Moderation Issues (3)

Please use this thread for alerting admins to moderation issues and for discussion or complaints arising from particular decisions.

4,124 thoughts on “Moderation Issues (3)”

  1. DNA_Jock,

    Given a chiral catalyst, I would.

    RNA being just such a chiral catalyst that actually ‘specifies itself’. Left handed RNA preferentially shakes the hand of left handed RNA. And vice versa. Now, of course, the Creationists scuttle round to put some chewing gum on that particular objection by finding a reference about the half life of RNA in hydrochloric acid at 150C or something.

    Aaand … [Creationist dusts hands] it’s back to coins. Despite having no idea what peptide-bonding system they envisage working in a ‘coin-tossing’ way – or, for that matter, a 20-sided die (Hoyle), or a 39-sided die (Hoyle plus chirality), or a 500-sided die (the approximate number of different possible amino acids), they are absolutely certain that what happens is that peptide bonds form in such a way that The Really Important Point To Get Across is that enantiomers cannot be distinguished. Everything else can. Just not enantiomers.

    And so, say you tossed 500 heads in a row …

  2. stcordova,

    ATP is an RNA that has 3 phosphate groups (Adenosine is an RNA, hence the name Adenosine Triphospate).

    Your haughty dismissal of Jock’s biochemistry looks really silly when you say ‘ATP is an RNA’. It is an RNA monomer. That’s not merely pedantry on my part.

  3. stcordova:

    Creation science does qualify as science?

    Yes if we are only talking science part, not the part that appeals to theology. A good example is discussions about junk DNA, experiments related to nucleosynthesis and radioactive decay and radio metric dating, etc.

    Arguments about God and passages in the Bible get outside what I consider outside of science, so that part of creationism is not science. Whether that part is outside of creation science, I have not much of an opinion.

    No offense but like ID that seems a convenient cop out. The driving force of creationism is the Biblical God, to declare that off limits to science is a recognition that creation science is religious apologetics.

    While certainly one can question the knowledge of biology, what are the entailments of a Biblical God centered science? And if the Bible is the source of that knowledge how can you have no opinion?

    What is the positive argument for creation science when one excludes the Bible?

  4. DNA_jock:

    In particular, anyone drawing an analogy with tossing 500 coins is demonstrating their ignorance.

    So says the guy who said of thermodynamics:

    dQ/T is rarely informative

    That’s right! dQ/T is a useful way of measuring entropy changes, but if one is trying to conceptualize what is happening (which was the original pre-quote-mine context), then it is rarely informative. I asked you to explain a graph that YOU drew, which has negative temperatures on it, in terms of dQ/T. You did not.

    Ribosomes don’t float around to discriminate between L and D amino acids in a pre-OOL environment because ribosomes wouldn’t exist at that point.

    I agree. But I never mentioned ribosomes. I encourage you to slow down and read what the reality-based posters here actually write, rather than what you hope/wish they had written. It’s become something of a leitmotif.

    Btw, when something dies, did you know it starts to racemize its amino acids? Jeffrey Bada uses it to make some estimates of age because the fossils racemize. Now, why is that racemizes even though these previously living but now dead things now have ribosomes with peptidyl transferases?
    So the fact you neglected that shows your rush total disregard of available scientific observation, not my ignorance.

    That’s fairly incoherent, but I’ll try to parse it. You appear to be arguing that the observation of racemization in the presence of (dead) ribosomes refutes my point, and that my failure to address this point displays a “total disregard of available scientific information”. However, it was I who noted:

    All environments are thermodynamically racemizing, and the presence of a chiral catalyst doesn’t change that fact, but chiral catalysts can be stereospecific, so we get to see chiral amplifications all the time.

    Do I need to add that if the chiral catalyst is not operating (e.g. if there is no substrate available), then it is not operating? I thought you could have figured that out for yourself. Sorry if you were confused there.

    The binomial distribution is applicable as a model where randomizing mechanisms are in play, not a model where living systems with machines to over come such randomizing mechanisms are available.
    The context of my use of the binomial distribution was in an OOL scenario, not for a scenario of something already alive where ribosomes are already formed (with lots of homochiral parts). Talk about unwillingness to represent accurately what was trying to be communicated.
    But I should point out that the successuful operation of the ribosome in question assumes this reaction that involves ATP can take place:
    amino acid + ATP + tRNA ↔ aminoacyl-tRNA + AMP + PPi
    ATP is an RNA that has 3 phosphate groups (Adenosine is an RNA, hence the name Adenosine Triphospate). ATP synthesis is not so trivial, and beyond that, one of the many reasons dead things racemize even with the presence of ribosome in the cell is that without this reaction to fuel the acylation of the amino acid and addition of a tRNA, the ribosome’s machinery is as good as dead. This reaction will stop when there is no more ATP available, and ATP net synthesis stops as the digestive process stops which is usually the case after something is long dead.

    So, dead things decay. Ok, I guess.
    Although your mini-lecture on the structure of ATP did remind me of an absolutely hilarious Angus Lamond story. Another time, perhaps. And I will come back to your use of the binomial d/n.

    So DNA_jock’s insinuation that his citation somehow solves the homochriality problem is pretty bad. The mechanisms he cites won’t help proteins that are already formed but now racemizing, and it can’t synthesize new proteins that are non-racemized.

    Your citation, actually. And all I wrote was

    Definitely [my response to colewd’s question “would you expect a chiral catalyst to be available at the estimated time of OOL?”.]
    But I don’t think that was the question that you wanted to ask. The answer to that question can be found (amongst other places) in the paper that Sal cited.

    I was rather lamely alluding to the wording of his question, which I could answer “definitely” even if I imagined that only racemic mixtures of chiral catalysts existed back then. It’s a chemistry joke. He meant to ask about enantiomerically-enriched catalysts or, more likely, enantiomerically-pure catalysts; you guys love false dichotomies.

    So DNA_Jock is leaving out a few important details to say the least. My irony meter jump exploded when he accused me of ignorance. Sheesh! Your biochem DNA_Jock is getting a bit rusty. You need some remedial training, bud. This getting embarrassing for you.

    You misunderstand me. I am not claiming to have “solved the homochirality problem”. OTOH, I don’t think it’s much of a problem. When you replace your irony meter, get a different model.
    I stated

    Given a chiral catalyst, I would.
    In particular, anyone drawing an analogy with tossing 500 coins is demonstrating their ignorance.

    And I had already, on this thread, pointed out why:

    Also, Sal is ignoring the fact that the binomial distribution assumes independence. That’s naughty.

    Your pathetic ‘binomial’ analogy assumes that the probability that an L-amino acid is incorporated at position n is independent of the identities of the preceding n-1 isomers. Do you really think that this is true? Do you understand the meaning of the word “independent”?

    But congrats to DNA_jock, he is still top of the google hits for “dQ/T is rarely informative”.

    Why, thank you! You’ve certainly done your bit on that front!
    🙂

  5. DNA_Jock: I encourage you to slow down and read what the reality-based posters here actually write, rather than what you hope/wish they had written.

    Who are the reality-based posters here? It can’t be evolutionists and it definitely can’t be materialists. So who are they?

  6. Allan Miller:
    DNA_Jock,

    RNA being just such a chiral catalyst that actually ‘specifies itself’. Left handed RNA preferentially shakes the hand of left handed RNA. And vice versa. Now, of course, the Creationists scuttle round to put some chewing gum on that particular objection by finding a reference about the half life of RNA in hydrochloric acid at 150C or something.

    Aaand … [Creationist dusts hands] it’s back to coins. Despite having no idea what peptide-bonding system they envisage working in a ‘coin-tossing’ way – or, for that matter, a 20-sided die (Hoyle), or a 39-sided die (Hoyle plus chirality), or a 500-sided die (the approximate number of different possible amino acids), they are absolutely certain that what happens is that peptide bonds form in such a way that The Really Important Point To Get Across is that enantiomers cannot be distinguished. Everything else can. Just not enantiomers.

    And so, say you tossed 500 heads in a row …

    They wouldn’t have to use coins if you and yours had an actual testable methodology for your claims

  7. colewd:
    Sal made an argument correlating his coin toss with exclusively left handed amino acids forming outside of biology, which you claim is a straw man argument. Can you demonstrate this is true and that his argument against exclusively left handed chiral amino acids forming in nature is false?

    Sal uses that example to deliberately confuse children about science in general and modern evolutionary theory in particular.

    With regard to racemization, both Allen Miller and DNA_Jock have corrected him on his claims repeatedly in this forum alone. He has also been refuted numerous times over the past years on this topic and others he is lying to children about.

    Sal Cordova has a long and sordid history on the ‘net of having his arguments refuted, retreating, and then coming back with exactly the same bogus claims as if no one ever addressed them. He knows what he’s teaching children is fallacious and yet he abuses their trust anyway.

  8. Patrick,

    Perhaps what you teach children is also fellatious.

    You don’t strike me as someone who has much compunction about his combustion. Retreating, refuting, coming back again and again…

    Is racemization your thing? Certainly could be. I don’t know your preference. I have heard some suggest you are a “young earth evolutionist”. Very young even.

  9. phoodoo:
    Patrick,

    Perhaps what you teach children is also fellatious.

    You don’t strike me as someone who has much compunction about his combustion.Retreating, refuting, coming back again and again…

    Is racemization your thing?Certainly could be.I don’t know your preference.I have heard some suggest you are a “young earth evolutionist”.Very young even.

    Joking about child abuse is not funny

  10. Frankie: They wouldn’t have to use coins if you and yours had an actual testable methodology for your claims

    What is your testable methodology so we can compare?

  11. newton: phoodoo:
    Patrick,

    Perhaps what you teach children is also fellatious.

    You don’t strike me as someone who has much compunction about his combustion.Retreating, refuting, coming back again and again…

    Is racemization your thing?Certainly could be.I don’t know your preference.I have heard some suggest you are a “young earth evolutionist”.Very young even.

    Joking about child abuse is not funny

    Absolutely Newton. That would be beneath this site. Heck child abuse would be beneath Patrick.

    Directly beneath.

  12. Frankie,

    They wouldn’t have to use coins if you and yours had an actual testable methodology for your claims

    What, it’s our fault you lot don’t understand chemistry?

  14. Patrick: Sal uses that example to deliberately confuse children about science in general and modern evolutionary theory in particular.

    It’s hardly any worse than a WEASEL program. Or teaching “cumulative selection” (whatever that means) by tossing coins and having one person keep all the heads and then only tossing the remainder.

  16. Allan Miller:
    Frankie,

    What, it’s our fault you lot don’t understand chemistry?

    Chemistry doesn’t explain the origin of biological function- ie sequence specificity required for it.

  17. Mung,

    It’s hardly any worse than a WEASEL program. Or teaching “cumulative selection” (whatever that means) by tossing coins and having one person keep all the heads and then only tossing the remainder.

    The fact that selection and chemistry are different things confuses even Nobel prize winners like Tour.

  18. newton: Joking about child abuse is not funny

    Patrick’s entire accusation against Sal is a joke. And no, it’s not funny.

  19. Mung: It’s hardly any worse than a WEASEL program. Or teaching “cumulative selection” (whatever that means) by tossing coins and having one person keep all the heads and then only tossing the remainder.

    You might want to re-read the passage where Dawkins introduces WEASEL — he’s pretty clear about what it is not.
    Thanks for the kind words re entropy 😉

  20. Mung: Patrick’s entire accusation against Sal is a joke. And no, it’s not funny.

    Not sure it is a joke, but I disagreed with the use of child abuse. Phoodoo is responsible for his posts, inferring someone even jokingly is guilty of sexual abuse of children is not funny. You disagree?

  21. phoodoo: Absolutely Newton.That would be beneath this site.Heck child abuse wouldbe beneath Patrick.

    Directly beneath.

    Make it worse phoodoo.Seems to me you deserve to go into the moderation queue with Joe to help facilitate your desire that site be improved

  22. Mung: Patrick’s entire accusation against Sal is a joke.

    Not even a little. You could try addressing my actual points instead of whining about me making them.

    And no, it’s not funny.

    No, it’s not. What Sal has admitted to doing is seriously reprehensible. And you’re implicitly condoning it.

  23. Blah. Blah. Blah. Patrick. What I’m hearing from you is just a repeat of what’s been said about me when it comes to Barry. And how did that work out?

    If you want me to take your side you need to have clean hands, and you don’t. When you address your own rule-violating behavior perhaps we could talk about Salvador. But you’re not going to do that, are you. Soldier on good man!

  24. Mung:
    Blah. Blah. Blah. Patrick. What I’m hearing from you is just a repeat of what’s been said about me when it comes to Barry. And how did that work out?

    If you want me to take your side you need to have clean hands, and you don’t. When you address your own rule-violating behavior perhaps we could talk about Salvador. But you’re not going to do that, are you. Soldier on good man!

    If I find you on my side I am going to be doing a great deal of introspection.

  25. Allan Miller:
    Mung,

    The fact that selection and chemistry are different things confuses even Nobel prize winners like Tour.

    Natural selection is a result and as such an after-the-fact assessment. It is a statistical artifact. Not quite the creative force Darwin had in mind

  26. Sal on, ironically, the Cool it thread

    Hilarious, like DNA_Jock “correction” by invoking ribosomes. When he got called on his BS, he finally backed down.

    There’s a couple of lies there Sal.
    Contrary to your repeated claim, I did not mention ribosomes. So there was no backing down.
    As in all your other kerfuffles with me, I have been right, whereas you have misconstrued what I wrote in some sad attempt to score rhetorical points. It is literally all that you ever do.
    And THAT is why the other reality-based posters don’t “call me on it”. There is no Darwinist omerta, just quiet agreement that you are wrong.
    All.The.Time.
    [I’ll forgive your not understanding how you were wrong on the Alu thread: it’s a subtle point regarding the CSHL work and what “editable” means. For all the other crap-fests, including the chromatin one, they all make you look stupid.]

  30. Frankie: Natural selection is a result and as such an after-the-fact assessment. It is a statistical artifact. Not quite the creative force Darwin had in mind

    Hmm, a “statistical artifact”. So if we do our statistics more properly, we will find no natural selection?

  31. Joe Felsenstein: So if we do our statistics more properly, we will find no natural selection?

    Statistics never produced any adaptations. But anyway, from The Strength of Natural Selection in the Wild by David Berlinski:

    The statistical methods by which Kingsolver proceeded are simple to the point of triteness. One the one hand, there are a series of quantitative biological traits, chiefly morphological in nature; and on the other hand, certain quantitative measure of fitness. Beak length in finches is a typical morphological trait, and survival, mating success or fecundity typical measure of fitness. Using the methodology first introduced by R. Lande and S. J. Arnold in their 1983 study, “The Measurement of selection on correlated characteristics,” published in Evolution, 37, Kingsolver proposed to define selection in terms of the slope of the regression between a quantitative trait of interest and specific measures of fitness. This provides an estimate of the strength of selection.

    Natural selection disappears as a biological force and reappears as a statistical artifact. The change is not trivial. It is one thing to say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution; it is quite another thing to say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of various regression correlations between quantitative characteristics.

  32. Mung: dazz: Hahahahahaha, OMFG, this guy is a fucking gold mine of retard comedy

    And then the claim was supported proving dazz’s comment was one of ignorant cowardice.

  33. Joe Felsenstein: Hmm, a “statistical artifact”.So if we do our statistics more properly, we will find no natural selection?

    Right, if you do your statistics correctly, you will find those that survived didn’t survive.

  36. Frankie,

    Natural selection is a result and as such an after-the-fact assessment. It is a statistical artifact. Not quite the creative force Darwin had in mind

    Statistical artefacts can sweep presidents to power. I agree, it’s not always creative.

  38. Patrick, was there something wrong with my post? Did you make a mistake? Are you adhering to the Donald trump school of media manipulation?

    Please explain:

    Robert,

    When Patrick says its intentional abuse He knows a thing or two (or three yo) about intentional abuse!

    Is there anyone on this site who knows more about intentional abuse than Patrick? I mean he has probably informed all of the schools in his area about child abuse. Probably his neighbors too!

    Patrick not only knows intentional abuse, he practices what he preaches. And practices, and practices. Carnivals, ChuckECheese,… look where he practices is not important. The pointy is, animal balloons don’t make themselves, but if you can get some animals and some balloons (and maybe some Nutella), Patrick is here to tell you, he won’t just tell you what is child abuse, he will put on a one man (or two soon to be men) stage show complete with hand signs for the hearing impaired (do you think he is prejudiced), and evil goblins that will scare your knickers off.

    So don’t you dare question Patrick’s experience with child abuse. He is the Pied Piper in green leotards, with the velcro openings, of child abuse, ok?

  40. phoodoo:
    Patrick, was there something wrong with my post?

    Address the comment, not the person.

    I’d also suggest you learn to support your claims with evidence, but I don’t expect you to change your stripes at this point.

  41. Frankie,

    Reference please

    Don’t need one. If the electoral college subdivisions did not come to the same conclusion that a simple majority would have, then that is clearly an artefact introduced by the statistical method chosen to subset the population.

  42. Patrick: Address the comment, not the person.

    I’d also suggest you learn to support your claims with evidence, but I don’t expect you to change your stripes at this point.

    What, is this a new rule, all posts must address a comment? Are you going to start moving every post that addresses a poster? Because every post where you say Sal abuses children is addressing Sal. So are you going to move everyone of your own posts? Plus every post others make that address Frankie? Or anyone else?

    I am pretty sure 96 percent of the posts on this site mention a poster. Looks like we are going to have to overhaul the entire process here then, given your new rule.

  43. Patrick: I’d also suggest you learn to support your claims with evidence, but I don’t expect you to change your stripes at this point.

    Patrick, do you not realize that is what we are saying about you and yours?

  44. Allan Miller:
    Frankie,

    Don’t need one. If the electoral college subdivisions did not come to the same conclusion that a simple majority would have, then that is clearly an artefact introduced by the statistical method chosen to subset the population.

    The electoral subdivisions came to the same conclusions as their constituents. Also seeing that voting isn’t mandatory “majority” is a relative word.

  45. Patrick: I’d also suggest you learn to support your claims with evidence, but I don’t expect you to change your stripes at this point.

    Har. Har. Which of the children which you claim has been abused has actually been examined by a health professional?

  46. Mung: Har. Har. Which of the children which you claim has been abused has actually been examined by a health professional?

    Are you suggesting actual facts have a place in discussions?

  47. phoodoo: What, is this a new rule, all posts must address a comment?Are you going to start moving every post that addresses a poster?Because every post where you say Sal abuses children is addressing Sal.So are you going to move everyone of your own posts?Plus every post others make that address Frankie?Or anyone else?

    I am pretty sure 96 percent of the posts on this site mention a poster.Looks like we are going to have to overhaul the entire process here then, given your new rule.

    I have moved a number of your recent comments to Guano because you are spamming other threads with material that belongs in Moderation Issues. Please follow the rules and keep all such discussion here.

  48. Frankie: The electoral subdivisions came to the same conclusions as their constituents.

    Electoral subdivisions are a statistical artifact.Each is required to contain certain number of constituents. The ability to do statistic analysis of the voters is a factor in the shapes of those electoral subdivisions.

  49. Frankie,

    The electoral subdivisions came to the same conclusions as their constituents.

    But the collected subdivisions did not come to the same conclusion as the non-binned sum of the constituents. Therefore the result comes from an artefact.

    Each vote did not carry a precisely equal weight.

    Also seeing that voting isn’t mandatory “majority” is a relative word.

    That too is a ‘statistical artefact’ – the self-selection of people who care enough to register and vote causes a bias.

  50. Allan Miller: But the collected subdivisions did not come to the same conclusion as the non-binned sum of the constituents.

    And that is a good thing. It would suck to have the United STATES run by a minority of States, and a few urban areas.

    Each vote did not carry a precisely equal weight.

    Each vote carries the same weight in its State.

    And voting, like natural selection, is an after-the-fact assessment.

Comments are closed.