Re: Modeling the origins of life: New evidence for an 'RNA World'

On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 16:01:51 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>:

On 3/11/24 3:33 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:

On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 15:08:01 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
 

On 3/11/24 2:46 PM, Richmond wrote:

erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes:
>

On 3/11/24 12:24 PM, Richmond wrote:

JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> writes:
>

    Pro Plyd wrote:
>

https://phys.org/news/2024-03-life-evidence-rna-world.html ...  But
how did all of this begin? In the origins of life, long before
cells and proteins and DNA, could a similar sort of evolution have
taken place on a simpler scale? Scientists in the 1960s, including
Salk Fellow Leslie Orgel, proposed that life began with the "RNA
World," a hypothetical era in which small, stringy RNA molecules
ruled the early Earth and established the dynamics of Darwinian
evolution.

>
>
"Darwinian Evolution," besides making things difficult when everyone
later claims that they're not "Darwinists," is just plain
wrong. Darwin believed that if an animal ran a lot, their leg
muscles would grow and produce "Bigger, running-around-a-lot"
Gemmules which would flow to the gonads and be passed on the the
next generation, who would be born with the bigger, running around a
lot muscles.
>
As i pointed out many times, and will point out many more times
because, let's face it, the last thing anyone in this group ever
wanted was science but...
>
Darwin REJECTED evolution. He didn't believe in it. Oh, he did
eventually use that word but this is the internet.  We're all quite
accustomed to people misusing terms, and Darwin was a pioneer. In
fact, later, in the Communist world, Stalin and then Mao banned
evolution, and in it's place promoted Darwin's ideas. Renamed, of
course. But they were all copying the exact same source material,
Lamarcksim...
>
Darwin was an idiot. And he certainly never invented or discovered
evolution. Evolution was already quite old by the time that Darwin
sabotaged science with his inability to grasp it. No, sorry,
evolution was always part of "Common Descent," and if you do the
Google you'll find sources pushing THAT idea back into the thousands
of years..
>
Darwin's single biggest impact on science -- REAL science, as
opposed to the British aristocracy glorifying itself -- was HOLDING
BACK science in the English speaking world for 20 years by becoming
the face of Naturalism and throwing aside Mendel.
>
Yes, it took that long -- 20 years -- for some Brit with a stick up
his ass to pretend that he made Mendel's discoveries...
>
This is important. It's not a small error. When someone spews an
oxymoron like "Darwinian Evolution" it's not because they're so
meticulous in their work. No. It's because they are hitting
buckets. They're communicating.  They are invoking things that the
layman will recognize as familiar. They are, as the saying goes,
"Putting lipstick on a pig."
>
"I said DARWINIAN evolution! That's cus I is edu ma kated. I know
stuff."
>
Again, not a small error. It makes the piece as being meant for "The
un edu ma kated"... the only people who might find "Darwinian"
evolution sciency!
>
Demand accuracy.
>
Don't you think you're worth it?
>
Don't you think the promotion of science is worth it?
>
Demand accuracy. Don't tolerate being dummed down by your efforts to
learn and grow. It's not an unreasonable request, demanding
publications that are accurate.  >> Darwin didn't know about genes,
but then his book was published >> before >> Mendel, so you can't
really blame him for that. As for rejecting >> evolution, well the
last line in 'The Origin of Species' is: >> ", from so simple a
beginning endless forms most beautiful and most >> wonderful have
been, and are being, evolved."  >> I demand accuracy.

>

>
JTEM has for many years trolled many newsgroups. Whether he is a
genuine fool or just plays one on the net is probably impossible to
tell. Almost everything is this gem is rubbish.

>
But what's the point in replying to it just to say it is rubbish? I
wouldn't have even noticed it if no one had replied to it.
>

Sometimes he just ticks people off.  Thunderbird has a little trash can
icon that I use to reply to him.
>

Even better to never see his posts at all; my "Special
Childrens' File" sees to that quite nicely, so I only need
to ignore responses to him, which cuts the time I waste on
him by quite a bit.

>

Thunderbird also has filters that can eliminate obnoxious posters, but
I've found that sometimes it effectively clogs the pipe to the
newsgroup.  If I delete the filters, lots of stuff shows up immediately.
 Has anybody else observed this?
>

That doesn't happen with Agent; it can filter on specific
posters. of course, nymshifting by a**holes gets around
that, but some things are impervious to solution.

>

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
 the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov