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]

2,369 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.

Leave a Reply