Peter Nyikos takes on abiogenesis:

Me:

You realize you’re DP crap has no merit, right? You’re just pulling this out of your ass; abiogenesis is a fast moving field and we have evidence that life originated on Earth. DP has no evidence, even Sagan retracted his DP bullshit.

The oldest evidence of life is 3.48 g.y.o. in rocks found from West Australia, that alone is evidence of abiogenesis.

Tell me how you arrived to your estimations, (most plausible explanation is that you pulled it of your ass).

Me:

Listen Nyikos, I`m going to be nice here and point out that DP would cause bankruptcy to that civilization; what “economic power” would even bother sending life to other planets when it has no potential gains?

Nyikos:

>
> You realize you’re DP crap has no merit, right?
Why don’t you read my FAQ draft before uttering proclamations like this?

urls on request.

Nyikos:

I see you didn’t read the FAQ draft.

B5. What about the astronomical expenses of a panspermia project?

REPLY: The expenses would be spread out over thousands, perhaps millions of years in the sort of project that Crick and Orgel had in mind. The
project might grow out of a long project of simply exploring the
planets of other stars with instrumental probes, and during that time
the panspermists could be expected to mine a great many asteroids or
moons of their own “solar” system, greatly expanding the resources at
their disposal.

Lately there has been renewed interest even by private companies in travel to, and exploitation of our own asteroids.

The panspermia project can be expected to start only after hundreds of
very likely candidates for abiogenesis were found, and no life found
on any of them, giving ample time for these other endeavors to mature.

More at:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/bcWYrv-0cI8/KZgmxbWFjHQJ

There are four other sections of the FAQ. Would you like to see urls for more?

> what “economic power” would even bother sending life to other planets when it has no potential gains?
The potential “economics-is-everything theory of history” gains are the employment of millions of people who might otherwise be a drag on the economy. Did you know that it was NOT the “New Deal,” but WWII, that brought us out of the depression?

Did you know that farmers destroyed lots of foodstuffs, such as milk, during the Great Depression just to keep prices high?

Me:

“There is plenty of evidence in stromatolite fossils easily twice that age. How do you discount it?”

I know, I meant 3.8 g.y.o. Typo.

“I see no rebuttal, just some TbBA. Inaccurate, at that.”

Inaccurate? Sagan did retract his claims on DP, which you WON’T DO. You’re saying that all the experimental evidence for abiogenesis is wrong? You’d rather stick to a speculative hypothesis with no observational or experimental support to science?

“Why don’t you read my FAQ draft before uttering proclamations like this?

urls on request.”

I did, and you got your ass kicked. I do regret spamming, but it’s irreversible anyways.

Me:

“The potential “economics-is-everything theory of history” gains are the employment of millions of people who might otherwise be a drag on the economy. Did you know that it was NOT the “New Deal,” but WWII, that brought us out of the depression?

Did you know that farmers destroyed lots of foodstuffs, such as milk, during the Great Depression just to keep prices high?”

I was born during the Depression, remember me saying that on t.o.?

“I see you didn’t read the FAQ draft.

B5. What about the astronomical expenses of a panspermia project?”

Another claim you pulled out of your ass.

“REPLY: The expenses would be spread out over thousands, perhaps millions of years in the sort of project that Crick and Orgel had in mind. The
project might grow out of a long project of simply exploring the
planets of other stars with instrumental probes, and during that time
the panspermists could be expected to mine a great many asteroids or
moons of their own “solar” system, greatly expanding the resources at
their disposal.”

Then, answer this: What would the potential economic benefits be?

Advertisements

An interesting discussion from talk.origins.

I was recently battling on the battleground . A small argument flared up between me and “Ray Martinez”.

The details below.

[….snip….]
So you reject the genetical theory (replication error and selection)
while accepting common descent? Very unique (and impossible) position.
The latter cannot be true unless the former occurs.
Ray

And I wrote:

Okay, Ray? He accepts a discredited version of evolution, “neo-
Lamarkism”. Strikes my silly, but I deal with people, like the Nyikos
asshole, or you.

Martinez wrote:

He’s your evo brother, not mine.
Ray (species immutabilist)

I wrote:

There is no such thing, as an “evo brother”. Evolution, is the changes
of allele frequencies within a population. And, evolution has done
great contributions to the medical field. No, evolution has brought
significant contributions to the medical field, creationism hasn’t.

Thrinaxodon
A cynodont in a kitchen.

And Ray stopped replying.

A man has no reason to be ashamed of having an ape for his grandfather. If there was an ancestor whom I should feel shame in recalling it would rather be a man — a man of restless and versatile intellect — who not content with an equivocal success in his own sphere of activity, plunges into scientific questions with which he has no real acquaintance, only to obscure them with aimless rhetoric, and distract the attention of his hearers from the real point at issue by eloquent digressions and skilled appeals to religious prejudice.

TH Huxley 

A man has no re…

Refutation of CreationWiki’s “article” on australopithecines.

“Australopithecines include two closely related genera (Australopithecus and Paranthropus). Australopithecines are distinguished by their very ape-like skull (though the teeth are more human-like than chimpanzee-like), small brain size (between 375 and 550cc), and knuckle-walking stance.”

Bullshit! Australopthecines, walked upright.[1] There’s even evidence, that they, started to develop a more human like brain growth (i.e. longer childhoods), as seen in Selam.[1]

“The claim that australopithecines, like Lucy, walked upright was largely based on the appearance of her leg and hip bone. However, australopithecines have long forearms and short hind legs. They also have curved fingers and long curved toes. Curved fingers and toes in extant primates are readily recognized as having no other purpose than full or part-time arboreal (tree-dwelling) life. It should also be noted that bipedal walking is common among living gorillas and some chimpanzees. However, this mode is not truly bipedal, and is more accurately referred to as knuckle-walking. Living nonhuman primates and australopithecines are probably analogous in this regard, and therefore, neither can be considered any closer to humans than the other.”

Mostly, BS! They forget to mention the plenty of other fossils we found. They didn’t have long curved toes. That’s not true, gorillas don’t have the body form to walk upright. Lucy has the anatomical body parts, to walk upright![1,2]

Citations

1 Scientific American, What Makes Us Human, chapter 1.

Unreccomended links.

Critique of the “Aquatic Ape Hypothesis”.

Proponent of the “aquatic ape hypothesis”, say that we should challenge the standing hypotheses. That is the only part I agree with. The rest are lies. They say that we are the only primates with a layer of fat. I know that is not true, here’s a picture. They also say that weImageare the only primates that can control are breath, I know that’s true ’cause I’ve seen monkeys swim underwater, controlling their breath.