Noyau (2)

…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation

Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.

[to work around page bug]

2,589 thoughts on “Noyau (2)

  1. Mung:
    From the Rules page:

    Do not turn this site into as a peanut gallery for observing the antics on other boards.

    I don’t. Posting links to or quoting other blogs is not forbidden.

    You could have quoted a more appropriate rule, e.g.:

    (…) As is implying that other posters are mentally ill or demented.

  2. Mung: So you think I was claiming that Prothero is a Young Earth Creationist?

    No, I think you were misrepresenting his views when you wrote:

    Prothero thinks that marsupials were a separate created kind represented on the ark and wonders why they and not the other non-marsupial kinds went to Australia.

  3. Ah, missed this.

    Mung: He was making things up. He was making an argument. He was claiming the Ark was ludicrous. To that end he asked a question, “Why had nothing but marsupials migrated from Mt. Ararat to Austrailia?”

    That’s two arguments. The Ark story is indeed ludicrous, though appealing in a childlike way, a bit like Santa.

    How Australia ended up with a huge diversity of marsupial species and no placental mammals is a real observation that demands an explanation. Wallace’s observations that founded the biogeographical explanation which is, I find, very plausible.

    I gave the answer. Sheer dumb luck. That undercuts his claim that the the pattern in some was is non-biblical.

    Could just as well be the guiding hand of God, working through the rules he set up in this Universe.

    Then I was mocking evolutionists like Prothero who accept the sheer dumb luck explanation on a regular basis without so much as blinking an eye. They are hardly being objective.

    I think you are demanding answers to “why” questions. Science is only capable of answering “how” questions. Though, I think the various religions on offer have also been unable to answer “why” questions satisfactorily (or at all).

    ETA missing which

  4. Alan Fox: How Australia ended up with a huge diversity of marsupial species and no placental mammals is a real observation that demands an explanation.

    No placental ground animals, perhaps. It’s more of a technicality, since the exceptions are so obvious in how they became exceptions, but bats and marine mammals that are placentals ended up there.

    It just can be misleading to say that no placental mammals ended up in Australia (before humans anyway). Some people might suppose that there are no native bats.

    Glen Davidson

  5. Alan Fox: The “peanut gallery” guideline does not apply in Noyau. Only basic rules apply.

    Here it is again, with the relevant part highlighted for you:

    Do not use turn this site into as a peanut gallery for observing the antics on other boards.

    Are you claiming that Noyau is not part of TSZ?

  6. Mung,
    You missed ETA5: Peanut rule gallery relaxed a little (5th November 2012). And yes, noyau is part of TSZ, created later than the site, where site rules are reduced to the basic no porn, no spam, no illegal stuff.

    ETA hence Lizzie’s amendment from “use as” to “turn into”.

  7. Entropy:
    J-Mac,

    May I dare to ask why you talk about “duons,” and overlapping whatever, so insistently? It doesn’t strike me as either biblical, or anti-evolutionary at all. Just some guy who didn’t know that we have known of nucleotide sequences with more than one overlapping function for many years already. Plenty of overlapping genes in viruses, specially phage, and plenty of overlapping coding sequences with other kinds of sequences, like promoters or ribosome binding sites in bacteria. We have known since the 1970s, if not before. So, what’s your fascination with them?

    Because I really believe that sheer dumb luck has enough intelligence to write amino acid sequences that can be read forward on one side of the DNA strand and backwards on the other…

    This is the equivalence of writing a book that can be read forward and backwards with 2 different stories still making sense…
    I’m sure you can do it but not as good as sheer dumb luck did it…

  8. J-Mac:
    Because I really believe that sheer dumb luck has enough intelligence to write amino acid sequences that can be read forward on one side of the DNA strand and backwards on the other…

    Curious that you’d believe that sheer dumb luck would do that. I don’t. Natural processes though, not only could, but did.

    J-Mac:
    This is the equivalence of writing a book that can be read forward and backwards with 2 different stories still making sense…

    This is a very interesting comparison because it assumes that overlapping coding genes are that long. Do you really think that they are as long as books? If so, then you don’t know what you’re talking about, but I wouldn’t be too surprised.

    Normally, overlapping coding sequences overlap by very little, and then in regions that admit lots of variation, which makes it a very easy accommodation.

  9. Entropy: Curious that you’d believe that sheer dumb luck would do that. I don’t. Natural processes though, not only could, but did.

    Of course natural process must have done it, what else?
    It is estimated that by chance (sheer dumb luck) 0.07 % of all genes should be dual coding…Natural processes, one random, have done a remarkable job in human genome by creating 9% dual coding genes…
    All one needs is not faith anymore…one needs to be delusional to believe that natural processes just did it…

  10. keiths: Give a toddler a hammer, and he runs around looking for things to bang on. Lots of stuff gets broken, and nothing gets built.

    A succinct self-description.

    ETA:

    And dealing with keiths must be like dealing with a young child. Sheesh. I would say grow up already but it would be a complete waste of breath.

  11. J-Mac: Of course natural process must have done it, what else?

    Exactly. I think, though, that you’re being sarcastic. Care to make the case for whatever else you might think could be out there?

    J-Mac: It is estimated that by chance (sheer dumb luck) 0.07 % of all genes should be dual coding…

    Interesting number for sheer dumb luck. If the calculation was done carefully enough, and given that natural processes are not sheer dumb luck, I’d expect the actual number to be higher.

    J-Mac: Natural processes, one random, have done a remarkable job in human genome by creating 9% dual coding genes…

    That high? Are you sure? Coding forward and backwards? Maybe you’re talking about the combination of dual coding, overlapping, even if so slightly, in any direction, with promoters and/or other “signals” on top, etc.

    J-Mac: All one needs is not faith anymore…one needs to be delusional to believe that natural processes just did it…

    Well, if we see it, it happened. If 9% of human genes code backwards and forward, it doesn’t matter what I want to believe, what matters is the fact. Given the fact, what else but natural processes would have done it? It doesn’t matter if we know the processes or not. What matters is that it’s right there. That 9% of those genes code both ways (I still think you’re mistaking something, or putting together numbers referring to different things). Of course, such a large number would make it worth pursuing research towards figuring out how, but not knowing just means not knowing. Right?

  12. fifthmonarchyman: Surely you agree that God if he exists could reveal stuff to me so that I could know it?

    I could make fun of the fact that FMM asked this when I suggested that his imaginary friend was an answer to an absurd question, but I won’t.

  13. Any wagers (gentleman’s bet’s of course, no money involved) on how many of Keiths comments Alan or Neil will guano in the next 24 hours?

    It’s 1/17/18 21:17 GMT.

    I bet Alan and Neil won’t guano any more of Keiths comments in the next 24 hours. Keiths will find a way to bridle his tongue and say what awesome guys Alan and Neil are and thank them for being such outstanding moderators.

  14. stcordova,

    Have you had experience in tongue bridling? A tip. If a young horse is not keen on accepting the bit when you are tacking up, smear it (the bit, not the horse) with a generous slug of honey. I promise you, it works!

  15. stcordova:
    Any wagers (gentleman’s bet’s of course, no money involved) on how many of Keiths comments Alan or Neil will guano in the next 24 hours?

    It’s 1/17/18 21:17 GMT.

    I bet Alan and Neil won’t guano any more of Keiths comments in the next 24 hours.Keiths will find a way to bridle his tongue and say what awesome guys Alan and Neil are and thank them for being such outstanding moderators.

    An hour has passed and Keiths hasn’t gotten guanoed. 23 more hours to go before I win my bet. C’mon Keiths, I’m betting on your horse. You gotta help me out here.

  16. Definition of MUNG from the UrbanDictionary:
    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mung

    Broadly defined as anything that is very disgusting. Originally from the acronym “Mash Until No Good” from the practice of making many changes to a code until it is useless. Made popular from the Saturday Night Live sketch “Wayne’s World”, it was in the top 5 worst things to get in your halloween bag. It was mentioned again in South Park episode 317, this time more narrowly defined as a substance which comes out of a pregnant woman’s vagina when pressure is applied to her stomach. And somehow an urban legend involving corpse fluids has sprung off the term mung, though there is no documentation supporting that this is anything other than a gross-out story.

  17. stcordova: Broadly defined as anything that is very disgusting.

    🙂

    The backstory on my name comes from my time on board ship in the US Navy. There was a bucket that we kept under the spout of the coffee dispenser to catch dripping and hold old coffee people wanted to pour out since there was no sink in the space. It was called the mung bucket. Hence the name.

    Disgusting, perhaps. But nothing at all to do with female body parts.

  18. walto: Oh, you found somebody you think is not awful among the White Evangelicals who are behind Trump by about 75-25. Good for you Fifth!! Nice job!

    Actually I found yet another reason to look at people as unique individuals instead of just members of demographic groups. That sort of stereotyping leads to nothing good.

    Most Evangelical Trump voters that I know would be happy to vote for someone else if they would have been offered an alternative that did not seem to be overtly hostile to them and their interests.

    I did not vote for him but I am pleasantly surprised that things have gone as well as they have so far.

    I suggest you work for a better candidate next time.

    peace

  19. fifthmonarchyman: Most Evangelical Trump voters that I know would be happy to vote for someone else if they would have been offered an alternative that did not seem to be overtly hostile to them and their interests.

    Nonsense. There were plenty of mainstream conservative and republican candidates that were “pro-life”, anti-immigration, anti-“political correctness”, openly and proudly christian, disliked Obama and Hillary, taxes and basically all the other issues that appealed to white evangelicals. But still they went with the adulterer manchild pussygrabber.

  20. newton: Perhaps evangelicals should have supported a better candidate in the primaries if that was the alternative.

    I agree we all messed up. Just your side messed up more.

    peace

  21. Rumraket: There were plenty of mainstream conservative and republican candidates that were “pro-life”, anti-immigration, anti-“political correctness”, openly and proudly christian, disliked Obama and Hillary, taxes and basically all the other issues that appealed to white evangelicals. But still they went with the adulterer manchild pussygrabber.

    Actually In the primaries most of the Evangelicals I know went with one of the other candidates like Cruz or Carson. The country club Republicans split their vote between folks like Rubio and Jeb Bush

    The problem was that folks did not coalesce with a nonTrump till it was too late, by that time all we had was a choice between a known reprobate and what seemed like the devil herself.

    faced with that dilemma I went with none of the above.

    At that time I guarantee I would have gladly voted for almost any NonTrump that was not named Hillary.

    peace

  22. walto: I actually have no idea what you could mean by that.

    I’m a glass half full kind of guy

    for starters
    1) The sun still rises in the east and sets in the west
    2) There are no concentration camps on the border
    3) Martial law has not been declared

    even better

    1) no recession
    2) no major new war
    3) no major controversial legislation (besides the tax cut.)

    All and all not a bad couple of years. 😉
    It certainly could have been much worse
    peace

  23. fifthmonarchyman: for starters
    1) The sun still rises in the east and sets in the west
    2) There are no concentration camps on the border
    3) Martial law has not been declared

    Man that is one low bar…

    If you dont’ manage to disrupt the natural order, or avoid a genocide, things are “going well”. Hahaha what the fuck.

  24. Rumraket: If you dont’ manage to disrupt the natural order, or avoid a genocide, things are “going well”.

    Exactly, My sense of well being is not generally tied up in the actions of political leaders good or bad unless they really muck things up.

    Life is way too short to let those folks bring you down.

    peace

  25. newton: Perhaps, a run of the mill democrat vs an unstable, autocratic, unprincipled grifter.

    If your side would have nominated a run of the mill democrat instead of Caligula Clinton more evangelicals probably would have voted for them.

    It was not so long ago that Jimmy Carter got a large portion of the Evangelical vote.

    I know lots of folks who voted for Bill Clinton and somebody like Joseph Manchin would have probably won 40 states against Trump

    peace

  26. fifthmonarchyman: your side would have nominated a run of the mill democrat instead of Caligula Clinton more evangelicals probably would have voted for them.

    I would be careful invoking the name of Caligula, the present occupant is much closer in temperament and action than the former Senator from New York.

    It was not so long ago that Jimmy Carter got a large portion of the Evangelical vote.

    His opponent Reagan garnered more. 61%

    I know lots of folks who voted for Bill Clinton and somebody like Joseph Manchin would have probably won 40 states against Trump

    That would have been a dilemma for Democrats, vote a pro- life, anti environmentalist or chance Trump being elected.

  27. fifthmonarchyman: Exactly, My sense of well being is not generally tied up in the actions of political leaders good or bad unless they really muck things up.

    Then having John Bolton as the new National Security Advisor should catch your attention.

  28. newton: Then having John Bolton as the new National Security Advisor should catch your attention.

    I expect him to be fired in a week or so 😉
    That is Trump’s M.O. after all

    newton: That would have been a dilemma for Democrats, vote a pro- life, anti environmentalist or chance Trump being elected.

    Well we all make our choices and have to live with them don’t we.

    You can nominate someone who does not scare the BeJebus out of Bubba or deal with some one who scares the BeJebus out of you. It seems pretty strait forward to me.

    I even expect that a socialist like Sanders could have done better with the great unwashed than Hillary did.

    She was the worst possible choice in that regard AFAICT.

    peace

  29. newton: His opponent Reagan garnered more. 61%

    When is the last time you saw a republican get 39% of the African American vote?

    I was a kid and I remember well the loud discussions among the fundies I knew. It boiled down to Jimmy’s incompetence verses his admirable Christian morality. In the end some folks decided he would make a better Sunday school teacher than commander in chief.

    The point is that unlike some other demographic groups white evangelicals are not all that monolithic usually.

    peace

  30. newton: the present occupant is much closer in temperament and action than the former Senator from New York.

    I would say Trump is more like Huey Long or Ross Perot than Caligula. He is a populist rouge not a brilliant Machiavellian. Clinton has demonstrated that she was willing to do anything to gain power for herself including running for senate in a place she did not reside. 😉

    peace

  31. walto: Obviously, thanks are due to the white evangelicals right here at TSZ for making our country great again!

    Oh come now. He was voted in fair-and-square. Anyway, opponents should be organizing for the mid-term elections. No use crying over spilt milk.

  32. newton: That would have been a dilemma for Democrats, vote a pro- life, anti environmentalist or chance Trump being elected.

    I take it that by “pro-life” you mean “anti-abortion.”

  33. fifthmonarchyman: When is the last time you saw a republican get 39% of the African American vote?

    My guess before the Southern Strategy was adopted by Republicans.

    I was a kid and I remember well the loud discussions among the fundies I knew. It boiled down to Jimmy’s incompetence verses his admirable Christian morality.

    He only got half the evangelical votes in his first election.

    In the end some folks decided he would make a better Sunday school teacher than commander in chief.

    About11% one might guess.

    The point is that unlike some other demographic groups white evangelicals are not all that monolithic usually.

    I guess in the case of an amoral, lying , grifter they made an exception which is their choice.

  34. newton: The point is that unlike some other demographic groups white evangelicals are not all that monolithic usually.

    I guess in the case of an amoral, lying , grifter they made an exception which is their choice.

    Right. They’re certainly monolithic today, God bless ’em. And it’s important to note that Hillary Clinton [AKA the devil incarnate] is no longer running against the ignorant, bellicose, adulterous, corrupt liar. White evangelicals just, you know, like the guy. Maybe it’s because he’s recently come out for abstinence education–an area in which he’s obviously expert.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTMQAKK1tNI&feature=youtu.be

Leave a Reply