bound clocks
    phoodoo: Actually, no we don’t. :

    I referred phoodoo to a link to no avail as all explained here:

    Science, not theology, should decide the merits of Intelligent Design


    The seminal quote in the cited article (which I quickly googled, yes indeed) went on to say:

    The combination of these two relativistic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)! This sounds small, but the high-precision required of the GPS system requires nanosecond accuracy, and 38 microseconds is 38,000 nanoseconds. If these effects were not properly taken into account, a navigational fix based on the GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes, and errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day! The whole system would be utterly worthless for navigation in a very short time.

    If this does not sound like a requirement for synchronization of earth-bound clocks with satellite clocks due to relativistic effects; we will need to revisit what the word “synchronize” actually means.

    You may be using a variation of the term I am unfamiliar with

    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/synchronize

  28. phoodoo: Do you think Tom is going to issue an apology to me? Somehow I doubt it.

    Do you think he is going to learn a lesson from this?Like perhaps that just because something gets repeated often enough online, and its gets published on sites that claim to be scientific and academic, that also doesn’t make it so?

    Do you think Tom is going to admit that maybe he isn’t always the smartest guy in the room that he thinks he is?

    I doubt it.

    Moron!

  29. TomMueller: Moron!

    Can we watch those attacks (moderator request)?

    Apart from that, my take was that you and phoodoo might be talking past one another. I don’t really know what either of you meant by “synchronize satellite clocks”, but I suspect that you didn’t both mean the same thing.

  30. TomMueller,

    I wasn’t trying to be funny. I went beyond that one web site. It certainly sounds reasonable that if synchronized clocks, between Earth and satellite, are required for the calculations, and if the ones in the satellites do slow down due to the relative velocity compared to the people or object, or clocks, on Earth, then adjustments to their clocks should be done. Hey. I bought into it right away too! (see? exclamation mark!) However, this entry, for example, explains that this relativity used for GPS might be a myth. I’d suggest talking a look. Don’t take my word for it. Don’t take the word of the author of the site either. But do try and check the explanations, at least for the sake of making sure that you’re not just repeating a very popular myth.

  31. Entropy:
    Hi Tom,

    OK, here it goes:

    1. I think that you’re sometimes using a very loaded language. I’d leave the “no more than” and “just a” wording out of it. I understand that you’re trying to say that it’s not magic, but I’d avoid loaded language regardless. More importantly because the wording suggest some kind of poor feelings against the things described (like cells and metabolism). I’d say, as someone above suggested, that it should read, for example, “the cell can be thought of as a reaction chamber,” not to “protect” creationist crap, but to avoid giving the idea that you think very lowly of cells. Same for metabolism. Don’t say it’s “nothing more than,” rather say that “a lot of metabolism consists on changes in electron … “. Loaded language is not a very good idea.

    Excellent! This is exactly the sort of feedback I was hoping for! A former prof of mine once opined: “if you cannot hear the bees buzzing in an author’s bonnet, it is probably not worth reading…”
    The problem is – in empirical terms: everything I claimed is correct. What is the alternative? Vitalism? If not, I am open to correction. So far you have offered nothing I can discern.

    2. You abuse the use of exclamation marks. This is not mere entertainment, right? You’re trying to teach. If you use too many exclamation marks, specially after talking about things as “no more than,” you invite even more confusion. Leave those for the most exiting parts, if at all. Students don’t like being treated like toddlers, specially during their teens.

    Education should not be reduced to entertainment – however education should be entertaining.
    I repeat the bonnet citation above…

    3. Irreducible complexity, in its less dishonest forms, is not about reassembly of components into a cell, but about biological complexes where the removal of one part would destroy the function of the complex (the most dishonest ones are about the impossibility for something to evolve, which has quite a burden of proof, and pretty poor philosophy, imbued into it, but whatever). So, the first mention you make about it is plainly wrong. I’d eliminate that sentence.

    I refer my students to a link and ask them to read the precise and nuanced definition of IC as specified by Behe. I presume you are referring to the same definition as mentioned in the link:
    http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~rogers/evidevolcrs/ircomp/index.html
    ‘Irreducible complexity is just a fancy phrase I use to mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning’

    The frog in the blender was purloined from Sal… and is more dramatic than “Ralph’s grocery store”.
    The frog example still falls under the rubric of IC because the several interacting parts criterion is no longer operational. I needed to demonstrate that the frog in a blender is actually a good example to consider under the rubric of IC. We all agree the frog as an organism is IC (for whatever criteria you would rather choose) whereas the Poriferan is not. You get my point?

    4. I don’t like the wording “proves that even if photosynthesis is IC it could still evolve.” Proving sounds a bit unscientific. “Shows” is better than proves, since “shows” is a less philosophically (or mathematically) loaded word. “Shows that, even if photosynthesis is IC, there’s still paths by which it could evolve.” You’re helping students understand that there’s potential solutions to the problem, not giving them a math class, or a full fledged step-by-step history of the evolution of photosynthesis.

    My students never see the title of the OP – and I would never refer a student to this site for a variety of reasons.

    5. Think carefully if you gave enough information to your students to answer the questions you pose. I had the impression that some questions require knowledge well beyond the information in your worksheet.

    Excellent point… if you examine the original; you will note I ran out of steam on the last page or so and just plugged in some boiler plate. I deliberately rewrote the last few pages for educational purposes. My students are being abused outside the classroom by pastors and charlatans who confound their thinking with specious sophistry. This exercise was more for my benefit in order to find out exactly the sort of nonsense was being spewed by Idiots. Forewarned is forearmed.

    The last few sheets are “tear-off” and I will be rewriting. That said, I am now better equipped to deal with a number of issues than I was earlier.
    That said – I have given my students a worksheet on the RNA World and Ribozymes.

    6. Don’t try to do too much in a single worksheet. Be a bit more modest. In my experience, students get ideas better if the theme is a bit less convoluted and a bit less ambitious. If it’s going to be about photosynthesis as an example of an IC complex, concentrate on that and forget about assembling cells from a soup of ingredients. You did not touch into reassembly at all. You only touched photosynthesis. That leaves a sense of emptiness. Of promises not fulfilled. In other words. One step at a time my friend.

    Agreed – I already intended to prune the worksheet. Your comments are still insightful and have prompted me to perhaps be even more rigorous in my pruning. Thanks.

    These are just suggestions. In the end, what you do is up to you.

    If you have any further suggestions, I am all ears. I did leave you with some questions above.

    What level are you teaching?

    AP Bio = freshman university
    My sheets are also purloined by profs at the local university campus for freshmen.

    Semper Fi

  32. phoodoo: You do realize that quantum biology is becoming a new emerging field of science don’t you?

    In fact, all biology is predicted by the Schrodinger Wave Equation, which is why there is no more room left for God.

  33. Tom, why are you still claiming that bubbles in seawater were the first proto-cells?

    That’s beyond speculative.

  34. Entropy:
    TomMueller,

    I wasn’t trying to be funny. I went beyond that one web site. It certainly sounds reasonable that if synchronized clocks, between Earth and satellite, are required for the calculations, and if the ones in the satellites do slow down due to the relative velocity compared to the people or object, or clocks, on Earth, then adjustments to their clocks should be done. Hey. I bought into it right away too! (see? exclamation mark!) However, this entry, for example, explains that this relativity used for GPS might be a myth. I’d suggest talking a look. Don’t take my word for it. Don’t take the word of the author of the site either. But do try and check the explanations, at least for the sake of making sure that you’re not just repeating a very popular myth.

    I have read about the need for relativistic synchronization in several credible sources and discussed the same with a professor of physics way back when…

    The solitary contrary source you cite seems to fall under conspiracy theory pop-science along the lines of the moon landing was a hoax.

  35. Mung: That name is taken, and phoodoo can’t have it.

    My apologies – especially to every moron on the planet, all of whom would be justifiably aggrieved if they were privy to this exchange.

  36. Entropy: Nope. It’s a question about whether something else could have performed those functions, not a claim that something did.

    When I said “First, this assumes facts not in evidence,” do you know what I was referring to? Hint: Which of his statements is not backed up by facts?

  37. Mung:
    Tom, why are you still claiming that bubbles in seawater were the first proto-cells?

    That’s beyond speculative.

    Goddamit

    Rumraket already answered you.

    I wish I could have conversations with opponents possessed of longer attention spans and memories than goldfish

  38. Mung: In fact, all biology is predicted by the Schrodinger Wave Equation, which is why there is no more room left for God.

    ARRRRRGGGHHH

    Dammit Mung! didn’t you catch my quotation from Leviticus ?

  39. Entropy: This has hidden assumptions (and you talk about facts not in evidence–irony be thy name). You assume that if things changed they “needed” to change. But things can change just because things can change, not out of a “need.”

    Almost everything anyone writes here has hidden assumptions, so you better get used to that. 🙂

    Things don’t change just because they can. But nice try.

Leave a Reply

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