From Newsgroup: talk.origins

A perspective on OoL from Dr. Edward T. Peltzer. Quotes following are interview excerpts.
_______

I did have many discussions with Miller and Bada on many subjects, but
the issues of pre-biotic chemistry and the origin of life were the most common. Both were excellent chemists. You could ask them about almost
anything and they would have an answer or know where one could look to
find out. In some cases, I suspected they already knew, but wanted to
give me the experience of scouring the library to find out. One could
say that they taught me everything I new about prebiotic chemistry at
the time.

During his doctoral studies at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography
(SIO), he was mentored by two luminaries in prebiotic chemistry: Stanley Miller, renowned for the Miller-Urey experiment simulating early Earth conditions, and Jeffrey Bada, an expert in the field of amino acid racemization and a prominent figure in the study of organic compounds in meteorites.

As for the various individual [OoL] theories, here are a few of the
fatal errors. Hydrothermal vents do not make organic compounds, they
destroy them.

Surface based synthesis might yield a few useful compounds, but many
compounds with a diverse range of functionality are needed for the first organism. RNA is too unstable outside a living cell to offer much hope
of it doing anything in the pre-biotic soup if somehow it was formed
(which is exceptionally unlikely).

My least favorite theory among all the options is the lipid world.
Assuming that one could get a collection of similar chain length fatty
acids bonded to glycerol to make triglycerides (which itself is highly unlikely in the pre-biotic soup of randomly generated compounds), then
one could form an artificial vesicle (alternatively called a coacervate
or liposome) with a lipid bilayer film. What you then have is not much
more than a rCLsoap bubble.rCY There is no interior metabolism, no ion-transport pathways in the rCLmembranerCY; it is nothing more than a film-coated droplet. How it would acquire an internal metabolism, etc.,
is anyonerCOs guess. But guesses, as entertaining as they might be, are
not a scientific explanation of how life arose abiotically.

Random undirected chemistry does not yield biopolymers. Organisms need proteins, DNA &/or RNA, polysaccharides, etc. These polymers are uniform
in that they are composed of a monomeric class of compounds bound
together in very specific ways: proteins are chains of amino acids
linked by peptide bonds; DNA & RNA are chains of nucleotides linked by phosphate bridges; polysaccharides (e.g., starch & cellulose) are chains
of glucose molecules linked by +#-(1,4) glycosidic bonds in starch
(amylose) and +#-(1,4) glycosidic bonds in cellulose. Random, undirected chemical reactions do not yield these pure polymers. Instead, they yield polymers formed by random condensations of whatever compounds are at
hand, producing high molecular weight compounds without a well-defined structure. Examples of this are fulvic and humic acids, melanoids, etc.
Their structures are complex, involve monomers from a variety of
compound classes and without a common bonding pattern. As such, they
exhibit little to no biological activity and store no information.

The biggest challenge of all will be to convince the folks who dream up
the various theories for the origin of life to include the impact of
competing reactions on their pathways as opposed to writing rCLjust so stories.rCY

The origin of homochirality (D-sugars, L-amino acids, etc.) has proved
to be a difficult problem to solve. The goal needs to be chiral purity otherwise just a single wrong isomer can completely foul the
functionality of the biopolymer (protein, DNA/RNA, etc.). Homochirality
is always up against racemization, the process by which chiral molecules
get mixed with their mirror images (enantiomers). Any such lack of
purity among chiral molecules is deadly to life. All three of the
proposed processes to achieve homochirality fail for such reasons.
First, they are slow and only achieve a partial enrichment of the
desired form. Second, racemization reactions work faster to undo this enrichment. What little progress is made is quickly lost. Third, the racemization rate increases with temperature. So, the condition needed
to speed-up other synthesis processes works against homochirality. The
source of homochirality remains an unsolved mystery.

Another problem for abiotic synthesis is that some amino acids have two
amino groups, and some have two carboxylic acid groups. This leads to
the possibility that the carboxlic acid group can bind with the wrong
amino group (or vice-versa) and thus branches can form in undirected syntheses. None of the proteins in living systems have rCLbranchesrCY as
these would impair the proper folding of the proteins into the enzymatic active forms.

Meanwhile, there are competing reactions that destroy the sugars. We
have already seen that the Maillard reaction of amino acids with sugars
yields a variety of melanoid products. And unless the environmental
conditions are just right and the pH gets too high, the Cannizzaro
reaction will consume sugars in pairs yielding an alcohol and a
carboxylic acid. Moreover, high temperatures (like are found in
hydrothermal vents) will cause the sugars to dehydrate and char and,
yes, this does happen even underwater at high pressures. The principal products were intractable materials composed of melanoids, tars and
carbon soot around the electrodes. This was not the kind of materials biologists and chemists were looking for as they are not components of
living organisms. Later it would be shown that the amino acids were
racemic, not the pure L-isomers used by living organisms. More recent
analyses have revealed a total of about 50 different amino acids were
formed, but only 20 are used by living organisms. So, while he did find
amino acids, they were not solely the ones living organisms use. There
was a lot of chaff mixed in with the wheat. While Miller was very open
and straightforward about these problems, they tend to get over-looked
in origin-of-life discussions. There is a tendency to focus on the path
to life ignoring all the problems: the competing reactions and
sidetracks along the way. This was not MillerrCOs fault, but it is common behavior among those that argue for a solely naturalistic origin of
life, where it is assumed that time and rCLnatural selectionrCY will take
care of all the problems.

Has my view on whether liferCOs emergence was a natural, unguided process shifted with time? Of course. One starts out young and na|>ve. I believed pretty much everything I read in books and was taught in class. But as I learned more, I developed a healthy skepticism and learned to think for myself. Not so much in high school, but more so in college and graduate school. It was all part of being a scientist: you learn to not always
take everything at face value. Instead, I learned to ask questions: Do
the conclusions fit the data? What is the evidence for this?

[Etc...]

https://scienceandculture.com/2025/08/interview-with-edward-peltzer-on-the-origin-of-life/

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 8/21/2025 6:26 PM, MarkE wrote:

A perspective on OoL from Dr. Edward T. Peltzer. Quotes following are interview excerpts.
_______

I did have many discussions with Miller and Bada on many subjects, but
the issues of pre-biotic chemistry and the origin of life were the most common. Both were excellent chemists. You could ask them about almost anything and they would have an answer or know where one could look to
find out. In some cases, I suspected they already knew, but wanted to
give me the experience of scouring the library to find out. One could
say that they taught me everything I new about prebiotic chemistry at
the time.

During his doctoral studies at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO), he was mentored by two luminaries in prebiotic chemistry: Stanley Miller, renowned for the Miller-Urey experiment simulating early Earth conditions, and Jeffrey Bada, an expert in the field of amino acid racemization and a prominent figure in the study of organic compounds in meteorites.

As for the various individual [OoL] theories, here are a few of the
fatal errors. Hydrothermal vents do not make organic compounds, they
destroy them.

Surface based synthesis might yield a few useful compounds, but many compounds with a diverse range of functionality are needed for the first organism. RNA is too unstable outside a living cell to offer much hope
of it doing anything in the pre-biotic soup if somehow it was formed
(which is exceptionally unlikely).

My least favorite theory among all the options is the lipid world.
Assuming that one could get a collection of similar chain length fatty
acids bonded to glycerol to make triglycerides (which itself is highly unlikely in the pre-biotic soup of randomly generated compounds), then
one could form an artificial vesicle (alternatively called a coacervate
or liposome) with a lipid bilayer film. What you then have is not much
more than a rCLsoap bubble.rCY There is no interior metabolism, no ion- transport pathways in the rCLmembranerCY; it is nothing more than a film- coated droplet. How it would acquire an internal metabolism, etc., is anyonerCOs guess. But guesses, as entertaining as they might be, are not a scientific explanation of how life arose abiotically.

Random undirected chemistry does not yield biopolymers. Organisms need proteins, DNA &/or RNA, polysaccharides, etc. These polymers are uniform
in that they are composed of a monomeric class of compounds bound
together in very specific ways: proteins are chains of amino acids
linked by peptide bonds; DNA & RNA are chains of nucleotides linked by phosphate bridges; polysaccharides (e.g., starch & cellulose) are chains
of glucose molecules linked by +#-(1,4) glycosidic bonds in starch
(amylose) and +#-(1,4) glycosidic bonds in cellulose. Random, undirected chemical reactions do not yield these pure polymers. Instead, they yield polymers formed by random condensations of whatever compounds are at
hand, producing high molecular weight compounds without a well-defined structure. Examples of this are fulvic and humic acids, melanoids, etc. Their structures are complex, involve monomers from a variety of
compound classes and without a common bonding pattern. As such, they
exhibit little to no biological activity and store no information.

The biggest challenge of all will be to convince the folks who dream up
the various theories for the origin of life to include the impact of competing reactions on their pathways as opposed to writing rCLjust so stories.rCY

The origin of homochirality (D-sugars, L-amino acids, etc.) has proved
to be a difficult problem to solve. The goal needs to be chiral purity otherwise just a single wrong isomer can completely foul the
functionality of the biopolymer (protein, DNA/RNA, etc.). Homochirality
is always up against racemization, the process by which chiral molecules
get mixed with their mirror images (enantiomers). Any such lack of
purity among chiral molecules is deadly to life. All three of the
proposed processes to achieve homochirality fail for such reasons.
First, they are slow and only achieve a partial enrichment of the
desired form. Second, racemization reactions work faster to undo this enrichment. What little progress is made is quickly lost. Third, the racemization rate increases with temperature. So, the condition needed
to speed-up other synthesis processes works against homochirality. The source of homochirality remains an unsolved mystery.

Another problem for abiotic synthesis is that some amino acids have two amino groups, and some have two carboxylic acid groups. This leads to
the possibility that the carboxlic acid group can bind with the wrong
amino group (or vice-versa) and thus branches can form in undirected syntheses. None of the proteins in living systems have rCLbranchesrCY as these would impair the proper folding of the proteins into the enzymatic active forms.

Meanwhile, there are competing reactions that destroy the sugars. We
have already seen that the Maillard reaction of amino acids with sugars yields a variety of melanoid products. And unless the environmental conditions are just right and the pH gets too high, the Cannizzaro
reaction will consume sugars in pairs yielding an alcohol and a
carboxylic acid. Moreover, high temperatures (like are found in
hydrothermal vents) will cause the sugars to dehydrate and char and,
yes, this does happen even underwater at high pressures. The principal products were intractable materials composed of melanoids, tars and
carbon soot around the electrodes. This was not the kind of materials biologists and chemists were looking for as they are not components of living organisms. Later it would be shown that the amino acids were
racemic, not the pure L-isomers used by living organisms. More recent analyses have revealed a total of about 50 different amino acids were formed, but only 20 are used by living organisms. So, while he did find amino acids, they were not solely the ones living organisms use. There
was a lot of chaff mixed in with the wheat. While Miller was very open
and straightforward about these problems, they tend to get over-looked
in origin-of-life discussions. There is a tendency to focus on the path
to life ignoring all the problems: the competing reactions and
sidetracks along the way. This was not MillerrCOs fault, but it is common behavior among those that argue for a solely naturalistic origin of
life, where it is assumed that time and rCLnatural selectionrCY will take care of all the problems.

Has my view on whether liferCOs emergence was a natural, unguided process shifted with time? Of course. One starts out young and na|>ve. I believed pretty much everything I read in books and was taught in class. But as I learned more, I developed a healthy skepticism and learned to think for myself. Not so much in high school, but more so in college and graduate school. It was all part of being a scientist: you learn to not always
take everything at face value. Instead, I learned to ask questions: Do
the conclusions fit the data? What is the evidence for this?

[Etc...]

https://scienceandculture.com/2025/08/interview-with-edward-peltzer-on- the-origin-of-life/

What good does the gap denial do for you? It only allows IDiotic
Biblical creationists to lie to themselves about reality. You know this
for a fact, so why keep up the IDiotic stupidity. It doesn't matter how
the origin of life occurred on this planet. Whatever happened is not Biblical, so it does not support your Biblical beliefs. Wallowing in
denial is never going to support your religious beliefs. That is why
the other IDiots quit the ID scam. Why you continue to go to the ID
perps in order to be lied to is stupid and dishonest. The only IDiots
left after the bait and switch started to go down were the ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest. Competent, informed, and honest IDiotic creationists do not exist. The fact that the bait and switch IDiotic
scam still goes down on their own creationist support base is proof of that.

You have to deal with the reality in which you have to deny the science.
No matter what happened with respect to the origin of life on this
planet the Bible is wrong once again. The earth is not flat, we do not
live in a geocentric universe, and the earth is much older than a few
thousand years. The earth was known not to be flat since before Christ
was born. Geocentrism lost out centuries ago. YEC was dead before
Darwin came up with natural selection. Even Kelvin's estimates were in
the hundreds of millions of years. The actual origin of life on this
planet is not mentioned in the Bible, nor is the evolution of that life
over billions of years. The Biblical order of the creation of life on
earth is as wrong as the shape of the earth and it's place in the
universe. Nothing about nature will support your Biblical beliefs. You
have to acknowledge that nature is not Biblical, and this fact does not
matter for some reason when it is the basis for your denial of reality.

Gap denial is never going to support your religious beliefs when the god
that fills the gaps is not Biblical. The Supreme court was correct in
their comments in scientific creationist gap denial. Just because we do
not currently understand something about nature, is not any support for
your religious beliefs. This is obviously the case with gaps that need
to be filled by gods that are not Biblical.

Ron Okimoto

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 8/21/2025 6:26 PM, MarkE wrote:

A perspective on OoL from Dr. Edward T. Peltzer. Quotes following are interview excerpts.

---snip--->

https://scienceandculture.com/2025/08/interview-with-edward-peltzer-on- the-origin-of-life/

Thanks Mark for the post. Peltzer is a very interesting and
knowledgeable man. I found his perspective and his approach to answers
very reasonable.

sticks

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 8/23/2025 8:06 AM, MarkE wrote:

On 22/08/2025 11:19 pm, RonO wrote:

On 8/21/2025 6:26 PM, MarkE wrote:

A perspective on OoL from Dr. Edward T. Peltzer. Quotes following are
interview excerpts.
_______

I did have many discussions with Miller and Bada on many subjects,
but the issues of pre-biotic chemistry and the origin of life were
the most common. Both were excellent chemists. You could ask them
about almost anything and they would have an answer or know where one
could look to find out. In some cases, I suspected they already knew,
but wanted to give me the experience of scouring the library to find
out. One could say that they taught me everything I new about
prebiotic chemistry at the time.

During his doctoral studies at the Scripps Institution of
Oceanography (SIO), he was mentored by two luminaries in prebiotic
chemistry: Stanley Miller, renowned for the Miller-Urey experiment
simulating early Earth conditions, and Jeffrey Bada, an expert in the
field of amino acid racemization and a prominent figure in the study
of organic compounds in meteorites.

As for the various individual [OoL] theories, here are a few of the
fatal errors. Hydrothermal vents do not make organic compounds, they
destroy them.

Surface based synthesis might yield a few useful compounds, but many
compounds with a diverse range of functionality are needed for the
first organism. RNA is too unstable outside a living cell to offer
much hope of it doing anything in the pre-biotic soup if somehow it
was formed (which is exceptionally unlikely).

My least favorite theory among all the options is the lipid world.
Assuming that one could get a collection of similar chain length
fatty acids bonded to glycerol to make triglycerides (which itself is
highly unlikely in the pre-biotic soup of randomly generated
compounds), then one could form an artificial vesicle (alternatively
called a coacervate or liposome) with a lipid bilayer film. What you
then have is not much more than a rCLsoap bubble.rCY There is no interior >>> metabolism, no ion- transport pathways in the rCLmembranerCY; it is
nothing more than a film- coated droplet. How it would acquire an
internal metabolism, etc., is anyonerCOs guess. But guesses, as
entertaining as they might be, are not a scientific explanation of
how life arose abiotically.

Random undirected chemistry does not yield biopolymers. Organisms
need proteins, DNA &/or RNA, polysaccharides, etc. These polymers are
uniform in that they are composed of a monomeric class of compounds
bound together in very specific ways: proteins are chains of amino
acids linked by peptide bonds; DNA & RNA are chains of nucleotides
linked by phosphate bridges; polysaccharides (e.g., starch &
cellulose) are chains of glucose molecules linked by +#-(1,4)
glycosidic bonds in starch (amylose) and +#-(1,4) glycosidic bonds in
cellulose. Random, undirected chemical reactions do not yield these
pure polymers. Instead, they yield polymers formed by random
condensations of whatever compounds are at hand, producing high
molecular weight compounds without a well-defined structure. Examples
of this are fulvic and humic acids, melanoids, etc. Their structures
are complex, involve monomers from a variety of compound classes and
without a common bonding pattern. As such, they exhibit little to no
biological activity and store no information.

The biggest challenge of all will be to convince the folks who dream
up the various theories for the origin of life to include the impact
of competing reactions on their pathways as opposed to writing rCLjust
so stories.rCY

The origin of homochirality (D-sugars, L-amino acids, etc.) has
proved to be a difficult problem to solve. The goal needs to be
chiral purity otherwise just a single wrong isomer can completely
foul the functionality of the biopolymer (protein, DNA/RNA, etc.).
Homochirality is always up against racemization, the process by which
chiral molecules get mixed with their mirror images (enantiomers).
Any such lack of purity among chiral molecules is deadly to life. All
three of the proposed processes to achieve homochirality fail for
such reasons. First, they are slow and only achieve a partial
enrichment of the desired form. Second, racemization reactions work
faster to undo this enrichment. What little progress is made is
quickly lost. Third, the racemization rate increases with
temperature. So, the condition needed to speed-up other synthesis
processes works against homochirality. The source of homochirality
remains an unsolved mystery.

Another problem for abiotic synthesis is that some amino acids have
two amino groups, and some have two carboxylic acid groups. This
leads to the possibility that the carboxlic acid group can bind with
the wrong amino group (or vice-versa) and thus branches can form in
undirected syntheses. None of the proteins in living systems have
rCLbranchesrCY as these would impair the proper folding of the proteins >>> into the enzymatic active forms.

Meanwhile, there are competing reactions that destroy the sugars. We
have already seen that the Maillard reaction of amino acids with
sugars yields a variety of melanoid products. And unless the
environmental conditions are just right and the pH gets too high, the
Cannizzaro reaction will consume sugars in pairs yielding an alcohol
and a carboxylic acid. Moreover, high temperatures (like are found in
hydrothermal vents) will cause the sugars to dehydrate and char and,
yes, this does happen even underwater at high pressures. The
principal products were intractable materials composed of melanoids,
tars and carbon soot around the electrodes. This was not the kind of
materials biologists and chemists were looking for as they are not
components of living organisms. Later it would be shown that the
amino acids were racemic, not the pure L-isomers used by living
organisms. More recent analyses have revealed a total of about 50
different amino acids were formed, but only 20 are used by living
organisms. So, while he did find amino acids, they were not solely
the ones living organisms use. There was a lot of chaff mixed in with
the wheat. While Miller was very open and straightforward about these
problems, they tend to get over-looked in origin-of-life discussions.
There is a tendency to focus on the path to life ignoring all the
problems: the competing reactions and sidetracks along the way. This
was not MillerrCOs fault, but it is common behavior among those that
argue for a solely naturalistic origin of life, where it is assumed
that time and rCLnatural selectionrCY will take care of all the problems. >>>
Has my view on whether liferCOs emergence was a natural, unguided
process shifted with time? Of course. One starts out young and na|>ve.
I believed pretty much everything I read in books and was taught in
class. But as I learned more, I developed a healthy skepticism and
learned to think for myself. Not so much in high school, but more so
in college and graduate school. It was all part of being a scientist:
you learn to not always take everything at face value. Instead, I
learned to ask questions: Do the conclusions fit the data? What is
the evidence for this?

[Etc...]

https://scienceandculture.com/2025/08/interview-with-edward-peltzer-
on- the-origin-of-life/

What good does the gap denial do for you?-a It only allows IDiotic
Biblical creationists to lie to themselves about reality.-a You know
this for a fact, so why keep up the IDiotic stupidity.-a It doesn't
matter how the origin of life occurred on this planet.-a Whatever
happened is not Biblical, so it does not support your Biblical
beliefs.-a Wallowing in denial is never going to support your religious
beliefs.-a That is why the other IDiots quit the ID scam.-a Why you
continue to go to the ID perps in order to be lied to is stupid and
dishonest.-a The only IDiots left after the bait and switch started to
go down were the ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest.-a Competent,
informed, and honest IDiotic creationists do not exist.-a The fact that
the bait and switch IDiotic scam still goes down on their own
creationist support base is proof of that.

You have to deal with the reality in which you have to deny the
science. -a-aNo matter what happened with respect to the origin of life
on this planet the Bible is wrong once again.-a The earth is not flat,
we do not live in a geocentric universe, and the earth is much older
than a few thousand years.-a The earth was known not to be flat since
before Christ was born.-a Geocentrism lost out centuries ago.-a YEC was
dead before Darwin came up with natural selection.-a Even Kelvin's
estimates were in the hundreds of millions of years.-a The actual
origin of life on this planet is not mentioned in the Bible, nor is
the evolution of that life over billions of years.-a The Biblical order
of the creation of life on earth is as wrong as the shape of the earth
and it's place in the universe.-a Nothing about nature will support
your Biblical beliefs.-a You have to acknowledge that nature is not
Biblical, and this fact does not matter for some reason when it is the
basis for your denial of reality.

Gap denial is never going to support your religious beliefs when the
god that fills the gaps is not Biblical.-a The Supreme court was
correct in their comments in scientific creationist gap denial.-a Just
because we do not currently understand something about nature, is not
any support for your religious beliefs.-a This is obviously the case
with gaps that need to be filled by gods that are not Biblical.

Ron Okimoto

Ron, this post is not about the Bible or any particular interpretation
of it. The interview cited is only science. Ironically, your bluster and misdirection serve to "deny the science".

I first heard of this group to my surprise in a book I was reading. I
found E-S did carry it, and I have been trying to read the well over
3000 posts they carry to get a feel for what gets discussed here, and
the value of subscribing. The control documents explain the group as this:

"The newsgroup talk.origins is meant as a venue for discussion of the scientific, religious, and political issues pertaining to various
theories of the origins and development of life and the universe.
Within such basic guidelines, wide-ranging discussions over a large
number of topics are covered, all relating back to the main purpose of
the group."

That sounded fine, so I started trying to catch up on posts. The
charter documents also claim that the discussion here is "(sometimes
hot!)." That's also fine, as most of Usenet is nowadays. But after
reading the reply above, I realized I could have written it myself.
I've read almost the same thing over and over again in the posts I've
read, and I'm only a small way through them.

What I find interesting in the reply above is what appears to be this
posters usual tactic of disregarding the issue and turning it into a
religious attack. The original post by Mark had nothing to do with
religion. It was from a scientist who has found some very real problems
in his years of work regarding Naturalistic OoL, even though he
initially began his adult life accepting most of the Darwinian Evolution
he was taught. Though he does speak of the very big problems science
has to overcome in OoL research, he is kind enough to offer an
explanation of how he thinks evolution minded scientists should proceed
in the future. Where progress might be found. He seems fairly
controlled and even-tempered, and certainly open-minded. Exactly what a
good researcher should be. Peltzer gives example after example of
naturalist failings, which the reply above completely ignores and goes
off on the usual rant. I don't find that unexpected, but I do find it
rather boring and irrelevant.



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

sticks wrote:

On 8/23/2025 8:06 AM, MarkE wrote:

On 22/08/2025 11:19 pm, RonO wrote:

On 8/21/2025 6:26 PM, MarkE wrote:

A perspective on OoL from Dr. Edward T. Peltzer. Quotes following
are interview excerpts.
_______

I did have many discussions with Miller and Bada on many subjects,
but the issues of pre-biotic chemistry and the origin of life were
the most common. Both were excellent chemists. You could ask them
about almost anything and they would have an answer or know where
one could look to find out. In some cases, I suspected they already
knew, but wanted to give me the experience of scouring the library
to find out. One could say that they taught me everything I new
about prebiotic chemistry at the time.

During his doctoral studies at the Scripps Institution of
Oceanography (SIO), he was mentored by two luminaries in prebiotic
chemistry: Stanley Miller, renowned for the Miller-Urey experiment
simulating early Earth conditions, and Jeffrey Bada, an expert in
the field of amino acid racemization and a prominent figure in the
study of organic compounds in meteorites.

As for the various individual [OoL] theories, here are a few of the
fatal errors. Hydrothermal vents do not make organic compounds, they
destroy them.

Surface based synthesis might yield a few useful compounds, but many
compounds with a diverse range of functionality are needed for the
first organism. RNA is too unstable outside a living cell to offer
much hope of it doing anything in the pre-biotic soup if somehow it
was formed (which is exceptionally unlikely).

My least favorite theory among all the options is the lipid world.
Assuming that one could get a collection of similar chain length
fatty acids bonded to glycerol to make triglycerides (which itself
is highly unlikely in the pre-biotic soup of randomly generated
compounds), then one could form an artificial vesicle (alternatively
called a coacervate or liposome) with a lipid bilayer film. What you
then have is not much more than a rCLsoap bubble.rCY There is no
interior metabolism, no ion- transport pathways in the rCLmembranerCY; >>>> it is nothing more than a film- coated droplet. How it would acquire
an internal metabolism, etc., is anyonerCOs guess. But guesses, as
entertaining as they might be, are not a scientific explanation of
how life arose abiotically.

Random undirected chemistry does not yield biopolymers. Organisms
need proteins, DNA &/or RNA, polysaccharides, etc. These polymers
are uniform in that they are composed of a monomeric class of
compounds bound together in very specific ways: proteins are chains
of amino acids linked by peptide bonds; DNA & RNA are chains of
nucleotides linked by phosphate bridges; polysaccharides (e.g.,
starch & cellulose) are chains of glucose molecules linked by
+#-(1,4) glycosidic bonds in starch (amylose) and +#-(1,4) glycosidic >>>> bonds in cellulose. Random, undirected chemical reactions do not
yield these pure polymers. Instead, they yield polymers formed by
random condensations of whatever compounds are at hand, producing
high molecular weight compounds without a well-defined structure.
Examples of this are fulvic and humic acids, melanoids, etc. Their
structures are complex, involve monomers from a variety of compound
classes and without a common bonding pattern. As such, they exhibit
little to no biological activity and store no information.

The biggest challenge of all will be to convince the folks who dream
up the various theories for the origin of life to include the impact
of competing reactions on their pathways as opposed to writing rCLjust >>>> so stories.rCY

The origin of homochirality (D-sugars, L-amino acids, etc.) has
proved to be a difficult problem to solve. The goal needs to be
chiral purity otherwise just a single wrong isomer can completely
foul the functionality of the biopolymer (protein, DNA/RNA, etc.).
Homochirality is always up against racemization, the process by
which chiral molecules get mixed with their mirror images
(enantiomers). Any such lack of purity among chiral molecules is
deadly to life. All three of the proposed processes to achieve
homochirality fail for such reasons. First, they are slow and only
achieve a partial enrichment of the desired form. Second,
racemization reactions work faster to undo this enrichment. What
little progress is made is quickly lost. Third, the racemization
rate increases with temperature. So, the condition needed to
speed-up other synthesis processes works against homochirality. The
source of homochirality remains an unsolved mystery.

Another problem for abiotic synthesis is that some amino acids have
two amino groups, and some have two carboxylic acid groups. This
leads to the possibility that the carboxlic acid group can bind with
the wrong amino group (or vice-versa) and thus branches can form in
undirected syntheses. None of the proteins in living systems have
rCLbranchesrCY as these would impair the proper folding of the proteins >>>> into the enzymatic active forms.

Meanwhile, there are competing reactions that destroy the sugars. We
have already seen that the Maillard reaction of amino acids with
sugars yields a variety of melanoid products. And unless the
environmental conditions are just right and the pH gets too high,
the Cannizzaro reaction will consume sugars in pairs yielding an
alcohol and a carboxylic acid. Moreover, high temperatures (like are
found in hydrothermal vents) will cause the sugars to dehydrate and
char and, yes, this does happen even underwater at high pressures.
The principal products were intractable materials composed of
melanoids, tars and carbon soot around the electrodes. This was not
the kind of materials biologists and chemists were looking for as
they are not components of living organisms. Later it would be shown
that the amino acids were racemic, not the pure L-isomers used by
living organisms. More recent analyses have revealed a total of
about 50 different amino acids were formed, but only 20 are used by
living organisms. So, while he did find amino acids, they were not
solely the ones living organisms use. There was a lot of chaff mixed
in with the wheat. While Miller was very open and straightforward
about these problems, they tend to get over-looked in origin-of-life
discussions. There is a tendency to focus on the path to life
ignoring all the problems: the competing reactions and sidetracks
along the way. This was not MillerrCOs fault, but it is common
behavior among those that argue for a solely naturalistic origin of
life, where it is assumed that time and rCLnatural selectionrCY will
take care of all the problems.

Has my view on whether liferCOs emergence was a natural, unguided
process shifted with time? Of course. One starts out young and

ve. I believed pretty much everything I read in books and was

taught in class. But as I learned more, I developed a healthy
skepticism and learned to think for myself. Not so much in high
school, but more so in college and graduate school. It was all part
of being a scientist: you learn to not always take everything at
face value. Instead, I learned to ask questions: Do the conclusions
fit the data? What is the evidence for this?

[Etc...]

https://scienceandculture.com/2025/08/interview-with-edward-peltzer-
on- the-origin-of-life/

What good does the gap denial do for you?-a It only allows IDiotic
Biblical creationists to lie to themselves about reality.-a You know
this for a fact, so why keep up the IDiotic stupidity.-a It doesn't
matter how the origin of life occurred on this planet.-a Whatever
happened is not Biblical, so it does not support your Biblical
beliefs.-a Wallowing in denial is never going to support your
religious beliefs.-a That is why the other IDiots quit the ID scam.
Why you continue to go to the ID perps in order to be lied to is
stupid and dishonest.-a The only IDiots left after the bait and switch
started to go down were the ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest.
Competent, informed, and honest IDiotic creationists do not exist.
The fact that the bait and switch IDiotic scam still goes down on
their own creationist support base is proof of that.

You have to deal with the reality in which you have to deny the
science. -a-aNo matter what happened with respect to the origin of life >>> on this planet the Bible is wrong once again.-a The earth is not flat,
we do not live in a geocentric universe, and the earth is much older
than a few thousand years.-a The earth was known not to be flat since
before Christ was born.-a Geocentrism lost out centuries ago.-a YEC was >>> dead before Darwin came up with natural selection.-a Even Kelvin's
estimates were in the hundreds of millions of years.-a The actual
origin of life on this planet is not mentioned in the Bible, nor is
the evolution of that life over billions of years.-a The Biblical
order of the creation of life on earth is as wrong as the shape of
the earth and it's place in the universe.-a Nothing about nature will
support your Biblical beliefs.-a You have to acknowledge that nature
is not Biblical, and this fact does not matter for some reason when
it is the basis for your denial of reality.

Gap denial is never going to support your religious beliefs when the
god that fills the gaps is not Biblical.-a The Supreme court was
correct in their comments in scientific creationist gap denial.-a Just
because we do not currently understand something about nature, is not
any support for your religious beliefs.-a This is obviously the case
with gaps that need to be filled by gods that are not Biblical.

Ron Okimoto

Ron, this post is not about the Bible or any particular interpretation
of it. The interview cited is only science. Ironically, your bluster
and misdirection serve to "deny the science".

I first heard of this group to my surprise in a book I was reading.-a I found E-S did carry it, and I have been trying to read the well over
3000 posts they carry to get a feel for what gets discussed here, and
the value of subscribing.-a The control documents explain the group as this:

"The newsgroup talk.origins is meant as a venue for discussion of the scientific, religious, and political issues pertaining to various
theories of the origins and development of life and the universe. Within such basic guidelines, wide-ranging discussions over a large number of topics are covered, all relating back to the main purpose of the group."

That sounded fine, so I started trying to catch up on posts.-a The
charter documents also claim that the discussion here is "(sometimes hot!)."-a That's also fine, as most of Usenet is nowadays.-a But after reading the reply above, I realized I could have written it myself. I've read almost the same thing over and over again in the posts I've read,
and I'm only a small way through them.

What I find interesting in the reply above is what appears to be this posters usual tactic of disregarding the issue and turning it into a religious attack.-a The original post by Mark had nothing to do with religion.-a It was from a scientist who has found some very real problems
in his years of work regarding Naturalistic OoL, even though he
initially began his adult life accepting most of the Darwinian Evolution
he was taught.-a Though he does speak of the very big problems science
has to overcome in OoL research, he is kind enough to offer an
explanation of how he thinks evolution minded scientists should proceed
in the future.-a Where progress might be found.-a He seems fairly
controlled and even-tempered, and certainly open-minded.-a Exactly what a good researcher should be.-a Peltzer gives example after example of naturalist failings, which the reply above completely ignores and goes
off on the usual rant.-a I don't find that unexpected, but I do find it rather boring and irrelevant.

Alas, at the risk of passing irrevocably through the gates of Old
Fartdom, I have to inform you that talk.origins is a pale shadow of its
former self. The halcyon days of moonstones, the felt effect of gravity,
and woodpecker tongues are never to be revisited. So don't get your
hopes up.
You are correct that Ron tends to view everything through the lens of,
as he puts it, the ID scam. To give Ron his due, Mark E sometimes posts material that doesn't contain overt religious assertion, but fear not:
they're almost certainly lurking just below the surface. The stuff above
is a fair example: Peltzer IS an accomplished chemist. But he's also an
IDist, and his testimony in Kansas really was (again Ron is correct
here) a God of the gaps argument.

One thing you might do, is look at the TO website (talkorigins.org).
It's not been updated since the Permian, but there are a bunch of
excellent articles there under "Post of the Month".

Now get off my lawn!

Chris


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 19:22:22 -0500, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:


[...]

I first heard of this group to my surprise in a book I was reading. I
found E-S did carry it, and I have been trying to read the well over
3000 posts they carry to get a feel for what gets discussed here, and
the value of subscribing. The control documents explain the group as this:

"The newsgroup talk.origins is meant as a venue for discussion of the >scientific, religious, and political issues pertaining to various
theories of the origins and development of life and the universe.
Within such basic guidelines, wide-ranging discussions over a large
number of topics are covered, all relating back to the main purpose of
the group."

That sounded fine, so I started trying to catch up on posts. The
charter documents also claim that the discussion here is "(sometimes
hot!)." That's also fine, as most of Usenet is nowadays. But after
reading the reply above, I realized I could have written it myself.
I've read almost the same thing over and over again in the posts I've
read, and I'm only a small way through them.

What I find interesting in the reply above is what appears to be this >posters usual tactic of disregarding the issue and turning it into a >religious attack. The original post by Mark had nothing to do with >religion. It was from a scientist who has found some very real problems
in his years of work regarding Naturalistic OoL, even though he
initially began his adult life accepting most of the Darwinian Evolution
he was taught. Though he does speak of the very big problems science
has to overcome in OoL research, he is kind enough to offer an
explanation of how he thinks evolution minded scientists should proceed
in the future. Where progress might be found. He seems fairly
controlled and even-tempered, and certainly open-minded. Exactly what a >good researcher should be. Peltzer gives example after example of >naturalist failings, which the reply above completely ignores and goes
off on the usual rant. I don't find that unexpected, but I do find it >rather boring and irrelevant.

You have to understand the context and history around Mark's previous
posts on this subject.

Anyone who knows anything about OOL know that there are major gaps in scientific explanation of how OLL came about and indeed many
scientists think we will probably never find adequate answers. Mark
keeps pointing out these gaps without offering any suggestion as to
how they might be closed as if repetitively reminding us of the gaps
is significant progress in itself. The reality is that he is simply
reinforcing his own belief that these gaps somehow strengthen the case
for God.

I am a committed and practising Christian and I have many times
defended my beliefs in this group. The case for God, however, cannot
be based on gaps in scientific knowledge; it has to be based on
positive arguments about how belief in God deals with the stuff that
science *has* explained. Never mind, RonO and his obsession with ID,
as a committed Christian, I have challenged Mark to tackle this
question of how his understanding of God deals with this but he has
repeatedly declined to discuss it, insisting that the simple existence
of gaps is enough to show that God (aka the Intelligent Designer)
*must* have done it.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 22:23:20 -0400, Chris Thompson <the_thompsons@earthlink.net> wrote:

Alas, at the risk of passing irrevocably through the gates of Old
Fartdom, I have to inform you that talk.origins is a pale shadow of its >former self. The halcyon days of moonstones, the felt effect of gravity,
and woodpecker tongues are never to be revisited. So don't get your
hopes up.
You are correct that Ron tends to view everything through the lens of,
as he puts it, the ID scam. To give Ron his due, Mark E sometimes posts >material that doesn't contain overt religious assertion, but fear not: >they're almost certainly lurking just below the surface. The stuff above
is a fair example: Peltzer IS an accomplished chemist. But he's also an >IDist, and his testimony in Kansas really was (again Ron is correct
here) a God of the gaps argument.

One thing you might do, is look at the TO website (talkorigins.org).
It's not been updated since the Permian, but there are a bunch of
excellent articles there under "Post of the Month".

Now get off my lawn!

Chris

Thank you for saying what needed saying. I acknowledge that RonO's
posts about ID scams can be long-winded and obtuse, but he does limit
those rants to replies to topics which deserve them, such at the OP.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 8/25/2025 9:23 PM, Chris Thompson wrote:

---snip---

Alas, at the risk of passing irrevocably through the gates of Old
Fartdom, I have to inform you that talk.origins is a pale shadow of its former self. The halcyon days of moonstones, the felt effect of gravity,
and woodpecker tongues are never to be revisited. So don't get your
hopes up.
You are correct that Ron tends to view everything through the lens of,
as he puts it, the ID scam. To give Ron his due, Mark E sometimes posts material that doesn't contain overt religious assertion, but fear not: they're almost certainly lurking just below the surface. The stuff above
is a fair example: Peltzer IS an accomplished chemist. But he's also an IDist, and his testimony in Kansas really was (again Ron is correct
here) a God of the gaps argument.

One thing you might do, is look at the TO website (talkorigins.org).
It's not been updated since the Permian, but there are a bunch of
excellent articles there under "Post of the Month".

Now get off my lawn!

Chris

I shall find time to go to talkorigins.org. Thank you.
I'll also keep an eye out for those references to the God of the Gaps to
see how specifically it is referred to in this group. It seems people
view this concept differently.

BTW, I'm back on the sidewalk now.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 09:21:12 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com>:

On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 19:22:22 -0500, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:

[...]

I first heard of this group to my surprise in a book I was reading. I >>found E-S did carry it, and I have been trying to read the well over
3000 posts they carry to get a feel for what gets discussed here, and
the value of subscribing. The control documents explain the group as this: >>
"The newsgroup talk.origins is meant as a venue for discussion of the >>scientific, religious, and political issues pertaining to various
theories of the origins and development of life and the universe.
Within such basic guidelines, wide-ranging discussions over a large
number of topics are covered, all relating back to the main purpose of
the group."

That sounded fine, so I started trying to catch up on posts. The
charter documents also claim that the discussion here is "(sometimes >>hot!)." That's also fine, as most of Usenet is nowadays. But after >>reading the reply above, I realized I could have written it myself.
I've read almost the same thing over and over again in the posts I've >>read, and I'm only a small way through them.

What I find interesting in the reply above is what appears to be this >>posters usual tactic of disregarding the issue and turning it into a >>religious attack. The original post by Mark had nothing to do with >>religion. It was from a scientist who has found some very real problems >>in his years of work regarding Naturalistic OoL, even though he
initially began his adult life accepting most of the Darwinian Evolution >>he was taught. Though he does speak of the very big problems science
has to overcome in OoL research, he is kind enough to offer an
explanation of how he thinks evolution minded scientists should proceed
in the future. Where progress might be found. He seems fairly
controlled and even-tempered, and certainly open-minded. Exactly what a >>good researcher should be. Peltzer gives example after example of >>naturalist failings, which the reply above completely ignores and goes
off on the usual rant. I don't find that unexpected, but I do find it >>rather boring and irrelevant.

You have to understand the context and history around Mark's previous
posts on this subject.

Anyone who knows anything about OOL know that there are major gaps in >scientific explanation of how OLL came about and indeed many
scientists think we will probably never find adequate answers. Mark
keeps pointing out these gaps without offering any suggestion as to
how they might be closed as if repetitively reminding us of the gaps
is significant progress in itself. The reality is that he is simply >reinforcing his own belief that these gaps somehow strengthen the case
for God.

I am a committed and practising Christian and I have many times
defended my beliefs in this group. The case for God, however, cannot
be based on gaps in scientific knowledge; it has to be based on
positive arguments about how belief in God deals with the stuff that
science *has* explained. Never mind, RonO and his obsession with ID,
as a committed Christian, I have challenged Mark to tackle this
question of how his understanding of God deals with this but he has >repeatedly declined to discuss it, insisting that the simple existence
of gaps is enough to show that God (aka the Intelligent Designer)
*must* have done it.

...which is precisely why it's called "God of the Gaps". And
while the gaps get smaller all the time as further research
is done, they will almost certainly never disappear
altogether, and the Gappers will thus never be satisfied.

Scientific knowledge and religious belief are orthogonal,
which is something else those who claim to be "believers"
but try to apply science to their claimed beliefs (unlike
yourself) will never "get".

--

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

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 8/26/2025 3:21 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 19:22:22 -0500, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:

---snip---

What I find interesting in the reply above is what appears to be this
posters usual tactic of disregarding the issue and turning it into a
religious attack. The original post by Mark had nothing to do with
religion. It was from a scientist who has found some very real problems
in his years of work regarding Naturalistic OoL, even though he
initially began his adult life accepting most of the Darwinian Evolution
he was taught. Though he does speak of the very big problems science
has to overcome in OoL research, he is kind enough to offer an
explanation of how he thinks evolution minded scientists should proceed
in the future. Where progress might be found. He seems fairly
controlled and even-tempered, and certainly open-minded. Exactly what a
good researcher should be. Peltzer gives example after example of
naturalist failings, which the reply above completely ignores and goes
off on the usual rant. I don't find that unexpected, but I do find it
rather boring and irrelevant.

You have to understand the context and history around Mark's previous
posts on this subject.

OK, guess I will have to try and get more of the posts read here before
coming to hard conclusions.

Anyone who knows anything about OOL know that there are major gaps in scientific explanation of how OLL came about and indeed many
scientists think we will probably never find adequate answers. Mark
keeps pointing out these gaps without offering any suggestion as to
how they might be closed as if repetitively reminding us of the gaps
is significant progress in itself. The reality is that he is simply reinforcing his own belief that these gaps somehow strengthen the case
for God.

I understand. I am not so much interested in the religious aspects of
the creation vs. naturalism debate here. It is pointless until you
personally get to a conclusion of the actual origin debate. I want the science to help MY understanding of origins. If someone decides
naturalism doesn't work, it is another thing altogether to decide what
to do with that decision and how they move forward living. Yes,
religion can become part of the debate if you look at how you view the evidence and if it fits into say a Biblical context or a naturalistic
context. For example the Young or Old Earth debates can make sense in
one area, and not so much in the other. The key for me is to simply not dismiss anyone's opinion simply because I look at things through a
different paradigm. I suppose on usenet that is often wishful thinking.
But, this group in particular I hope will be a little less so, since I
think most of the participants are a little better educated than the
average user.

I am a committed and practising Christian and I have many times
defended my beliefs in this group. The case for God, however, cannot
be based on gaps in scientific knowledge; it has to be based on
positive arguments about how belief in God deals with the stuff that
science *has* explained. Never mind, RonO and his obsession with ID,
as a committed Christian, I have challenged Mark to tackle this
question of how his understanding of God deals with this but he has repeatedly declined to discuss it, insisting that the simple existence
of gaps is enough to show that God (aka the Intelligent Designer)
*must* have done it.

I would certainly agree with that. What interests me and my mostly
layman's eye, are things that appear to be impossible from a naturalist perspective. Things that point for the need of information, things that appear irreducibly complex, etc. I'm sure I will probably ask questions
on some of the things I've found like this, but I think I should
probably try and read the post here first to not be redundant.
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts!

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 8/25/2025 7:22 PM, sticks wrote:

On 8/23/2025 8:06 AM, MarkE wrote:

On 22/08/2025 11:19 pm, RonO wrote:

On 8/21/2025 6:26 PM, MarkE wrote:

A perspective on OoL from Dr. Edward T. Peltzer. Quotes following
are interview excerpts.
_______

I did have many discussions with Miller and Bada on many subjects,
but the issues of pre-biotic chemistry and the origin of life were
the most common. Both were excellent chemists. You could ask them
about almost anything and they would have an answer or know where
one could look to find out. In some cases, I suspected they already
knew, but wanted to give me the experience of scouring the library
to find out. One could say that they taught me everything I new
about prebiotic chemistry at the time.

During his doctoral studies at the Scripps Institution of
Oceanography (SIO), he was mentored by two luminaries in prebiotic
chemistry: Stanley Miller, renowned for the Miller-Urey experiment
simulating early Earth conditions, and Jeffrey Bada, an expert in
the field of amino acid racemization and a prominent figure in the
study of organic compounds in meteorites.

As for the various individual [OoL] theories, here are a few of the
fatal errors. Hydrothermal vents do not make organic compounds, they
destroy them.

Surface based synthesis might yield a few useful compounds, but many
compounds with a diverse range of functionality are needed for the
first organism. RNA is too unstable outside a living cell to offer
much hope of it doing anything in the pre-biotic soup if somehow it
was formed (which is exceptionally unlikely).

My least favorite theory among all the options is the lipid world.
Assuming that one could get a collection of similar chain length
fatty acids bonded to glycerol to make triglycerides (which itself
is highly unlikely in the pre-biotic soup of randomly generated
compounds), then one could form an artificial vesicle (alternatively
called a coacervate or liposome) with a lipid bilayer film. What you
then have is not much more than a rCLsoap bubble.rCY There is no
interior metabolism, no ion- transport pathways in the rCLmembranerCY; >>>> it is nothing more than a film- coated droplet. How it would acquire
an internal metabolism, etc., is anyonerCOs guess. But guesses, as
entertaining as they might be, are not a scientific explanation of
how life arose abiotically.

Random undirected chemistry does not yield biopolymers. Organisms
need proteins, DNA &/or RNA, polysaccharides, etc. These polymers
are uniform in that they are composed of a monomeric class of
compounds bound together in very specific ways: proteins are chains
of amino acids linked by peptide bonds; DNA & RNA are chains of
nucleotides linked by phosphate bridges; polysaccharides (e.g.,
starch & cellulose) are chains of glucose molecules linked by +#-
(1,4) glycosidic bonds in starch (amylose) and +#-(1,4) glycosidic
bonds in cellulose. Random, undirected chemical reactions do not
yield these pure polymers. Instead, they yield polymers formed by
random condensations of whatever compounds are at hand, producing
high molecular weight compounds without a well-defined structure.
Examples of this are fulvic and humic acids, melanoids, etc. Their
structures are complex, involve monomers from a variety of compound
classes and without a common bonding pattern. As such, they exhibit
little to no biological activity and store no information.

The biggest challenge of all will be to convince the folks who dream
up the various theories for the origin of life to include the impact
of competing reactions on their pathways as opposed to writing rCLjust >>>> so stories.rCY

The origin of homochirality (D-sugars, L-amino acids, etc.) has
proved to be a difficult problem to solve. The goal needs to be
chiral purity otherwise just a single wrong isomer can completely
foul the functionality of the biopolymer (protein, DNA/RNA, etc.).
Homochirality is always up against racemization, the process by
which chiral molecules get mixed with their mirror images
(enantiomers). Any such lack of purity among chiral molecules is
deadly to life. All three of the proposed processes to achieve
homochirality fail for such reasons. First, they are slow and only
achieve a partial enrichment of the desired form. Second,
racemization reactions work faster to undo this enrichment. What
little progress is made is quickly lost. Third, the racemization
rate increases with temperature. So, the condition needed to speed-
up other synthesis processes works against homochirality. The source
of homochirality remains an unsolved mystery.

Another problem for abiotic synthesis is that some amino acids have
two amino groups, and some have two carboxylic acid groups. This
leads to the possibility that the carboxlic acid group can bind with
the wrong amino group (or vice-versa) and thus branches can form in
undirected syntheses. None of the proteins in living systems have
rCLbranchesrCY as these would impair the proper folding of the proteins >>>> into the enzymatic active forms.

Meanwhile, there are competing reactions that destroy the sugars. We
have already seen that the Maillard reaction of amino acids with
sugars yields a variety of melanoid products. And unless the
environmental conditions are just right and the pH gets too high,
the Cannizzaro reaction will consume sugars in pairs yielding an
alcohol and a carboxylic acid. Moreover, high temperatures (like are
found in hydrothermal vents) will cause the sugars to dehydrate and
char and, yes, this does happen even underwater at high pressures.
The principal products were intractable materials composed of
melanoids, tars and carbon soot around the electrodes. This was not
the kind of materials biologists and chemists were looking for as
they are not components of living organisms. Later it would be shown
that the amino acids were racemic, not the pure L-isomers used by
living organisms. More recent analyses have revealed a total of
about 50 different amino acids were formed, but only 20 are used by
living organisms. So, while he did find amino acids, they were not
solely the ones living organisms use. There was a lot of chaff mixed
in with the wheat. While Miller was very open and straightforward
about these problems, they tend to get over-looked in origin-of-life
discussions. There is a tendency to focus on the path to life
ignoring all the problems: the competing reactions and sidetracks
along the way. This was not MillerrCOs fault, but it is common
behavior among those that argue for a solely naturalistic origin of
life, where it is assumed that time and rCLnatural selectionrCY will
take care of all the problems.

Has my view on whether liferCOs emergence was a natural, unguided
process shifted with time? Of course. One starts out young and

ve. I believed pretty much everything I read in books and was

taught in class. But as I learned more, I developed a healthy
skepticism and learned to think for myself. Not so much in high
school, but more so in college and graduate school. It was all part
of being a scientist: you learn to not always take everything at
face value. Instead, I learned to ask questions: Do the conclusions
fit the data? What is the evidence for this?

[Etc...]

https://scienceandculture.com/2025/08/interview-with-edward-peltzer-
on- the-origin-of-life/

What good does the gap denial do for you?-a It only allows IDiotic
Biblical creationists to lie to themselves about reality.-a You know
this for a fact, so why keep up the IDiotic stupidity.-a It doesn't
matter how the origin of life occurred on this planet.-a Whatever
happened is not Biblical, so it does not support your Biblical
beliefs.-a Wallowing in denial is never going to support your
religious beliefs.-a That is why the other IDiots quit the ID scam.
Why you continue to go to the ID perps in order to be lied to is
stupid and dishonest.-a The only IDiots left after the bait and switch
started to go down were the ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest.
Competent, informed, and honest IDiotic creationists do not exist.
The fact that the bait and switch IDiotic scam still goes down on
their own creationist support base is proof of that.

You have to deal with the reality in which you have to deny the
science. -a-aNo matter what happened with respect to the origin of life >>> on this planet the Bible is wrong once again.-a The earth is not flat,
we do not live in a geocentric universe, and the earth is much older
than a few thousand years.-a The earth was known not to be flat since
before Christ was born.-a Geocentrism lost out centuries ago.-a YEC was >>> dead before Darwin came up with natural selection.-a Even Kelvin's
estimates were in the hundreds of millions of years.-a The actual
origin of life on this planet is not mentioned in the Bible, nor is
the evolution of that life over billions of years.-a The Biblical
order of the creation of life on earth is as wrong as the shape of
the earth and it's place in the universe.-a Nothing about nature will
support your Biblical beliefs.-a You have to acknowledge that nature
is not Biblical, and this fact does not matter for some reason when
it is the basis for your denial of reality.

Gap denial is never going to support your religious beliefs when the
god that fills the gaps is not Biblical.-a The Supreme court was
correct in their comments in scientific creationist gap denial.-a Just
because we do not currently understand something about nature, is not
any support for your religious beliefs.-a This is obviously the case
with gaps that need to be filled by gods that are not Biblical.

Ron Okimoto

Ron, this post is not about the Bible or any particular interpretation
of it. The interview cited is only science. Ironically, your bluster
and misdirection serve to "deny the science".

I first heard of this group to my surprise in a book I was reading.-a I found E-S did carry it, and I have been trying to read the well over
3000 posts they carry to get a feel for what gets discussed here, and
the value of subscribing.-a The control documents explain the group as this:

"The newsgroup talk.origins is meant as a venue for discussion of the scientific, religious, and political issues pertaining to various
theories of the origins and development of life and the universe. Within such basic guidelines, wide-ranging discussions over a large number of topics are covered, all relating back to the main purpose of the group."

That sounded fine, so I started trying to catch up on posts.-a The
charter documents also claim that the discussion here is "(sometimes hot!)."-a That's also fine, as most of Usenet is nowadays.-a But after reading the reply above, I realized I could have written it myself. I've read almost the same thing over and over again in the posts I've read,
and I'm only a small way through them.

What I find interesting in the reply above is what appears to be this posters usual tactic of disregarding the issue and turning it into a religious attack.-a The original post by Mark had nothing to do with religion.-a It was from a scientist who has found some very real problems
in his years of work regarding Naturalistic OoL, even though he
initially began his adult life accepting most of the Darwinian Evolution
he was taught.-a Though he does speak of the very big problems science
has to overcome in OoL research, he is kind enough to offer an
explanation of how he thinks evolution minded scientists should proceed
in the future.-a Where progress might be found.-a He seems fairly
controlled and even-tempered, and certainly open-minded.-a Exactly what a good researcher should be.-a Peltzer gives example after example of naturalist failings, which the reply above completely ignores and goes
off on the usual rant.-a I don't find that unexpected, but I do find it rather boring and irrelevant.

If you understood the issue you would know that the original post was a religious attack on science in general. The subject of the post is a
known old earth anti-evolution creationist. He is known to be into the god-of-the-gaps IDiotic denial due to his religious beliefs, and uses
his anti-science views to support those religious beliefs while claiming
that it is all science based. This applies to the poster. MarkE and
Peltzer only support the IDiotic gap denial because of their religious beliefs. They only object the the science that they believe goes
against their Biblical beliefs. Biological evolution and the actual
origin of life on earth is not mentioned in the Bible, and the origin of
life and subsequent evolution of that life over billions of years is incompatible with the 6 days of creation described in the Bible even if
the 6 days are taken as 6 periods of time, so the two deny the existing science.

The IDiots use the same god-of-the-gaps arguments that the scientific creationists used decades before the ID creationist scam existed. The
gap denial was always just science denial to support the creationist's Biblical beliefs. Neither the Scientific creationists nor the IDiots
use the gap denial to build any type of coherent Biblical creation
scenario because the gaps never supported the Biblical creation. Each
gap denial argument has always been used as a fire and forget attack on science. It just allows creationists to lie to themselves for the
moment, and they need to forget about that gap in order to lie to
themselves about the next gap.

If Peltzer is able to verify that his god diddle farted around with the
earth over 3 billion years ago to create the initial lifeforms, he would
have to deny that god's existence because that god would not be the
Biblical god that started life on earth with land plants during the 3rd
period of time. It would not be the god that evolved that original
lifeform as microbes for over 2 billion years before evolving
multicellular life, and land plants would not evolve from fresh water
algae until long after there were sea creatures that are supposed to
have been created the day after land plants.

Peltzer is only in the argument for the denial. He doesn't want to fill
the gap with anything. It is just a way that creationist lie to
themselves about reality. Nature just is not Biblical, and the
creationists that have accepted that fact do not have an issue with the
origin of life on this planet because it could have happened any way
possible. An ID perp like Denton just believes that his god set up the initial conditions and it all unfolded into what we have today.

MarkE kept defending the gap denial after most of the other IDiotic creationist quit supporting the ID creationist scam on TO. The ID perps
put out their "Top Six" best evidences for the ID scam in Nov. 2017, and
most of the regular IDiotic posters quit the ID scam in 2018. They all realized that they had never wanted the ID perps to accomplish any ID
science. It would just be more science for them to deny. The Top Six
were given to the rubes in the order in which they must have occurred in
this universe, and that order is not Biblical, so most of the IDiots
could no longer support the ID scam. The Big Bang occurred over 13
billion years ago, and the fine tuning would have had to occur during
and after the Big Bang. It would take around 8 billion years for just
the right amounts of elements to be created by dying stars to form our
solar system and fine tune the earth to be suitable for life. The
origin of life would occur over 3 billion years ago. The flagellum
would evolve over a billion years ago when all life was still microbial.
The Cambrian explosion would have occurred over half a billion years
ago, long before land plants evolved (the angiosperms listed in the
Bible would not evolve until dinos were walking around). The gaps in
the human fossil record occur in just the last 10 million years of the evolution of life on earth.

Most of the IDiots posting on TO could not support the god responsible
for the Top Six gap arguments for intelligent design, and they quit the
ID scam. Bill claimed that he had never supported the ID scam when he
had joined TO as an ID supporter. Kalk claimed that he was going to concentrate on other aspects of his religious beliefs, and Pagano quit
posting after claiming that the Top Six were not the best evidence for
the ID scam even though the ID perps at the Discovery Institute had put
out the list. The origin of life gap is #3, and is not Biblical, and
does not support the Biblical god. Peltzer and MarkE are only using the denial in order to lie to themselves about reality they do not want any
god filling that gap. We had a creationists posting on TO years ago
named Ray, and Ray would have called that god a false god because that
god is not the one described in the Bible. A lot of Biblical
creationists understand that nature is not Biblical, but they need to
lie to themselves about that reality in order to support their religious beliefs. Most of the IDiotic posters on TO could no longer lie to
themselves about the gap denial when they had their faces rubed in the
fact that they had never wanted the ID perps to succeed in producing any
valid ID science, such science would just be more science to deny.

Peltzer is only into evolution and origin of life denial because he
believes that they are inconsistent with his Biblical beliefs. Denial
and lying to themselves about reality are the only goals of such
Biblical creationists. MarkE and Peltzer do not want to fill the gaps
with any god, they are only interested in the denial. MarkE refuses to explain how he would cope with filling the gap with some god when that
god is not the one described in the Bible.

Ron Okimoto

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 8/25/2025 9:23 PM, Chris Thompson wrote:

sticks wrote:

On 8/23/2025 8:06 AM, MarkE wrote:

On 22/08/2025 11:19 pm, RonO wrote:

On 8/21/2025 6:26 PM, MarkE wrote:

A perspective on OoL from Dr. Edward T. Peltzer. Quotes following
are interview excerpts.
_______

I did have many discussions with Miller and Bada on many subjects,
but the issues of pre-biotic chemistry and the origin of life were
the most common. Both were excellent chemists. You could ask them
about almost anything and they would have an answer or know where
one could look to find out. In some cases, I suspected they already >>>>> knew, but wanted to give me the experience of scouring the library
to find out. One could say that they taught me everything I new
about prebiotic chemistry at the time.

During his doctoral studies at the Scripps Institution of
Oceanography (SIO), he was mentored by two luminaries in prebiotic
chemistry: Stanley Miller, renowned for the Miller-Urey experiment
simulating early Earth conditions, and Jeffrey Bada, an expert in
the field of amino acid racemization and a prominent figure in the
study of organic compounds in meteorites.

As for the various individual [OoL] theories, here are a few of the >>>>> fatal errors. Hydrothermal vents do not make organic compounds,
they destroy them.

Surface based synthesis might yield a few useful compounds, but
many compounds with a diverse range of functionality are needed for >>>>> the first organism. RNA is too unstable outside a living cell to
offer much hope of it doing anything in the pre-biotic soup if
somehow it was formed (which is exceptionally unlikely).

My least favorite theory among all the options is the lipid world.
Assuming that one could get a collection of similar chain length
fatty acids bonded to glycerol to make triglycerides (which itself
is highly unlikely in the pre-biotic soup of randomly generated
compounds), then one could form an artificial vesicle
(alternatively called a coacervate or liposome) with a lipid
bilayer film. What you then have is not much more than a rCLsoap
bubble.rCY There is no interior metabolism, no ion- transport
pathways in the rCLmembranerCY; it is nothing more than a film- coated >>>>> droplet. How it would acquire an internal metabolism, etc., is
anyonerCOs guess. But guesses, as entertaining as they might be, are >>>>> not a scientific explanation of how life arose abiotically.

Random undirected chemistry does not yield biopolymers. Organisms
need proteins, DNA &/or RNA, polysaccharides, etc. These polymers
are uniform in that they are composed of a monomeric class of
compounds bound together in very specific ways: proteins are chains >>>>> of amino acids linked by peptide bonds; DNA & RNA are chains of
nucleotides linked by phosphate bridges; polysaccharides (e.g.,
starch & cellulose) are chains of glucose molecules linked by +#-
(1,4) glycosidic bonds in starch (amylose) and +#-(1,4) glycosidic
bonds in cellulose. Random, undirected chemical reactions do not
yield these pure polymers. Instead, they yield polymers formed by
random condensations of whatever compounds are at hand, producing
high molecular weight compounds without a well-defined structure.
Examples of this are fulvic and humic acids, melanoids, etc. Their
structures are complex, involve monomers from a variety of compound >>>>> classes and without a common bonding pattern. As such, they exhibit >>>>> little to no biological activity and store no information.

The biggest challenge of all will be to convince the folks who
dream up the various theories for the origin of life to include the >>>>> impact of competing reactions on their pathways as opposed to
writing rCLjust so stories.rCY

The origin of homochirality (D-sugars, L-amino acids, etc.) has
proved to be a difficult problem to solve. The goal needs to be
chiral purity otherwise just a single wrong isomer can completely
foul the functionality of the biopolymer (protein, DNA/RNA, etc.).
Homochirality is always up against racemization, the process by
which chiral molecules get mixed with their mirror images
(enantiomers). Any such lack of purity among chiral molecules is
deadly to life. All three of the proposed processes to achieve
homochirality fail for such reasons. First, they are slow and only
achieve a partial enrichment of the desired form. Second,
racemization reactions work faster to undo this enrichment. What
little progress is made is quickly lost. Third, the racemization
rate increases with temperature. So, the condition needed to speed- >>>>> up other synthesis processes works against homochirality. The
source of homochirality remains an unsolved mystery.

Another problem for abiotic synthesis is that some amino acids have >>>>> two amino groups, and some have two carboxylic acid groups. This
leads to the possibility that the carboxlic acid group can bind
with the wrong amino group (or vice-versa) and thus branches can
form in undirected syntheses. None of the proteins in living
systems have rCLbranchesrCY as these would impair the proper folding of >>>>> the proteins into the enzymatic active forms.

Meanwhile, there are competing reactions that destroy the sugars.
We have already seen that the Maillard reaction of amino acids with >>>>> sugars yields a variety of melanoid products. And unless the
environmental conditions are just right and the pH gets too high,
the Cannizzaro reaction will consume sugars in pairs yielding an
alcohol and a carboxylic acid. Moreover, high temperatures (like
are found in hydrothermal vents) will cause the sugars to dehydrate >>>>> and char and, yes, this does happen even underwater at high
pressures. The principal products were intractable materials
composed of melanoids, tars and carbon soot around the electrodes.
This was not the kind of materials biologists and chemists were
looking for as they are not components of living organisms. Later
it would be shown that the amino acids were racemic, not the pure
L-isomers used by living organisms. More recent analyses have
revealed a total of about 50 different amino acids were formed, but >>>>> only 20 are used by living organisms. So, while he did find amino
acids, they were not solely the ones living organisms use. There
was a lot of chaff mixed in with the wheat. While Miller was very
open and straightforward about these problems, they tend to get
over-looked in origin-of-life discussions. There is a tendency to
focus on the path to life ignoring all the problems: the competing
reactions and sidetracks along the way. This was not MillerrCOs
fault, but it is common behavior among those that argue for a
solely naturalistic origin of life, where it is assumed that time
and rCLnatural selectionrCY will take care of all the problems.

Has my view on whether liferCOs emergence was a natural, unguided
process shifted with time? Of course. One starts out young and

ve. I believed pretty much everything I read in books and was

taught in class. But as I learned more, I developed a healthy
skepticism and learned to think for myself. Not so much in high
school, but more so in college and graduate school. It was all part >>>>> of being a scientist: you learn to not always take everything at
face value. Instead, I learned to ask questions: Do the conclusions >>>>> fit the data? What is the evidence for this?

[Etc...]

https://scienceandculture.com/2025/08/interview-with-edward-
peltzer- on- the-origin-of-life/

What good does the gap denial do for you?-a It only allows IDiotic
Biblical creationists to lie to themselves about reality.-a You know
this for a fact, so why keep up the IDiotic stupidity.-a It doesn't
matter how the origin of life occurred on this planet.-a Whatever
happened is not Biblical, so it does not support your Biblical
beliefs.-a Wallowing in denial is never going to support your
religious beliefs.-a That is why the other IDiots quit the ID scam.
Why you continue to go to the ID perps in order to be lied to is
stupid and dishonest.-a The only IDiots left after the bait and
switch started to go down were the ignorant, incompetent and or
dishonest. Competent, informed, and honest IDiotic creationists do
not exist. The fact that the bait and switch IDiotic scam still goes
down on their own creationist support base is proof of that.

You have to deal with the reality in which you have to deny the
science. -a-aNo matter what happened with respect to the origin of
life on this planet the Bible is wrong once again.-a The earth is not >>>> flat, we do not live in a geocentric universe, and the earth is much
older than a few thousand years.-a The earth was known not to be flat >>>> since before Christ was born.-a Geocentrism lost out centuries ago.
YEC was dead before Darwin came up with natural selection.-a Even
Kelvin's estimates were in the hundreds of millions of years.-a The
actual origin of life on this planet is not mentioned in the Bible,
nor is the evolution of that life over billions of years.-a The
Biblical order of the creation of life on earth is as wrong as the
shape of the earth and it's place in the universe.-a Nothing about
nature will support your Biblical beliefs.-a You have to acknowledge
that nature is not Biblical, and this fact does not matter for some
reason when it is the basis for your denial of reality.

Gap denial is never going to support your religious beliefs when the
god that fills the gaps is not Biblical.-a The Supreme court was
correct in their comments in scientific creationist gap denial.
Just because we do not currently understand something about nature,
is not any support for your religious beliefs.-a This is obviously
the case with gaps that need to be filled by gods that are not
Biblical.

Ron Okimoto

Ron, this post is not about the Bible or any particular
interpretation of it. The interview cited is only science.
Ironically, your bluster and misdirection serve to "deny the science".

I first heard of this group to my surprise in a book I was reading.-a I
found E-S did carry it, and I have been trying to read the well over
3000 posts they carry to get a feel for what gets discussed here, and
the value of subscribing.-a The control documents explain the group as
this:

"The newsgroup talk.origins is meant as a venue for discussion of the
scientific, religious, and political issues pertaining to various
theories of the origins and development of life and the universe.
Within such basic guidelines, wide-ranging discussions over a large
number of topics are covered, all relating back to the main purpose of
the group."

That sounded fine, so I started trying to catch up on posts.-a The
charter documents also claim that the discussion here is "(sometimes
hot!)."-a That's also fine, as most of Usenet is nowadays.-a But after
reading the reply above, I realized I could have written it myself.
I've read almost the same thing over and over again in the posts I've
read, and I'm only a small way through them.

What I find interesting in the reply above is what appears to be this
posters usual tactic of disregarding the issue and turning it into a
religious attack.-a The original post by Mark had nothing to do with
religion.-a It was from a scientist who has found some very real
problems in his years of work regarding Naturalistic OoL, even though
he initially began his adult life accepting most of the Darwinian
Evolution he was taught.-a Though he does speak of the very big
problems science has to overcome in OoL research, he is kind enough to
offer an explanation of how he thinks evolution minded scientists
should proceed in the future.-a Where progress might be found.-a He
seems fairly controlled and even-tempered, and certainly open-minded.
Exactly what a good researcher should be.-a Peltzer gives example after
example of naturalist failings, which the reply above completely
ignores and goes off on the usual rant.-a I don't find that unexpected,
but I do find it rather boring and irrelevant.

Alas, at the risk of passing irrevocably through the gates of Old
Fartdom, I have to inform you that talk.origins is a pale shadow of its former self. The halcyon days of moonstones, the felt effect of gravity,
and woodpecker tongues are never to be revisited. So don't get your
hopes up.
You are correct that Ron tends to view everything through the lens of,
as he puts it, the ID scam. To give Ron his due, Mark E sometimes posts material that doesn't contain overt religious assertion, but fear not: they're almost certainly lurking just below the surface. The stuff above
is a fair example: Peltzer IS an accomplished chemist. But he's also an IDist, and his testimony in Kansas really was (again Ron is correct
here) a God of the gaps argument.

One thing you might do, is look at the TO website (talkorigins.org).
It's not been updated since the Permian, but there are a bunch of
excellent articles there under "Post of the Month".

Now get off my lawn!

Chris

Talk.origins Archive:
https://www.talkorigins.org/

It may be difficult to believe at this point in the anti-science efforts
of Biblical creationists, but in years past some of them actually tried
to support their Biblical beliefs with more than gap denial, but as
Peltzer and MarkE are indicators of there turned out to be no viable
support for Biblical creationism to be had. The remnants are left with
the obfuscation and denial that will never support their Biblical beliefs.

Ron Okimoto

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 8/26/2025 10:36 AM, sticks wrote:

On 8/26/2025 3:21 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 19:22:22 -0500, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:

---snip---

What I find interesting in the reply above is what appears to be this
posters usual tactic of disregarding the issue and turning it into a
religious attack.-a The original post by Mark had nothing to do with
religion.-a It was from a scientist who has found some very real problems >>> in his years of work regarding Naturalistic OoL, even though he
initially began his adult life accepting most of the Darwinian Evolution >>> he was taught.-a Though he does speak of the very big problems science
has to overcome in OoL research, he is kind enough to offer an
explanation of how he thinks evolution minded scientists should proceed
in the future.-a Where progress might be found.-a He seems fairly
controlled and even-tempered, and certainly open-minded.-a Exactly what a >>> good researcher should be.-a Peltzer gives example after example of
naturalist failings, which the reply above completely ignores and goes
off on the usual rant.-a I don't find that unexpected, but I do find it
rather boring and irrelevant.

You have to understand the context and history around Mark's previous
posts on this subject.

OK, guess I will have to try and get more of the posts read here before coming to hard conclusions.

Anyone who knows anything about OOL know that there are major gaps in
scientific explanation of how OLL came about and indeed many
scientists think we will probably never find adequate answers. Mark
keeps pointing out these gaps without offering any suggestion as to
how they might be closed as if repetitively reminding us of the gaps
is significant progress in itself. The reality is that he is simply
reinforcing his own belief that these gaps somehow strengthen the case
for God.

I understand.-a I am not so much interested in the religious aspects of
the creation vs. naturalism debate here.-a It is pointless until you personally get to a conclusion of the actual origin debate.-a I want the science to help MY understanding of origins.-a If someone decides
naturalism doesn't work, it is another thing altogether to decide what
to do with that decision and how they move forward living.-a Yes,
religion can become part of the debate if you look at how you view the evidence and if it fits into say a Biblical context or a naturalistic context.-a For example the Young or Old Earth debates can make sense in
one area, and not so much in the other.-a The key for me is to simply not dismiss anyone's opinion simply because I look at things through a
different paradigm.-a I suppose on usenet that is often wishful thinking.
-aBut, this group in particular I hope will be a little less so, since I think most of the participants are a little better educated than the
average user.

I am a committed and practising Christian and I have many times
defended my beliefs in this group. The case for God, however, cannot
be based on gaps in scientific knowledge; it has to be based on
positive arguments about how belief in God deals with the stuff that
science *has* explained. Never mind, RonO and his obsession with ID,
as a committed Christian, I have challenged Mark to tackle this
question of how his understanding of God deals with this but he has
repeatedly declined to discuss it, insisting that the simple existence
of gaps is enough to show that God (aka the Intelligent Designer)
*must* have done it.

I would certainly agree with that.-a What interests me and my mostly layman's eye, are things that appear to be impossible from a naturalist perspective.-a Things that point for the need of information, things that appear irreducibly complex, etc.-a I'm sure I will probably ask questions
on some of the things I've found like this, but I think I should
probably try and read the post here first to not be redundant.
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts!

In the decision against scientific creationism in 1987 it was noted that
gap denial was not science and did not support the creationists
religious beliefs. Just because science does not yet have an
explanation for something is not support for Biblical creationism. When
the ID perps put out their Top Six best evidences the ID supporters
still posting to TO had their faces rubbed in the fact that the gap
denial did not support their Biblical beliefs. Most of them quit
supporting the ID creationist scam. These were all hardcore IDiots that
had contiued to support the ID creationist bait and switch scam for over
a decade and a half after the bait and switch started to go down on any creationist rube that believed the ID perps. Not a single creationist
rube ever got any ID science from the the ID perps for over 23 years
since the start of the bait and switch in Ohio in 2002.

Scam junk like irreducible complexity is likely not what you think that
it is. Behe had already admitted that IC systems could evolve by
natural means by the turn of the century. The argument is only meant to
fool the creationist rubes into supporting the ID perp's Wedge strategy.
Most of the creationist support for the ID scam still comes from the
YEC, and young earth creationists would never accept any verification of
any of Behe's IC systems. Behe claims that his type of IC systems
cannot evolve by natural means, and that they are not the type that can
evolve by natural means, but he hasn't figured out how to tell the two
types apart. He has resorted to claiming that 3 neutral mutations found
in any protein that created a new function would be his type of IC, so interacting protein parts are no longer needed. The kicker is that Behe
has acknowledged that researchers have found 2 neutral mutations needed
to create a new function, and he acknowledges their success, but claims
that it is on the edge of evolution. 2 neutral mutations are still
expected to be routine in a population of around 100 million
individuals, and the examples have been found in populations numbering
in the trillions. YEC would never accept finding these 3 neutral
mutations in the bacterial flagellum. In order to verify that 3 neutral mutations were needed you need to reconstruct the ancestral protein
sequence and determine that 3 neutral mutations occurred to create the
new function. As noted this has been done to identify 2 neutral
mutations, but verifying the 3 would mean that Behe had verified the
evolution of the flagellum over a billion years ago and it evolved from preexisting parts that had to change in order to evolve the new
function. This would be rejected by all YEC, and even a lot of old
earth creationists who still want the order of creation of life to be Biblical, when the Biblical order of creation of life on earth has been
known to be wrong for over a century.

Ron Okimoto

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 27/08/2025 1:11 am, sticks wrote:

On 8/25/2025 9:23 PM, Chris Thompson wrote:

---snip---

Alas, at the risk of passing irrevocably through the gates of Old
Fartdom, I have to inform you that talk.origins is a pale shadow of
its former self. The halcyon days of moonstones, the felt effect of
gravity, and woodpecker tongues are never to be revisited. So don't
get your hopes up.
You are correct that Ron tends to view everything through the lens of,
as he puts it, the ID scam. To give Ron his due, Mark E sometimes
posts material that doesn't contain overt religious assertion, but
fear not: they're almost certainly lurking just below the surface. The
stuff above is a fair example: Peltzer IS an accomplished chemist. But
he's also an IDist, and his testimony in Kansas really was (again Ron
is correct here) a God of the gaps argument.

One thing you might do, is look at the TO website (talkorigins.org).
It's not been updated since the Permian, but there are a bunch of
excellent articles there under "Post of the Month".

Now get off my lawn!

Chris

I shall find time to go to talkorigins.org.-a Thank you.
I'll also keep an eye out for those references to the God of the Gaps to
see how specifically it is referred to in this group.-a It seems people
view this concept differently.

BTW, I'm back on the sidewalk now.

If you're interested, here are t.o topics that give some context in
relation to the comments in this thread and where I'm coming from.

- A summary of my own position and approach, and similar from others:

"Why do you participate here?" https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/8fuyuKN4VhE/m/xUYwSeYQAQAJ

- A proposal on handling scientific evidence and avoiding a
god-of-the-gaps error:

"Terms of Engagement?" https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/Q0H4U47iYgk/m/2fprGczIBwAJ

An example of an assessment of some reasonably current OOL science
commentary which IMO is revealing of how overstated progress in this
field is:

"Excellent presentation by Bruce Damer and Dave Deamer" https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/HMw_ZoXIIOc/m/GhDNtzHcAAAJ

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 16:55:35 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

On 27/08/2025 1:11 am, sticks wrote:

On 8/25/2025 9:23 PM, Chris Thompson wrote:

---snip---

Alas, at the risk of passing irrevocably through the gates of Old
Fartdom, I have to inform you that talk.origins is a pale shadow of
its former self. The halcyon days of moonstones, the felt effect of
gravity, and woodpecker tongues are never to be revisited. So don't
get your hopes up.
You are correct that Ron tends to view everything through the lens of,
as he puts it, the ID scam. To give Ron his due, Mark E sometimes
posts material that doesn't contain overt religious assertion, but
fear not: they're almost certainly lurking just below the surface. The
stuff above is a fair example: Peltzer IS an accomplished chemist. But
he's also an IDist, and his testimony in Kansas really was (again Ron
is correct here) a God of the gaps argument.

One thing you might do, is look at the TO website (talkorigins.org).
It's not been updated since the Permian, but there are a bunch of
excellent articles there under "Post of the Month".

Now get off my lawn!

Chris

I shall find time to go to talkorigins.org.-a Thank you.
I'll also keep an eye out for those references to the God of the Gaps to
see how specifically it is referred to in this group.-a It seems people
view this concept differently.

BTW, I'm back on the sidewalk now.

If you're interested, here are t.o topics that give some context in
relation to the comments in this thread and where I'm coming from.

- A summary of my own position and approach, and similar from others:

"Why do you participate here?" >https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/8fuyuKN4VhE/m/xUYwSeYQAQAJ

- A proposal on handling scientific evidence and avoiding a
god-of-the-gaps error:

"Terms of Engagement?" >https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/Q0H4U47iYgk/m/2fprGczIBwAJ

An example of an assessment of some reasonably current OOL science >commentary which IMO is revealing of how overstated progress in this
field is:

"Excellent presentation by Bruce Damer and Dave Deamer" >https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/HMw_ZoXIIOc/m/GhDNtzHcAAAJ

I acknowledge your links above are all good examples of your past
posts. Unfortunately, they are also good examples of your denial of
the power of reproduction with modification over time, a denial you
share with Tour, Peltzer and other ID heroes. So while y'all continue
to claim "science doesn't know X therefore God", good scientists work
hard to shrink the gaps in their knowledge. I can only hope that
ID-inspired efforts will ultimately fail in their efforts to dumb down
the electorate.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 8/27/2025 4:40 AM, jillery wrote:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 16:55:35 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

On 27/08/2025 1:11 am, sticks wrote:

On 8/25/2025 9:23 PM, Chris Thompson wrote:

---snip---

Alas, at the risk of passing irrevocably through the gates of Old
Fartdom, I have to inform you that talk.origins is a pale shadow of
its former self. The halcyon days of moonstones, the felt effect of
gravity, and woodpecker tongues are never to be revisited. So don't
get your hopes up.
You are correct that Ron tends to view everything through the lens of, >>>> as he puts it, the ID scam. To give Ron his due, Mark E sometimes
posts material that doesn't contain overt religious assertion, but
fear not: they're almost certainly lurking just below the surface. The >>>> stuff above is a fair example: Peltzer IS an accomplished chemist. But >>>> he's also an IDist, and his testimony in Kansas really was (again Ron
is correct here) a God of the gaps argument.

One thing you might do, is look at the TO website (talkorigins.org).
It's not been updated since the Permian, but there are a bunch of
excellent articles there under "Post of the Month".

Now get off my lawn!

Chris

I shall find time to go to talkorigins.org.-a Thank you.
I'll also keep an eye out for those references to the God of the Gaps to >>> see how specifically it is referred to in this group.-a It seems people
view this concept differently.

BTW, I'm back on the sidewalk now.

If you're interested, here are t.o topics that give some context in
relation to the comments in this thread and where I'm coming from.

- A summary of my own position and approach, and similar from others:

"Why do you participate here?"
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/8fuyuKN4VhE/m/xUYwSeYQAQAJ

- A proposal on handling scientific evidence and avoiding a
god-of-the-gaps error:

"Terms of Engagement?"
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/Q0H4U47iYgk/m/2fprGczIBwAJ

The origin of life god-of-the-gaps creationist stupidity is #3 of the ID perp's Top Six and the vast majority of IDiotic creationist support for
the ID scam cannot accept the god responsible for the creation of life
over 3 billion years ago on this planet. Most of the IDiot posters had
quit the ID scam the year before you were continuing to wallow in the
denial in the post above.

You never were able to avoid the creationist god-of-the-gaps error
because you never would face what the gap denial meant for your
religious beliefs. You continue to lie about why you support the god-of-the-gaps stupidity, and you refuse to deal with what filling that
gap with some god would mean to your religious beliefs, probably,
because you can't accept such a god's existence. Just like the other
IDiots that quit the ID scam when the Top Six did not support their
religious beliefs. You just use the denial to lie to yourself in order
to maintain the belief that the gap denial somehow still supports your religious beliefs. None of the IDiots supported the IDiotic
god-of-the-gaps denial because of the science including yourself. When
it became evident that the god that fills those gaps was not the
Biblical god they quit the ID scam, but you continued on in some type of delusional state.

Why do you refuse to state how the gap relates to your religious
beliefs? You know that your religious beliefs are the main reason for continuing the gap denial, so why can't you face what filling the gap
with some god would mean to your religious beliefs?

If you accept that the god that could fill the origin of life gap could
be the Biblical god, in spite of the fact that the Bible is wrong about
the creation, then you would be like most of the Biblical creationists
that do not need to resort to the god-of-the-gaps denial because such a
god could have filled the gaps in any way that we can think of. What is described in the Bible never happened the way it is described in the
Bible, and is just as wrong as the shape of the Earth, geocentrism, and
the Biblical age of the earth. An ID perp like Denton only requires one
gap (the Big Bang) and claims that the rest all unfolded into what we
have today. He is still a god-of-the-gaps creationist, but he has
minimized the gaps, and doesn't worry about all the gaps that are not consistent with the Biblical creation. Denton understands that his gap
denial isn't scientific, but he doesn't care because practical science basically ends at the Big Bang singularity.

Ron Okimoto

An example of an assessment of some reasonably current OOL science
commentary which IMO is revealing of how overstated progress in this
field is:

"Excellent presentation by Bruce Damer and Dave Deamer"
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/HMw_ZoXIIOc/m/GhDNtzHcAAAJ

I acknowledge your links above are all good examples of your past
posts. Unfortunately, they are also good examples of your denial of
the power of reproduction with modification over time, a denial you
share with Tour, Peltzer and other ID heroes. So while y'all continue
to claim "science doesn't know X therefore God", good scientists work
hard to shrink the gaps in their knowledge. I can only hope that
ID-inspired efforts will ultimately fail in their efforts to dumb down
the electorate.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 27/08/2025 7:40 pm, jillery wrote:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 16:55:35 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

On 27/08/2025 1:11 am, sticks wrote:

On 8/25/2025 9:23 PM, Chris Thompson wrote:

---snip---

Alas, at the risk of passing irrevocably through the gates of Old
Fartdom, I have to inform you that talk.origins is a pale shadow of
its former self. The halcyon days of moonstones, the felt effect of
gravity, and woodpecker tongues are never to be revisited. So don't
get your hopes up.
You are correct that Ron tends to view everything through the lens of, >>>> as he puts it, the ID scam. To give Ron his due, Mark E sometimes
posts material that doesn't contain overt religious assertion, but
fear not: they're almost certainly lurking just below the surface. The >>>> stuff above is a fair example: Peltzer IS an accomplished chemist. But >>>> he's also an IDist, and his testimony in Kansas really was (again Ron
is correct here) a God of the gaps argument.

One thing you might do, is look at the TO website (talkorigins.org).
It's not been updated since the Permian, but there are a bunch of
excellent articles there under "Post of the Month".

Now get off my lawn!

Chris

I shall find time to go to talkorigins.org.-a Thank you.
I'll also keep an eye out for those references to the God of the Gaps to >>> see how specifically it is referred to in this group.-a It seems people
view this concept differently.

BTW, I'm back on the sidewalk now.

If you're interested, here are t.o topics that give some context in
relation to the comments in this thread and where I'm coming from.

- A summary of my own position and approach, and similar from others:

"Why do you participate here?"
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/8fuyuKN4VhE/m/xUYwSeYQAQAJ

- A proposal on handling scientific evidence and avoiding a
god-of-the-gaps error:

"Terms of Engagement?"
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/Q0H4U47iYgk/m/2fprGczIBwAJ

An example of an assessment of some reasonably current OOL science
commentary which IMO is revealing of how overstated progress in this
field is:

"Excellent presentation by Bruce Damer and Dave Deamer"
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/HMw_ZoXIIOc/m/GhDNtzHcAAAJ

I acknowledge your links above are all good examples of your past
posts. Unfortunately, they are also good examples of your denial of
the power of reproduction with modification over time, a denial you
share with Tour, Peltzer and other ID heroes. So while y'all continue
to claim "science doesn't know X therefore God", good scientists work
hard to shrink the gaps in their knowledge. I can only hope that
ID-inspired efforts will ultimately fail in their efforts to dumb down
the electorate.

"science doesn't know X therefore God" - accurate summation or
disingenuous caricature? Let the reader decide.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On Thu, 28 Aug 2025 07:50:59 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

On 27/08/2025 7:40 pm, jillery wrote:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 16:55:35 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

On 27/08/2025 1:11 am, sticks wrote:

On 8/25/2025 9:23 PM, Chris Thompson wrote:

---snip---

Alas, at the risk of passing irrevocably through the gates of Old
Fartdom, I have to inform you that talk.origins is a pale shadow of
its former self. The halcyon days of moonstones, the felt effect of
gravity, and woodpecker tongues are never to be revisited. So don't
get your hopes up.
You are correct that Ron tends to view everything through the lens of, >>>>> as he puts it, the ID scam. To give Ron his due, Mark E sometimes
posts material that doesn't contain overt religious assertion, but
fear not: they're almost certainly lurking just below the surface. The >>>>> stuff above is a fair example: Peltzer IS an accomplished chemist. But >>>>> he's also an IDist, and his testimony in Kansas really was (again Ron >>>>> is correct here) a God of the gaps argument.

One thing you might do, is look at the TO website (talkorigins.org). >>>>> It's not been updated since the Permian, but there are a bunch of
excellent articles there under "Post of the Month".

Now get off my lawn!

Chris

I shall find time to go to talkorigins.org.-a Thank you.
I'll also keep an eye out for those references to the God of the Gaps to >>>> see how specifically it is referred to in this group.-a It seems people >>>> view this concept differently.

BTW, I'm back on the sidewalk now.

If you're interested, here are t.o topics that give some context in
relation to the comments in this thread and where I'm coming from.

- A summary of my own position and approach, and similar from others:

"Why do you participate here?"
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/8fuyuKN4VhE/m/xUYwSeYQAQAJ

- A proposal on handling scientific evidence and avoiding a
god-of-the-gaps error:

"Terms of Engagement?"
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/Q0H4U47iYgk/m/2fprGczIBwAJ

An example of an assessment of some reasonably current OOL science
commentary which IMO is revealing of how overstated progress in this
field is:

"Excellent presentation by Bruce Damer and Dave Deamer"
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/HMw_ZoXIIOc/m/GhDNtzHcAAAJ

I acknowledge your links above are all good examples of your past
posts. Unfortunately, they are also good examples of your denial of
the power of reproduction with modification over time, a denial you
share with Tour, Peltzer and other ID heroes. So while y'all continue
to claim "science doesn't know X therefore God", good scientists work
hard to shrink the gaps in their knowledge. I can only hope that
ID-inspired efforts will ultimately fail in their efforts to dumb down
the electorate.

"science doesn't know X therefore God" - accurate summation or
disingenuous caricature? Let the reader decide.

"accurate summation or disingenuous caricature" - sounds like
disingenuous denial. Let the reader decide.
From your first link above: *****************************************************
But more and more its amazing spatial properties, ultra-dense
information storage, regulation and intricate function are being
discovered. I see a creator's hand in these. *****************************************************
From your second link above: ************************************************************
Consider this thought experiment: what if, after another 50 years of
research, scientists unanimously declared that no workable
naturalistic explanation for the origin of life could be found, and in
fact the problem had become more intractable than ever, particularly
as understanding of the complexity of the simplest cell dramatically
increased over that time? IrCOd call this a rCygulfrCO, and a pointer to supernatural agency. *************************************************************
Two out of three ain't good.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 28/08/2025 4:08 pm, jillery wrote:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2025 07:50:59 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

On 27/08/2025 7:40 pm, jillery wrote:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 16:55:35 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

On 27/08/2025 1:11 am, sticks wrote:

On 8/25/2025 9:23 PM, Chris Thompson wrote:

---snip---

Alas, at the risk of passing irrevocably through the gates of Old
Fartdom, I have to inform you that talk.origins is a pale shadow of >>>>>> its former self. The halcyon days of moonstones, the felt effect of >>>>>> gravity, and woodpecker tongues are never to be revisited. So don't >>>>>> get your hopes up.
You are correct that Ron tends to view everything through the lens of, >>>>>> as he puts it, the ID scam. To give Ron his due, Mark E sometimes
posts material that doesn't contain overt religious assertion, but >>>>>> fear not: they're almost certainly lurking just below the surface. The >>>>>> stuff above is a fair example: Peltzer IS an accomplished chemist. But >>>>>> he's also an IDist, and his testimony in Kansas really was (again Ron >>>>>> is correct here) a God of the gaps argument.

One thing you might do, is look at the TO website (talkorigins.org). >>>>>> It's not been updated since the Permian, but there are a bunch of
excellent articles there under "Post of the Month".

Now get off my lawn!

Chris

I shall find time to go to talkorigins.org.-a Thank you.
I'll also keep an eye out for those references to the God of the Gaps to >>>>> see how specifically it is referred to in this group.-a It seems people >>>>> view this concept differently.

BTW, I'm back on the sidewalk now.

If you're interested, here are t.o topics that give some context in
relation to the comments in this thread and where I'm coming from.

- A summary of my own position and approach, and similar from others:

"Why do you participate here?"
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/8fuyuKN4VhE/m/xUYwSeYQAQAJ

- A proposal on handling scientific evidence and avoiding a
god-of-the-gaps error:

"Terms of Engagement?"
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/Q0H4U47iYgk/m/2fprGczIBwAJ

An example of an assessment of some reasonably current OOL science
commentary which IMO is revealing of how overstated progress in this
field is:

"Excellent presentation by Bruce Damer and Dave Deamer"
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/HMw_ZoXIIOc/m/GhDNtzHcAAAJ

I acknowledge your links above are all good examples of your past
posts. Unfortunately, they are also good examples of your denial of
the power of reproduction with modification over time, a denial you
share with Tour, Peltzer and other ID heroes. So while y'all continue
to claim "science doesn't know X therefore God", good scientists work
hard to shrink the gaps in their knowledge. I can only hope that
ID-inspired efforts will ultimately fail in their efforts to dumb down
the electorate.

"science doesn't know X therefore God" - accurate summation or
disingenuous caricature? Let the reader decide.

"accurate summation or disingenuous caricature" - sounds like
disingenuous denial. Let the reader decide.

From your first link above: *****************************************************
But more and more its amazing spatial properties, ultra-dense
information storage, regulation and intricate function are being
discovered. I see a creator's hand in these. *****************************************************

From your second link above: ************************************************************
Consider this thought experiment: what if, after another 50 years of research, scientists unanimously declared that no workable
naturalistic explanation for the origin of life could be found, and in
fact the problem had become more intractable than ever, particularly
as understanding of the complexity of the simplest cell dramatically increased over that time? IrCOd call this a rCygulfrCO, and a pointer to supernatural agency. *************************************************************

Two out of three ain't good.

Okay, I'll give some you some points for the second one in particular.

However, elsewhere I have expanded and qualified this as follows:

___

If, after 500 years on sustained research into origin of life, all naturalistic avenues and hypotheses conceived to that point have been demonstrated to be inadequate, and this is the consensus a large
majority scientists in the field, would you say:

1. We may never work this out
2. Keep looking
3. Let's consider the "God hypothesis"
4. Other (please elaborate)

You may choose more than one option.

[From the subject /David Deamer's book "Assembling Life"/]

___

My question then, is it reasonable, accurate and in good faith to
characterise this as "science doesn't know X therefore God"?





--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 28/08/2025 9:23 pm, MarkE wrote:

On 28/08/2025 4:08 pm, jillery wrote:

I acknowledge your links above are all good examples of your past
posts.-a Unfortunately, they are also good examples of your denial of
the power of reproduction with modification over time, a denial you
share with Tour, Peltzer and other ID heroes.-a So while y'all continue >>>> to claim "science doesn't know X therefore God", good scientists work
hard to shrink the gaps in their knowledge.-a I can only hope that
ID-inspired efforts will ultimately fail in their efforts to dumb down >>>> the electorate.

"science doesn't know X therefore God" - accurate summation or
disingenuous caricature? Let the reader decide.

"accurate summation or disingenuous caricature" - sounds like
disingenuous denial.-a Let the reader decide.

-aFrom your first link above:
*****************************************************
But more and more its amazing spatial properties, ultra-dense
information storage, regulation and intricate function are being
discovered. I see a creator's hand in these.
*****************************************************

-aFrom your second link above:
************************************************************
Consider this thought experiment: what if, after another 50 years of
research, scientists unanimously declared that no workable
naturalistic explanation for the origin of life could be found, and in
fact the problem had become more intractable than ever, particularly
as understanding of the complexity of the simplest cell dramatically
increased over that time?-a IrCOd call this a rCygulfrCO, and a pointer to >> supernatural agency.
*************************************************************

Two out of three ain't good.

Okay, I'll give some you some points for the second one in particular.

However, elsewhere I have expanded and qualified this as follows:

___

If, after 500 years on sustained research into origin of life, all naturalistic avenues and hypotheses conceived to that point have been demonstrated to be inadequate, and this is the consensus a large
majority scientists in the field, would you say:

1. We may never work this out
2. Keep looking
3. Let's consider the "God hypothesis"
4. Other (please elaborate)

You may choose more than one option.

[From the subject /David Deamer's book "Assembling Life"/]

___

My question then, is it reasonable, accurate and in good faith to characterise this as "science doesn't know X therefore God"?

Moreover, from the thread "Surviving the Daily DNA Apocalypse":

How many times have we all been around the block on this fundamental
question? A common position here is functionally
ontological/metaphysical naturalism. No matter how wide the "gap" may
become, non-natural explanations will not be [allowed to be] considered.
From "The Stairway To Life: An Origin-Of-Life Reality Check" (pp. 187-189):

Objection: Your argument is a plea to the rCLGod of the gaps.rCY Just
because science doesnrCOt have all the answers doesnrCOt mean that we have
to invoke God to fill the gaps.

Response: The entirety of this book seeks to provide a proper scope to
the rCLgap.rCY The Stairway to Life clarifies that the gap is not simply a missing puzzle piece or a set of unclear details. The gap is, in fact,
the entirety of the origin of life. And the gap is growing over time as
we learn more about the complexity of cells and as efforts to produce components of life via realistic prebiotic approaches fail. As we have mentioned, additional steps will be added to the Stairway to Life over
time. These steps will come from previously unexplored processes that
are required for life. For example, we mentioned in Chapter 17 that the current best approximation of a minimal cell that can reproduce
autonomously includes 493 genes [201]. This same report specifies that
91 of the 493 genes perform unknown functions. Therefore, about 20% of
the minimal genome codes for functions that we have not yet explored.
Further, the genome is not the only information contained in life. We
are just beginning to explore other forms of information found in living organisms, such as the sugar code that encapsulates cells [226]. Future exploration in these areas will result in new steps in the Stairway to
Life and an ever-increasing rCLgap.rCY The emperor is not simply missing a lapel pin; the emperor has no clothes. Our conclusion that creative intelligence was essential to start life is based on what we do know,
not on what we donrCOt know. The arguments in this book do not take the following form: rCLNo one knows how life began; therefore, God did it.rCY Rather, the inference to the need for intelligence in the origin of life follows directly from what we do know about the requirements for life
and what we do know about chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, and
biology. Turning this objection around, choosing to maintain a belief in abiogenesis despite the absence of a reasonable approach to the Stairway
to Life is a rCLmaterialism-of-the-gapsrCY approachrCoi.e., rCLwe donrCOt know how
life began, but we know that only natural processes were involved.rCY


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On Thu, 28 Aug 2025 07:50:59 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

"science doesn't know X therefore God" - accurate summation or
disingenuous caricature? Let the reader decide.

So help us decide rCa. how is it a caricature and not an accurate
summation?

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 28/08/2025 9:55 pm, Martin Harran wrote:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2025 07:50:59 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

"science doesn't know X therefore God" - accurate summation or
disingenuous caricature? Let the reader decide.

So help us decide rCa. how is it a caricature and not an accurate
summation?

Done, as per my two previous responses.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On Thu, 28 Aug 2025 22:12:16 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

On 28/08/2025 9:55 pm, Martin Harran wrote:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2025 07:50:59 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

"science doesn't know X therefore God" - accurate summation or
disingenuous caricature? Let the reader decide.

So help us decide rCa. how is it a caricature and not an accurate
summation?

Done, as per my two previous responses.

They both just repeat yet again stuff about gaps without considering
the possibility of any alternative to God for filling the gaps so they
both reinforce that "science doesn't know X therefore God" is indeed
an accurate summation.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 8/28/2025 6:23 AM, MarkE wrote:

On 28/08/2025 4:08 pm, jillery wrote:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2025 07:50:59 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

On 27/08/2025 7:40 pm, jillery wrote:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 16:55:35 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>

On 27/08/2025 1:11 am, sticks wrote:

On 8/25/2025 9:23 PM, Chris Thompson wrote:

---snip---

Alas, at the risk of passing irrevocably through the gates of Old >>>>>>> Fartdom, I have to inform you that talk.origins is a pale shadow of >>>>>>> its former self. The halcyon days of moonstones, the felt effect of >>>>>>> gravity, and woodpecker tongues are never to be revisited. So don't >>>>>>> get your hopes up.
You are correct that Ron tends to view everything through the
lens of,
as he puts it, the ID scam. To give Ron his due, Mark E sometimes >>>>>>> posts material that doesn't contain overt religious assertion, but >>>>>>> fear not: they're almost certainly lurking just below the
surface. The
stuff above is a fair example: Peltzer IS an accomplished
chemist. But
he's also an IDist, and his testimony in Kansas really was (again >>>>>>> Ron
is correct here) a God of the gaps argument.

One thing you might do, is look at the TO website (talkorigins.org). >>>>>>> It's not been updated since the Permian, but there are a bunch of >>>>>>> excellent articles there under "Post of the Month".

Now get off my lawn!

Chris

I shall find time to go to talkorigins.org.-a Thank you.
I'll also keep an eye out for those references to the God of the
Gaps to
see how specifically it is referred to in this group.-a It seems
people
view this concept differently.

BTW, I'm back on the sidewalk now.

If you're interested, here are t.o topics that give some context in
relation to the comments in this thread and where I'm coming from.

- A summary of my own position and approach, and similar from others: >>>>>
"Why do you participate here?"
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/8fuyuKN4VhE/m/xUYwSeYQAQAJ >>>>>
- A proposal on handling scientific evidence and avoiding a
god-of-the-gaps error:

"Terms of Engagement?"
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/Q0H4U47iYgk/m/2fprGczIBwAJ >>>>>
An example of an assessment of some reasonably current OOL science
commentary which IMO is revealing of how overstated progress in this >>>>> field is:

"Excellent presentation by Bruce Damer and Dave Deamer"
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/HMw_ZoXIIOc/m/GhDNtzHcAAAJ >>>>

I acknowledge your links above are all good examples of your past
posts.-a Unfortunately, they are also good examples of your denial of
the power of reproduction with modification over time, a denial you
share with Tour, Peltzer and other ID heroes.-a So while y'all continue >>>> to claim "science doesn't know X therefore God", good scientists work
hard to shrink the gaps in their knowledge.-a I can only hope that
ID-inspired efforts will ultimately fail in their efforts to dumb down >>>> the electorate.

"science doesn't know X therefore God" - accurate summation or
disingenuous caricature? Let the reader decide.

"accurate summation or disingenuous caricature" - sounds like
disingenuous denial.-a Let the reader decide.

-aFrom your first link above:
*****************************************************
But more and more its amazing spatial properties, ultra-dense
information storage, regulation and intricate function are being
discovered. I see a creator's hand in these.
*****************************************************

-aFrom your second link above:
************************************************************
Consider this thought experiment: what if, after another 50 years of
research, scientists unanimously declared that no workable
naturalistic explanation for the origin of life could be found, and in
fact the problem had become more intractable than ever, particularly
as understanding of the complexity of the simplest cell dramatically
increased over that time?-a IrCOd call this a rCygulfrCO, and a pointer to >> supernatural agency.
*************************************************************

Two out of three ain't good.

Okay, I'll give some you some points for the second one in particular.

However, elsewhere I have expanded and qualified this as follows:

___

If, after 500 years on sustained research into origin of life, all naturalistic avenues and hypotheses conceived to that point have been demonstrated to be inadequate, and this is the consensus a large
majority scientists in the field, would you say:

1. We may never work this out
2. Keep looking
3. Let's consider the "God hypothesis"
4. Other (please elaborate)

You may choose more than one option.

[From the subject /David Deamer's book "Assembling Life"/]

___

My question then, is it reasonable, accurate and in good faith to characterise this as "science doesn't know X therefore God"?

Yes it is. God-of-the-gaps is just that no matter if the gaps are never
going to be filled. No one expects to figure out how life actually
arose on this planet. The best that we can do without a time machine is figure out the most likely way that life arose, and it could have
actually arisen in a much more unlikely way. The first organic
conglomerate that produced the first self replicating molecules might
have been created by a random asteroid impact instead of condensing in
some crevice somewhere.

Gaps like what caused the Big Bang may never be filled due to the
singularity that we can't get past to see what existed before. Denton
is happy with using this gap because he can never be demonstrated to be
wrong.

I was a genetics major as an undergraduate at Berkeley, and all the geneticists told me that genetics was over and that the future was
molecular biology, so I did my PhD in molecular genetics. During my
graduate studies tools for genomic analysis like PCR and microsatellite genetic markers were created, and they had the promise of allowing the unsolved issues in genetics to be answered. I went back into genetics
because the new technology was opening up a new frontier in genetics.
There was finally the possibility that things like why the infinite
allele model worked so well in quantitative genetics. Quantitative
genetic analysis was well worked out, but we didn't understand why it
worked. I started my first post doc on looking for quantitative trait
loci (QTL) in 1992. I retired in 2024 and we still do not know why the infinite allele model works for quantitative genetic analysis. We can sequence whole genomes now, but somethings remain a mystery. You do not
see the ID perps claiming that their designer is responsible for the
success of the infinite allele model in quantitative genetics.

My guess for why it works is that due to the fall off in increased
accuracy with the inclusion of more past generations of data (about 3
past generations are enough to use for things like BLUP (best linear
unbiased prediction) is that linkage is the reason for the infinite
allele model working so well. Most of it may be apparent linkage and
not actual linkage on the same chromosome. We have found that an LD
(linkage disequalibrium) of only 0.3 within a population is sufficient
to use markers spaced along the genome to improve the accuracy of
predicting the best breeding values for individuals. All the alleles segregating in the genome have a minimum linkage of 0.5 (you inherit
half of one parent's genome) in the first cross. Closely linked markers
have a linkage close to 1.0. This means that the whole genome can be considered to have a quantitative genetic value due to hundred or
thousands of genetic variants in that genome, and these variants can be inherited together just by chance if they occur in the same individual
even if they are not linked. This would create pseudo haplotypes based
on the whole genome, and not just haplotypes of the same chromosomes.
In the first cross half the QTL segregate together in any individual.
My guess is that this would create close enough to an infinite number of pseudo haplotypes of unlinked QTL. Half the sires genome is inherited
in the first cross, 25% in the next cross, but if we are talking genome equivalents (and things that sire is homozygous for) then all the
homozygous alleles (1 genome equivalent) is inherited among the progeny
of the first cross, half a genome equivalent in the second cross and 25%
in the third cross. Statistically these pseudo haplotypes could persist
for multiple generations. Each individual starts with a new set of
pseudo haplotypes that add to the haplotypes due to actual linkage, so
you never see all the "alleles" possible in a single generation. There
would be pretty much an infinite number of them.

Ron Okimoto

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 8/23/25 6:06 AM, MarkE wrote:

On 22/08/2025 11:19 pm, RonO wrote:

On 8/21/2025 6:26 PM, MarkE wrote:

A perspective on OoL from Dr. Edward T. Peltzer. Quotes following are
interview excerpts.
_______

I did have many discussions with Miller and Bada on many subjects,
but the issues of pre-biotic chemistry and the origin of life were
the most common. Both were excellent chemists. You could ask them
about almost anything and they would have an answer or know where one
could look to find out. In some cases, I suspected they already knew,
but wanted to give me the experience of scouring the library to find
out. One could say that they taught me everything I new about
prebiotic chemistry at the time.

During his doctoral studies at the Scripps Institution of
Oceanography (SIO), he was mentored by two luminaries in prebiotic
chemistry: Stanley Miller, renowned for the Miller-Urey experiment
simulating early Earth conditions, and Jeffrey Bada, an expert in the
field of amino acid racemization and a prominent figure in the study
of organic compounds in meteorites.

As for the various individual [OoL] theories, here are a few of the
fatal errors. Hydrothermal vents do not make organic compounds, they
destroy them.

Surface based synthesis might yield a few useful compounds, but many
compounds with a diverse range of functionality are needed for the
first organism. RNA is too unstable outside a living cell to offer
much hope of it doing anything in the pre-biotic soup if somehow it
was formed (which is exceptionally unlikely).

My least favorite theory among all the options is the lipid world.
Assuming that one could get a collection of similar chain length
fatty acids bonded to glycerol to make triglycerides (which itself is
highly unlikely in the pre-biotic soup of randomly generated
compounds), then one could form an artificial vesicle (alternatively
called a coacervate or liposome) with a lipid bilayer film. What you
then have is not much more than a rCLsoap bubble.rCY There is no interior >>> metabolism, no ion- transport pathways in the rCLmembranerCY; it is
nothing more than a film- coated droplet. How it would acquire an
internal metabolism, etc., is anyonerCOs guess. But guesses, as
entertaining as they might be, are not a scientific explanation of
how life arose abiotically.

Random undirected chemistry does not yield biopolymers. Organisms
need proteins, DNA &/or RNA, polysaccharides, etc. These polymers are
uniform in that they are composed of a monomeric class of compounds
bound together in very specific ways: proteins are chains of amino
acids linked by peptide bonds; DNA & RNA are chains of nucleotides
linked by phosphate bridges; polysaccharides (e.g., starch &
cellulose) are chains of glucose molecules linked by +#-(1,4)
glycosidic bonds in starch (amylose) and +#-(1,4) glycosidic bonds in
cellulose. Random, undirected chemical reactions do not yield these
pure polymers. Instead, they yield polymers formed by random
condensations of whatever compounds are at hand, producing high
molecular weight compounds without a well-defined structure. Examples
of this are fulvic and humic acids, melanoids, etc. Their structures
are complex, involve monomers from a variety of compound classes and
without a common bonding pattern. As such, they exhibit little to no
biological activity and store no information.

The biggest challenge of all will be to convince the folks who dream
up the various theories for the origin of life to include the impact
of competing reactions on their pathways as opposed to writing rCLjust
so stories.rCY

The origin of homochirality (D-sugars, L-amino acids, etc.) has
proved to be a difficult problem to solve. The goal needs to be
chiral purity otherwise just a single wrong isomer can completely
foul the functionality of the biopolymer (protein, DNA/RNA, etc.).
Homochirality is always up against racemization, the process by which
chiral molecules get mixed with their mirror images (enantiomers).
Any such lack of purity among chiral molecules is deadly to life. All
three of the proposed processes to achieve homochirality fail for
such reasons. First, they are slow and only achieve a partial
enrichment of the desired form. Second, racemization reactions work
faster to undo this enrichment. What little progress is made is
quickly lost. Third, the racemization rate increases with
temperature. So, the condition needed to speed-up other synthesis
processes works against homochirality. The source of homochirality
remains an unsolved mystery.

Another problem for abiotic synthesis is that some amino acids have
two amino groups, and some have two carboxylic acid groups. This
leads to the possibility that the carboxlic acid group can bind with
the wrong amino group (or vice-versa) and thus branches can form in
undirected syntheses. None of the proteins in living systems have
rCLbranchesrCY as these would impair the proper folding of the proteins >>> into the enzymatic active forms.

Meanwhile, there are competing reactions that destroy the sugars. We
have already seen that the Maillard reaction of amino acids with
sugars yields a variety of melanoid products. And unless the
environmental conditions are just right and the pH gets too high, the
Cannizzaro reaction will consume sugars in pairs yielding an alcohol
and a carboxylic acid. Moreover, high temperatures (like are found in
hydrothermal vents) will cause the sugars to dehydrate and char and,
yes, this does happen even underwater at high pressures. The
principal products were intractable materials composed of melanoids,
tars and carbon soot around the electrodes. This was not the kind of
materials biologists and chemists were looking for as they are not
components of living organisms. Later it would be shown that the
amino acids were racemic, not the pure L-isomers used by living
organisms. More recent analyses have revealed a total of about 50
different amino acids were formed, but only 20 are used by living
organisms. So, while he did find amino acids, they were not solely
the ones living organisms use. There was a lot of chaff mixed in with
the wheat. While Miller was very open and straightforward about these
problems, they tend to get over-looked in origin-of-life discussions.
There is a tendency to focus on the path to life ignoring all the
problems: the competing reactions and sidetracks along the way. This
was not MillerrCOs fault, but it is common behavior among those that
argue for a solely naturalistic origin of life, where it is assumed
that time and rCLnatural selectionrCY will take care of all the problems. >>>
Has my view on whether liferCOs emergence was a natural, unguided
process shifted with time? Of course. One starts out young and na|>ve.
I believed pretty much everything I read in books and was taught in
class. But as I learned more, I developed a healthy skepticism and
learned to think for myself. Not so much in high school, but more so
in college and graduate school. It was all part of being a scientist:
you learn to not always take everything at face value. Instead, I
learned to ask questions: Do the conclusions fit the data? What is
the evidence for this?

[Etc...]

https://scienceandculture.com/2025/08/interview-with-edward-peltzer-
on- the-origin-of-life/

What good does the gap denial do for you?-a It only allows IDiotic
Biblical creationists to lie to themselves about reality.-a You know
this for a fact, so why keep up the IDiotic stupidity.-a It doesn't
matter how the origin of life occurred on this planet.-a Whatever
happened is not Biblical, so it does not support your Biblical
beliefs.-a Wallowing in denial is never going to support your religious
beliefs.-a That is why the other IDiots quit the ID scam.-a Why you
continue to go to the ID perps in order to be lied to is stupid and
dishonest.-a The only IDiots left after the bait and switch started to
go down were the ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest.-a Competent,
informed, and honest IDiotic creationists do not exist.-a The fact that
the bait and switch IDiotic scam still goes down on their own
creationist support base is proof of that.

You have to deal with the reality in which you have to deny the
science. -a-aNo matter what happened with respect to the origin of life
on this planet the Bible is wrong once again.-a The earth is not flat,
we do not live in a geocentric universe, and the earth is much older
than a few thousand years.-a The earth was known not to be flat since
before Christ was born.-a Geocentrism lost out centuries ago.-a YEC was
dead before Darwin came up with natural selection.-a Even Kelvin's
estimates were in the hundreds of millions of years.-a The actual
origin of life on this planet is not mentioned in the Bible, nor is
the evolution of that life over billions of years.-a The Biblical order
of the creation of life on earth is as wrong as the shape of the earth
and it's place in the universe.-a Nothing about nature will support
your Biblical beliefs.-a You have to acknowledge that nature is not
Biblical, and this fact does not matter for some reason when it is the
basis for your denial of reality.

Gap denial is never going to support your religious beliefs when the
god that fills the gaps is not Biblical.-a The Supreme court was
correct in their comments in scientific creationist gap denial.-a Just
because we do not currently understand something about nature, is not
any support for your religious beliefs.-a This is obviously the case
with gaps that need to be filled by gods that are not Biblical.

Ron Okimoto

Ron, this post is not about the Bible or any particular interpretation
of it. The interview cited is only science. Ironically, your bluster and misdirection serve to "deny the science".

How do you reconcile your views with theism? You're effectively telling
god what god can and cannot do. In my view, that means placing yourself
above God, which demotes God to non-god status.
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 29/08/2025 12:58 am, Martin Harran wrote:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2025 22:12:16 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

On 28/08/2025 9:55 pm, Martin Harran wrote:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2025 07:50:59 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

"science doesn't know X therefore God" - accurate summation or
disingenuous caricature? Let the reader decide.

So help us decide rCa. how is it a caricature and not an accurate
summation?

Done, as per my two previous responses.

They both just repeat yet again stuff about gaps without considering
the possibility of any alternative to God for filling the gaps so they
both reinforce that "science doesn't know X therefore God" is indeed
an accurate summation.

Let's celebrate the freedom to hold different views. As I said, let the
reader decide.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 07:59:57 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

On 29/08/2025 12:58 am, Martin Harran wrote:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2025 22:12:16 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

On 28/08/2025 9:55 pm, Martin Harran wrote:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2025 07:50:59 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
[...]

"science doesn't know X therefore God" - accurate summation or
disingenuous caricature? Let the reader decide.

So help us decide rCa. how is it a caricature and not an accurate
summation?

Done, as per my two previous responses.

They both just repeat yet again stuff about gaps without considering
the possibility of any alternative to God for filling the gaps so they
both reinforce that "science doesn't know X therefore God" is indeed
an accurate summation.

Let's celebrate the freedom to hold different views.

.... and not worry about being unable to offer anythting to support
those views.

As I said, let the
reader decide.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 07:59:57 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

Let's celebrate the freedom to hold different views. As I said, let the >reader decide.

You go from asking if god-of-the-gaps refutations are disingenuous
caricatures, to asking if people don't have a right to different
points of view. These are two very different questions, representing
a disingenuous shift in topic. Bad form, MarkE.
Of course everybody has a right to their own opinions, but they don't
have a right to their own facts. Your posts assert current OoL
research is at a standstill facing a fundamental and ever-widening
gulf of ignorance. When in fact OoL researchers have made and continue
to make progress in closing that gap.
Instead of presuming OoL research is at odds with a Creator, ISTM you
would do better to follow the style of Cardinal Baronius and presume
OoL research shows not how to live, but how the Creator made life.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 8/28/2025 6:31 AM, MarkE wrote:

On 28/08/2025 9:23 pm, MarkE wrote:

On 28/08/2025 4:08 pm, jillery wrote:

I acknowledge your links above are all good examples of your past
posts.-a Unfortunately, they are also good examples of your denial of >>>>> the power of reproduction with modification over time, a denial you
share with Tour, Peltzer and other ID heroes.-a So while y'all continue >>>>> to claim "science doesn't know X therefore God", good scientists work >>>>> hard to shrink the gaps in their knowledge.-a I can only hope that
ID-inspired efforts will ultimately fail in their efforts to dumb down >>>>> the electorate.

"science doesn't know X therefore God" - accurate summation or
disingenuous caricature? Let the reader decide.

"accurate summation or disingenuous caricature" - sounds like
disingenuous denial.-a Let the reader decide.

-aFrom your first link above:
*****************************************************
But more and more its amazing spatial properties, ultra-dense
information storage, regulation and intricate function are being
discovered. I see a creator's hand in these.
*****************************************************

-aFrom your second link above:
************************************************************
Consider this thought experiment: what if, after another 50 years of
research, scientists unanimously declared that no workable
naturalistic explanation for the origin of life could be found, and in
fact the problem had become more intractable than ever, particularly
as understanding of the complexity of the simplest cell dramatically
increased over that time?-a IrCOd call this a rCygulfrCO, and a pointer to >>> supernatural agency.
*************************************************************

Two out of three ain't good.

Okay, I'll give some you some points for the second one in particular.

However, elsewhere I have expanded and qualified this as follows:

___

If, after 500 years on sustained research into origin of life, all
naturalistic avenues and hypotheses conceived to that point have been
demonstrated to be inadequate, and this is the consensus a large
majority scientists in the field, would you say:

1. We may never work this out
2. Keep looking
3. Let's consider the "God hypothesis"
4. Other (please elaborate)

You may choose more than one option.

[From the subject /David Deamer's book "Assembling Life"/]

___

My question then, is it reasonable, accurate and in good faith to
characterise this as "science doesn't know X therefore God"?

Moreover, from the thread "Surviving the Daily DNA Apocalypse":

How many times have we all been around the block on this fundamental question? A common position here is functionally ontological/
metaphysical naturalism. No matter how wide the "gap" may become, non- natural explanations will not be [allowed to be] considered. From "The Stairway To Life: An Origin-Of-Life Reality Check" (pp. 187-189):

Objection: Your argument is a plea to the rCLGod of the gaps.rCY Just because science doesnrCOt have all the answers doesnrCOt mean that we have to invoke God to fill the gaps.

Response: The entirety of this book seeks to provide a proper scope to
the rCLgap.rCY The Stairway to Life clarifies that the gap is not simply a missing puzzle piece or a set of unclear details. The gap is, in fact,
the entirety of the origin of life. And the gap is growing over time as
we learn more about the complexity of cells and as efforts to produce components of life via realistic prebiotic approaches fail. As we have mentioned, additional steps will be added to the Stairway to Life over
time. These steps will come from previously unexplored processes that
are required for life. For example, we mentioned in Chapter 17 that the current best approximation of a minimal cell that can reproduce
autonomously includes 493 genes [201]. This same report specifies that
91 of the 493 genes perform unknown functions. Therefore, about 20% of
the minimal genome codes for functions that we have not yet explored. Further, the genome is not the only information contained in life. We
are just beginning to explore other forms of information found in living organisms, such as the sugar code that encapsulates cells [226]. Future exploration in these areas will result in new steps in the Stairway to
Life and an ever-increasing rCLgap.rCY The emperor is not simply missing a lapel pin; the emperor has no clothes. Our conclusion that creative intelligence was essential to start life is based on what we do know,
not on what we donrCOt know. The arguments in this book do not take the following form: rCLNo one knows how life began; therefore, God did it.rCY Rather, the inference to the need for intelligence in the origin of life follows directly from what we do know about the requirements for life
and what we do know about chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, and
biology. Turning this objection around, choosing to maintain a belief in abiogenesis despite the absence of a reasonable approach to the Stairway
to Life is a rCLmaterialism-of-the-gapsrCY approachrCoi.e., rCLwe donrCOt know how
life began, but we know that only natural processes were involved.rCY

All of this never mattered to the creationist gap denial stupidity. It
was always assumed by the creationists that used the gaps that they
would never be filled. Denton uses the Big Bang (#1 of the Top Six)
because that gap is likely never going to be filled. The scientific creationists even relied on the fact that they would never be filled
with some god because the god that filled those gaps was not the
Biblical god. The gap denial has always been used by the scientific creationists and ID perps as fire and forget science denial. The
creationists rubes and the bogus perps are supposed to forget about the
gap in order to move on to the next subject of denial. You know that
the scientific creationists never wanted to fill the gaps because the
Big Bang is one of the science topics that the YEC succeeded in removing
from the public school science standards in Kansas even though it was
gap denial used by the scientific creationists, and is still being used
in the AIG creation museum as science denial to keep fooling the rubes.

Meyer had the Top Six in his book The God Hypothesis, but he treated
them all as independent bits of denial and never tried to form a
coherent hypothesis out of all of them. The reason for such a stupid
scam fool-the-rubes attempt is because the coherant hypothesis is not Biblical. The god that fills the Top Six gaps is not the god described
in the Bible. The old earth creationists at Reason to Believe used to
be IDiots, and claimed that they were using the ID science to develop
their Biblical creation model, but it looks like they quit being IDiots
in 2018 (after the Top Six was put out) and now you would be hard
pressed to determine that they were once IDiots. Just search
"intelligent design" and you no longer get their articles supporting the
ID scam. At one time they had the claim that they supported intelligent design, but did not support teaching it in the pubilc schools. It may
have been part of their home page or their creation model page.

You refuse to state how you would deal with some god filling your origin
of life gap because you know that, that god is not the one that you want
to believe in. The other IDiots quit the ID scam gap denial stupidity
because any valid ID science filling those gaps would just be more
science to deny. The god that fills the Top Six gaps is not the god
described in the Bible. You just refuse to face that reality, and just
use the gap denial to keep lying to yourself about reality. You know
that you support the gap denial in order to support your religious
beliefs, so how can you ignore what filling that gap with some non
Biblical god would do to your Biblical beliefs.

Ron Okimoto

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 29/08/2025 1:53 am, Mark Isaak wrote:

On 8/23/25 6:06 AM, MarkE wrote:

On 22/08/2025 11:19 pm, RonO wrote:

Ron, this post is not about the Bible or any particular interpretation
of it. The interview cited is only science. Ironically, your bluster
and misdirection serve to "deny the science".

How do you reconcile your views with theism?-a You're effectively telling god what god can and cannot do.-a In my view, that means placing yourself above God, which demotes God to non-god status.

My approach is to avoid conflating science and theology. Therefore, I generally discuss the science only. My theological beliefs are not
relevant to interpreting science.

All the same, I'm happy to discuss my faith and have done so here. So to reiterate my approach:

In my opinion, growing scientific understanding of the functional
complexity of even minimal life is leading to deepening problems with abiogenesis. As a consequence, consideration of a supernatural
explanation becomes increasingly warranted as a rational response to scientific evidence.

It's not an either/or; it's not a suggestion to abandon science. Keep
doing science, but don't rule out supernatural explanation. Moreover, do
so with these in mind:

- don't be too hasty to appeal to the supernatural -- that is the god-of-the-gaps error;
- recognise the boundary of science, i.e. that science cannot, by
definition, tell us anything about a hypothesised supernatural cause.

Some will only consider natural explanations because science has no
access to the supernatural, or an erroneous belief that science is the
only possible source of knowledge. That's akin to a child putting their
hands over their eyes and declaring you can't see them.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 29/08/2025 5:12 pm, Martin Harran wrote:

On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 07:59:57 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

On 29/08/2025 12:58 am, Martin Harran wrote:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2025 22:12:16 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

On 28/08/2025 9:55 pm, Martin Harran wrote:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2025 07:50:59 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
[...]

"science doesn't know X therefore God" - accurate summation or
disingenuous caricature? Let the reader decide.

So help us decide rCa. how is it a caricature and not an accurate
summation?

Done, as per my two previous responses.

They both just repeat yet again stuff about gaps without considering
the possibility of any alternative to God for filling the gaps so they
both reinforce that "science doesn't know X therefore God" is indeed
an accurate summation.

Let's celebrate the freedom to hold different views.

.... and not worry about being unable to offer anythting to support
those views.

To be clear, I am not unwilling to "considering the possibility of any alternative to God for filling the gaps". What possibilities do you have
in mind?

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 29/08/2025 1:48 am, RonO wrote:

...

My question then, is it reasonable, accurate and in good faith to
characterise this as "science doesn't know X therefore God"?

Yes it is.-a God-of-the-gaps is just that no matter if the gaps are never going to be filled.-a No one expects to figure out how life actually
arose on this planet.-a The best that we can do without a time machine is figure out the most likely way that life arose, and it could have
actually arisen in a much more unlikely way.-a The first organic conglomerate that produced the first self replicating molecules might
have been created by a random asteroid impact instead of condensing in
some crevice somewhere.

Gaps like what caused the Big Bang may never be filled due to the singularity that we can't get past to see what existed before.-a Denton
is happy with using this gap because he can never be demonstrated to be wrong.

I was a genetics major as an undergraduate at Berkeley, and all the geneticists told me that genetics was over and that the future was
molecular biology, so I did my PhD in molecular genetics.-a During my graduate studies tools for genomic analysis like PCR and microsatellite genetic markers were created, and they had the promise of allowing the unsolved issues in genetics to be answered.-a I went back into genetics because the new technology was opening up a new frontier in genetics.
There was finally the possibility that things like why the infinite
allele model worked so well in quantitative genetics.-a Quantitative
genetic analysis was well worked out, but we didn't understand why it worked.-a I started my first post doc on looking for quantitative trait
loci (QTL) in 1992.-a I retired in 2024 and we still do not know why the infinite allele model works for quantitative genetic analysis.-a We can sequence whole genomes now, but somethings remain a mystery.-a You do not see the ID perps claiming that their designer is responsible for the
success of the infinite allele model in quantitative genetics.

My guess for why it works is that due to the fall off in increased
accuracy with the inclusion of more past generations of data (about 3
past generations are enough to use for things like BLUP (best linear unbiased prediction) is that linkage is the reason for the infinite
allele model working so well.-a Most of it may be apparent linkage and
not actual linkage on the same chromosome.-a We have found that an LD (linkage disequalibrium) of only 0.3 within a population is sufficient
to use markers spaced along the genome to improve the accuracy of
predicting the best breeding values for individuals.-a All the alleles segregating in the genome have a minimum linkage of 0.5 (you inherit
half of one parent's genome) in the first cross.-a Closely linked markers have a linkage close to 1.0.-a This means that the whole genome can be considered to have a quantitative genetic value due to hundred or
thousands of genetic variants in that genome, and these variants can be inherited together just by chance if they occur in the same individual
even if they are not linked.-a This would create pseudo haplotypes based
on the whole genome, and not just haplotypes of the same chromosomes. In
the first cross half the QTL segregate together in any individual. My
guess is that this would create close enough to an infinite number of
pseudo haplotypes of unlinked QTL.-a Half the sires genome is inherited
in the first cross, 25% in the next cross, but if we are talking genome equivalents (and things that sire is homozygous for) then all the
homozygous alleles (1 genome equivalent) is inherited among the progeny
of the first cross, half a genome equivalent in the second cross and 25%
in the third cross.-a Statistically these pseudo haplotypes could persist for multiple generations.-a Each individual starts with a new set of
pseudo haplotypes that add to the haplotypes due to actual linkage, so
you never see all the "alleles" possible in a single generation.-a There would be pretty much an infinite number of them.

Ron Okimoto

How is retirement treating you?

Based on your experience as described above (credit where due btw) I'd
be interested in your comments on mathematical vs simulation vs observe
and infer approaches the study of population genetics.

I've mentioned here previously a partially completed computer program to simulate a population of ~10,000 "genomes", subject to sexual
reproduction, with chromosomes, recombination and crossover, controlled randomisation, and mutations using various selection coefficient
profiles, etc. I've been curious to attempt to explore fixation, viable selection coefficient distributions, genetic load and so on.

Inconclusive so far, but the exercise has been an impetus to try and understand some of the principles involved. I plan to get back to it,
but further study of pop gen first would help verify my assumptions and modelling.

My initial approach was to start with a supposed selection coefficient distribution. The data I could find suggested some lethal (-1), some deleterious (-1 < x < near-neutral), many neutral or near-neutral (zero
or just under), and a small number beneficial (just above zero). Using
this, determine if the population grows or goes extinct through genetic
load. However, I found it difficult to find definitive data, and so
instead flipped the approach to reverse-engineer a "break-even"
selection coefficient distribution.

One question that presents itself is how to model overall relative
fitness of an individual carrying multiple mutations. The simple
solution is to just add them together. Of course, in nature complex and dynamic non-linear effects apply, which are beyond a simple simulation. However, it seems to me that a well-constructed simulation could give a reasonably indicative picture.






--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 29/08/2025 8:06 pm, jillery wrote:

On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 07:59:57 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

Let's celebrate the freedom to hold different views. As I said, let the
reader decide.

You go from asking if god-of-the-gaps refutations are disingenuous caricatures, to asking if people don't have a right to different
points of view. These are two very different questions, representing
a disingenuous shift in topic. Bad form, MarkE.

Of course everybody has a right to their own opinions, but they don't
have a right to their own facts. Your posts assert current OoL
research is at a standstill facing a fundamental and ever-widening
gulf of ignorance. When in fact OoL researchers have made and continue
to make progress in closing that gap.

You're arguing by assertion.

You say "When in fact OoL researchers have made and continue to make
progress in closing that gap", which is merely a personal assertion of
one side of the debate, not an argument or statement of fact.

No big deal, I'm sure I've made similar errors. Respect for owning it.

Instead of presuming OoL research is at odds with a Creator, ISTM you
would do better to follow the style of Cardinal Baronius and presume
OoL research shows not how to live, but how the Creator made life.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 14:59:33 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

On 29/08/2025 8:06 pm, jillery wrote:

On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 07:59:57 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

Let's celebrate the freedom to hold different views. As I said, let the
reader decide.

You go from asking if god-of-the-gaps refutations are disingenuous
caricatures, to asking if people don't have a right to different
points of view. These are two very different questions, representing
a disingenuous shift in topic. Bad form, MarkE.

Of course everybody has a right to their own opinions, but they don't
have a right to their own facts. Your posts assert current OoL
research is at a standstill facing a fundamental and ever-widening
gulf of ignorance. When in fact OoL researchers have made and continue
to make progress in closing that gap.

You're arguing by assertion.

You're denying by assertion, which negates that rebuke. Meanwhile you
continue to ignore your disingenuous change in topic I noted above.
These tactics serve you poorly.

You say "When in fact OoL researchers have made and continue to make >progress in closing that gap", which is merely a personal assertion of
one side of the debate, not an argument or statement of fact.

No big deal, I'm sure I've made similar errors. Respect for owning it.

Your claims about the OoL "gulf" are at best the personal opinions of
you and your fellow IDists, and hardly rise to the level of fact you
claim for it. Your continued hyperbole and handwaving make it hard to
take your posts seriously.

Instead of presuming OoL research is at odds with a Creator, ISTM you
would do better to follow the style of Cardinal Baronius and presume
OoL research shows not how to live, but how the Creator made life.

Neil Tyson regularly riffs a story comparable to your expressed line
of reasoning, how Newton had the raw talent to deal with the
complexitiies of celestial mechanics, but instead invoked divine
intervention, and so progress on that point had to wait another
century for Laplace. The point being, even if OoL research is at a
place comparable to that of Newton in his time, obsessing over it is
still god-of-the-gaps reasoning. Get over it.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 8/29/2025 7:41 PM, MarkE wrote:

My approach is to avoid conflating science and theology. Therefore, I generally discuss the science only. My theological beliefs are not
relevant to interpreting science.

I would agree with you Mark on this, with a caveat that obviously there
are two completely different world views in this discussion, and both
should be considered. The evidence can have completely different interpretations depending on which view you are using to analyze it.
Excluding one view or the other is being less than honest, IMO. Where a result might make no sense in one view, it would make total sense in the other. That doesn't mean it is proven, it means it should be considered.

All the same, I'm happy to discuss my faith and have done so here. So to reiterate my approach:

In my opinion, growing scientific understanding of the functional
complexity of even minimal life is leading to deepening problems with abiogenesis. As a consequence, consideration of a supernatural
explanation becomes increasingly warranted as a rational response to scientific evidence.

Supernatural comes off as a scary word. It's also the second part of
this. I don't go right to claiming this must have been of supernatural origins per se, though it may lead to that. I first decide if what I am seeing is reasonable or if it requires information and intelligence to
have happened. My response is thus not it must have been supernatural,
rather it appears to require some kind of intelligence and it appears to
have been designed. I go from there and think most people do.

It's not an either/or; it's not a suggestion to abandon science. Keep
doing science, but don't rule out supernatural explanation. Moreover, do
so with these in mind:

Nobody wants to say religion has all the answers and science can be
abandoned. I find it's quite the opposite and not only don't fear
science, I eagerly await new findings. Ignoring the suggestion that ID
is a possibility is not science, it is religion.

- don't be too hasty to appeal to the supernatural -- that is the god- of-the-gaps error;
- recognise the boundary of science, i.e. that science cannot, by definition, tell us anything about a hypothesised supernatural cause.

No, it certainly can't. But it strikes me as dishonest that the
naturalism die-hards attack so many things with this God of the Gaps
rhetoric, when for example they've been unable to successfully answer
some real problems like with Big Bang theory and came up with the
Multiverse Theory. To me that's a parallel type of solution and similar
to what they accuse in the God of the Gaps attacks.

Some will only consider natural explanations because science has no
access to the supernatural, or an erroneous belief that science is the
only possible source of knowledge. That's akin to a child putting their hands over their eyes and declaring you can't see them.

I don't care if there are people who dismiss anything they consider supernatural. It is quite an amazing and difficult thing to actually
consider it might exist. As someone who does think this is designed, I
find I certainly do have doubts and questions because it is such an
incredible thing. Of course, thinking life arose on a non-living rock
is similarly incredible to me. I look for answers in science. Then I
weigh the results and move on from there. I get the feeling the
naturalist community doesn't think we honestly look at things and just
accept whatever our Theological doctrine tells us. Of course this is
not the case, but is ironically the exact thing they do, only in reverse.

I do notice though that those who do are often the loudest voices in the crowd, for some reason. What bothers me is those who do think they have
the high ground and choose to deceive others into believing the ID
proponents are things they are clearly not. Protecting our kids from
hearing anything that implies anything crazy like the supernatural is
the usual motive, but people on the design side think similarly and
would just like a fair shake. To be able to honestly show the problems
and limitations of evolutionary theory. Thus we get to the Katzmiller
v. Dover case Ron so often brings up as totally refuting the whole ID viewpoint. He would have us believe all is lost in the ID circle
because of the actions of a handful of people involved in it. I don't
find that to be the case. If similar treatment was given to evolution scientists, people would be outraged. Fortunately, judges usually don't
rule on whether or not a researchers intentions are scientific or not.
Of course the case was not appealed as all the pro board members were
ousted and the new board president wanted nothing of it. Though, I
personally think the original intent seemed reasonable and that Judge
Jones certainly stepped outside the normal lines of judicial behavior, I personally don't really care if ID is taught in the schools, though it
would seem obvious the theory of evolution and it's shortcomings should
be part of the course. In the end, you find people, like some of those
here, who just like to muck up any topic with this constant reference to
this one case and claim a total victory of some kind. I think it should
be pretty much tuned out or you get nowhere.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 8/29/2025 11:48 PM, MarkE wrote:

On 29/08/2025 1:48 am, RonO wrote:

...

My question then, is it reasonable, accurate and in good faith to
characterise this as "science doesn't know X therefore God"?

Yes it is.-a God-of-the-gaps is just that no matter if the gaps are
never going to be filled.-a No one expects to figure out how life
actually arose on this planet.-a The best that we can do without a time
machine is figure out the most likely way that life arose, and it
could have actually arisen in a much more unlikely way.-a The first
organic conglomerate that produced the first self replicating
molecules might have been created by a random asteroid impact instead
of condensing in some crevice somewhere.

Gaps like what caused the Big Bang may never be filled due to the
singularity that we can't get past to see what existed before.-a Denton
is happy with using this gap because he can never be demonstrated to
be wrong.

I was a genetics major as an undergraduate at Berkeley, and all the
geneticists told me that genetics was over and that the future was
molecular biology, so I did my PhD in molecular genetics.-a During my
graduate studies tools for genomic analysis like PCR and
microsatellite genetic markers were created, and they had the promise
of allowing the unsolved issues in genetics to be answered.-a I went
back into genetics because the new technology was opening up a new
frontier in genetics. There was finally the possibility that things
like why the infinite allele model worked so well in quantitative
genetics.-a Quantitative genetic analysis was well worked out, but we
didn't understand why it worked.-a I started my first post doc on
looking for quantitative trait loci (QTL) in 1992.-a I retired in 2024
and we still do not know why the infinite allele model works for
quantitative genetic analysis.-a We can sequence whole genomes now, but
somethings remain a mystery.-a You do not see the ID perps claiming
that their designer is responsible for the success of the infinite
allele model in quantitative genetics.

My guess for why it works is that due to the fall off in increased
accuracy with the inclusion of more past generations of data (about 3
past generations are enough to use for things like BLUP (best linear
unbiased prediction) is that linkage is the reason for the infinite
allele model working so well.-a Most of it may be apparent linkage and
not actual linkage on the same chromosome.-a We have found that an LD
(linkage disequalibrium) of only 0.3 within a population is sufficient
to use markers spaced along the genome to improve the accuracy of
predicting the best breeding values for individuals.-a All the alleles
segregating in the genome have a minimum linkage of 0.5 (you inherit
half of one parent's genome) in the first cross.-a Closely linked
markers have a linkage close to 1.0.-a This means that the whole genome
can be considered to have a quantitative genetic value due to hundred
or thousands of genetic variants in that genome, and these variants
can be inherited together just by chance if they occur in the same
individual even if they are not linked.-a This would create pseudo
haplotypes based on the whole genome, and not just haplotypes of the
same chromosomes. In the first cross half the QTL segregate together
in any individual. My guess is that this would create close enough to
an infinite number of pseudo haplotypes of unlinked QTL.-a Half the
sires genome is inherited in the first cross, 25% in the next cross,
but if we are talking genome equivalents (and things that sire is
homozygous for) then all the homozygous alleles (1 genome equivalent)
is inherited among the progeny of the first cross, half a genome
equivalent in the second cross and 25% in the third cross.
Statistically these pseudo haplotypes could persist for multiple
generations.-a Each individual starts with a new set of pseudo
haplotypes that add to the haplotypes due to actual linkage, so you
never see all the "alleles" possible in a single generation.-a There
would be pretty much an infinite number of them.

Ron Okimoto

How is retirement treating you?

Just fine. I find myself researching more science topics because I am
no longer limited to what my job involved.

God of the gaps is just that no matter if science is ever going to fill
the gaps, and even if you can fill the OOL gap with some god, it is not
the god described in the Bible. When the ID perps have to resort to
quote mining and ignoring catalytic alternatives in order to support
Tour you should understand that gap denial is bogus.

Based on your experience as described above (credit where due btw) I'd
be interested in your comments on mathematical vs simulation vs observe
and infer approaches the study of population genetics.

Population genetics is limited by the mathematical and simulation
analysis that they have been able to do. A lot was accomplished before
we had computers to play with, but even with computers population
genetics is still limited due to what is not understood about the
biology. It is still subject to GIGO (garbage in garbage out).

The basic underlying biology of qualitative genetics (Mendelian
inheritance) was worked out within a century of Mendel's mathematical approach. Chromosomes were discovered to behave in Mendelian fashion in meiosis (the production of sperm and egg) and we figured out what genes
were and that they had regulatory sequences. It made Mendelian genetics pretty much totally understood.

As I mentioned we still do not understand why the infinite allele model
works so well in quantitative population genetics. It is a model that
was needed to facilitate computation so that we could actually produce
some answers, but everyone understands that there are a finite number of
genes far fewer than anything close to infinite. The human genome might
only have 15,000 coding genes, but as I also mentioned it looks like we
may not fully understand the biology, and the actual biology may make
the genome appear to generate a near infinite number of apparent
alleles. We haven't worked out all of the biology. We need to get a
better understanding of how dominance and gene interactions really
affect the population genetics. Quantitative genetics currently do not
have adequate means for the analysis of dominance and epistasis (gene interactions). Nearly all the papers looking for the effects of
dominance and epistasis in populations under selection conclude that the effects are minimal, but that is likely not true.

I've mentioned here previously a partially completed computer program to simulate a population of ~10,000 "genomes", subject to sexual
reproduction, with chromosomes, recombination and crossover, controlled randomisation, and mutations using various selection coefficient
profiles, etc. I've been curious to attempt to explore fixation, viable selection coefficient distributions, genetic load and so on.

Probably all such programs that track alleles and assign selection coefficients to alleles do not model how the genome actually evolves.

In reality selection coefficients and genetic load assignments have to
change as the allele frequencies in the populations change, but we
currently do not have a good way to do that, nor can we predict which
ones need to change with time and allele frequency.

The selection coefficient of a specific genotype can be dependent on the allele frequency at another locus, so background genetics matter as well
as the environment.

Humans average a genetic load of 1.5 to 2. These are lethal
equivalents, so if you were homozygous for your genetic load you would
be dead. Drosophila studies indicate that over 50% of the genetic load
is due deleterious loci that are only 10% lethal or less when
homozygous. 10% lethal is just the percentage reduction from the
expected frequency of homozygotes in the population. So in test crosses
where you expect 50% homozygotes you only find 45% homozygotes. The
sporadic lethality of such homozygotes is likely due to environmental influence, interaction with other sublethals, or deleterious
interactions with normally non lethal variants segregating in the
population.

How we calculate the lethal load and identify lethal loci is not that accurate, mainly due to gene interactions messing with identification
and quantifying the lethal load. There are multiple examples of a fully lethal recessive trait associated with one loci that when crossed into
another genetic background is not lethal or incompletely lethal (only a fraction of the homozygotes die). Natural selection occurs in some
lines kept to carry recessive lethals so eventually the homozygotes do
not die. Other loci in the genome were selected that counteracted the lethality.

We also know that we have issues because of recombinant inbred lines.
You can take two to 6 highly inbred mouse lines that have all been
inbred long enough to be over 99% inbred (99% of the alleles are
identical by descent and homozygous). These lines can have been
selected to be more reproductively successful than wild-type (more
litters and more pups per litter). It could be claimed that the lethal
load in these lines was zero. In the case of two inbred lines what they
do is cross them together and then backcross to one of the lines several
times so that they start mating full sibs that have different parts of
the donor genome and subsequent inbreeding produces lines where 12.5% of
the donor genome is fixed (homozygous) dispersed around the genome.
Each recombinant inbred line has a different 12.5% of the donor genome
so you can use around 20 recombinant inbred lines to genetically map
variants from the donor genome. The problem is that many of these
recombinant inbred lines start to fail to reproduce enough progeny to
maintain the recombinant inbred lines. It turns out that parts of the
donor genome has a lethal load when combined with the genetic background
of the other highly inbred line. They lose the lines if they continue
to inbreed them, so they start maintaining the lines as inbred as they
can make them, but they remain heterozygous for parts of the donor genome.

This just means that all the simplistic models of assigning genetic load
and selection coefficients to genotypes are inadequate to model what
actually happens.

Inconclusive so far, but the exercise has been an impetus to try and understand some of the principles involved. I plan to get back to it,
but further study of pop gen first would help verify my assumptions and modelling.

My initial approach was to start with a supposed selection coefficient distribution. The data I could find suggested some lethal (-1), some deleterious (-1 < x < near-neutral), many neutral or near-neutral (zero
or just under), and a small number beneficial (just above zero). Using
this, determine if the population grows or goes extinct through genetic load. However, I found it difficult to find definitive data, and so
instead flipped the approach to reverse-engineer a "break-even"
selection coefficient distribution.

One question that presents itself is how to model overall relative
fitness of an individual carrying multiple mutations. The simple
solution is to just add them together. Of course, in nature complex and dynamic non-linear effects apply, which are beyond a simple simulation. However, it seems to me that a well-constructed simulation could give a reasonably indicative picture.

Doing something like this right takes a lot of advanced modeling and
dealing with biology that we haven't yet completely worked out. We know
that things like gene interaction and dominance need to be in the
models, but we don't know how much, nor can we predict when these things
are factors.

I do think that evolutionary models need to deal with the genetic load
and inbreeding. I believe that the deleterious genetic load in the
population is very important in maintaining genetic variation and
selection progress in a population. It may be a major factor in why populations fail, and why others take over. Why is the spotted owl
currently being out competed by the midwestern subspecies when they
normally come into contact each warm interglacial period when Canada
becomes forested instead of being covered with ice.

The Wrangel Island mammoth went extinct due to inbreeding depression.
We can get ancient DNA samples and the ice age megafauna of past ice
ages were less inbred and more genetically diverse than the last couple
of ice ages. My guess is that the longer cold periods of the last half million years has allowed over selection for cold adaptation, and the variation that was needed to adapt to the warmer interglacial periods
was mostly lost. A couple papers have noted that more ancient
populations had more warm adapted variants segregating than the most
recent ice age populations. They had adapted to cooling conditions for
a couple million years, but had maintained the genetic variants needed
to deal with the warmer interglacial periods until this last cold
period. Even though the populations reexpanded during this last glacial period and their populations recovered to what they had been during
other glacial periods their genetics remained inbred. It seems that
fewer isolated populations survived to remix after their territories reexpanded to allow the previously isolated populations to come together
and restore genetic diversity to the species. My guess is that
inbreeding depression was a major cause of the extinctions of the mega
fauna when they were again isolated to small populations during the
current interglacial.

I was involved in the first genome variation analysis of the domestic
chicken population. The paper was published in PNAS. With genetic
markers spread across the genome we could estimate inbreeding levels for
each population that we had included in the study. We could also
conclude that the commercial lines only had a minor fraction of the
genetic diversity found among the populations that we had tested. Some
of the commercial population were highly inbred (Fst over 0.8).
Multiple breeder companies were involved in the study, but several of
them objected to the findings. We had an internal peer review that was
more rigorous than any that I had previously been associated with.
Everything was cross checked and assumptions verified and or noted. In
the end the results were just what they were, and several companies
removed themselves as authors on the paper. What we did not put in the
paper (because the breeder companies did not provide the pedigree
information) was that the inbreeding levels were much lower than we
expected them to be. It is well known that commercial breeders try to
limit inbreeding to less than 1% per generation in order to maintain
genetic progress due to selection, but some of the lines had been closed
lines for over 50 generations, and we started with birds inbred due to
being bred to a standard. Before the modern commercial breeding
industry started in the 1950's nearly all breeders sold chickens bred to
a physical standard (the American Standard of perfection). The
commercial industry started with birds like White Plymouth Rocks that
had been bred to the standard since the 19th century.

Somehow commercial breeders had selected for heterozygousity within
closed lines under intense selection. Our birds were less inbred than
we expected them to be. My take is that we were able to detect
inbreeding depression (dominance and gene interactions) and were able to identify the least inbred (alleles identical by descent) sibs by
phenotype. This means that nature can do the same thing. So
deleterious loci would be important in the selection and success of a population, and we do not have the tools to detect and quantify the
dominance and gene interaction effects that are significant even though
when we look with our current models and analytical techniques we
usually do not find these factors to be significant.

PNAS paper, this became my 4th most cited publication, and was my second publication accepted as submitted without revision, probably, because we
had revised it and checked it out multiple times before submission: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18981413/

Ron Okimoto



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 11:10:15 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

On 29/08/2025 5:12 pm, Martin Harran wrote:

On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 07:59:57 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

On 29/08/2025 12:58 am, Martin Harran wrote:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2025 22:12:16 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>

On 28/08/2025 9:55 pm, Martin Harran wrote:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2025 07:50:59 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
[...]

"science doesn't know X therefore God" - accurate summation or
disingenuous caricature? Let the reader decide.

So help us decide rCa. how is it a caricature and not an accurate
summation?

Done, as per my two previous responses.

They both just repeat yet again stuff about gaps without considering
the possibility of any alternative to God for filling the gaps so they >>>> both reinforce that "science doesn't know X therefore God" is indeed
an accurate summation.

Let's celebrate the freedom to hold different views.

.... and not worry about being unable to offer anythting to support
those views.

To be clear, I am not unwilling to "considering the possibility of any >alternative to God for filling the gaps". What possibilities do you have
in mind?

I previously explained my own views on how what science tells us is
totally compatible with my belief in God but you showed no signs of
being interested in discussing it so I don't see much point in going
through it again.


Note to "sticks": if you want to look at this previous discussion, you
can find it here:

Message-ID: v49tgihpu4s0pl78anc350medn95n8d73d@4ax.com
or
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/JKnUO3rwKo4/m/qUCe42GGAAAJ


Mark responded by asking me about teleogical drive and special
revelation. I replied here, again in some detail:

Message-ID: ffk8hipn34jcdnbaa9v38qlislh10pdq1s@4ax.com
or
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/JKnUO3rwKo4/m/rdUrj8czAQAJ

Mark responded by tossing out a few biblical verses and that was his
last contribution to the discussion.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 8/29/2025 8:10 PM, MarkE wrote:

On 29/08/2025 5:12 pm, Martin Harran wrote:

On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 07:59:57 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

On 29/08/2025 12:58 am, Martin Harran wrote:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2025 22:12:16 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>

On 28/08/2025 9:55 pm, Martin Harran wrote:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2025 07:50:59 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>
wrote:

[...]

"science doesn't know X therefore God" - accurate summation or
disingenuous caricature? Let the reader decide.

So help us decide rCa. how is it a caricature and not an accurate
summation?

Done, as per my two previous responses.

They both just repeat yet again stuff about gaps without considering
the possibility of any alternative to God for filling the gaps so they >>>> both reinforce that "science doesn't know X therefore God" is indeed
an accurate summation.

Let's celebrate the freedom to hold different views.

.... and not worry about being unable to offer anythting to support
those views.

To be clear, I am not unwilling to "considering the possibility of any alternative to God for filling the gaps". What possibilities do you have
in mind?

Then you know that you have already failed because it is plainly obvious
that the Biblical "God" described in the Bible is not the one that can
fill this gap. If some god is found to fill this gap it is not the one described in the Bible.

Ron Okimoto

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 8/30/2025 11:49 AM, sticks wrote:

On 8/29/2025 7:41 PM, MarkE wrote:

My approach is to avoid conflating science and theology. Therefore, I
generally discuss the science only. My theological beliefs are not
relevant to interpreting science.

I would agree with you Mark on this, with a caveat that obviously there
are two completely different world views in this discussion, and both
should be considered.-a The evidence can have completely different interpretations depending on which view you are using to analyze it. Excluding one view or the other is being less than honest, IMO.-a Where a result might make no sense in one view, it would make total sense in the other.-a That doesn't mean it is proven, it means it should be considered.

You are both wrong. There are not just two completely different world
views involved. There are a lot of Biblical creationists that do not
care how these gaps are filled. God-of-the-gaps denial is pretty
minimal in this group. I would belong to this group. Saint Augustine
would have likely been this type of Biblical creationist. You also have Biblical creationists like Denton (a current fellow with the ID scam
unit at the Discovery Institute) that has deistic views where his god
only got the ball rolling with the Big Bang and the rest unfolded into
what we have today. Denton doesn't care if any god fills the origin of
life gap. Denton has claimed to be an agnostic, but he isn't what is
normally considered to be agnostic. Denton seems to be agnostic about
other peoples religious beliefs, but he definitely has his own religious beliefs in his Biblical God. There was was an ID perp news article
where they were making fun of Denton's past agnostic claims and he
admitted to being basically Christian. The article even stated that
Denton had a "sly twinkle" in his eye when he was talking about his
agnostic claims.

Ron Okimoto

All the same, I'm happy to discuss my faith and have done so here. So
to reiterate my approach:

In my opinion, growing scientific understanding of the functional
complexity of even minimal life is leading to deepening problems with
abiogenesis. As a consequence, consideration of a supernatural
explanation becomes increasingly warranted as a rational response to
scientific evidence.

Supernatural comes off as a scary word.-a It's also the second part of this.-a I don't go right to claiming this must have been of supernatural origins per se, though it may lead to that.-a I first decide if what I am seeing is reasonable or if it requires information and intelligence to
have happened.-a My response is thus not it must have been supernatural, rather it appears to require some kind of intelligence and it appears to have been designed.-a I go from there and think most people do.

It's not an either/or; it's not a suggestion to abandon science. Keep
doing science, but don't rule out supernatural explanation. Moreover,
do so with these in mind:

Nobody wants to say religion has all the answers and science can be abandoned.-a I find it's quite the opposite and not only don't fear
science, I eagerly await new findings.-a Ignoring the suggestion that ID
is a possibility is not science, it is religion.

- don't be too hasty to appeal to the supernatural -- that is the god-
of-the-gaps error;
- recognise the boundary of science, i.e. that science cannot, by
definition, tell us anything about a hypothesised supernatural cause.

No, it certainly can't.-a But it strikes me as dishonest that the
naturalism die-hards attack so many things with this God of the Gaps rhetoric, when for example they've been unable to successfully answer
some real problems like with Big Bang theory and came up with the
Multiverse Theory.-a To me that's a parallel type of solution and similar
to what they accuse in the God of the Gaps attacks.

Some will only consider natural explanations because science has no
access to the supernatural, or an erroneous belief that science is the
only possible source of knowledge. That's akin to a child putting
their hands over their eyes and declaring you can't see them.

I don't care if there are people who dismiss anything they consider supernatural.-a It is quite an amazing and difficult thing to actually consider it might exist.-a As someone who does think this is designed, I find I certainly do have doubts and questions because it is such an incredible thing.-a Of course, thinking life arose on a non-living rock
is similarly incredible to me.-a I look for answers in science.-a Then I weigh the results and move on from there.-a I get the feeling the
naturalist community doesn't think we honestly look at things and just accept whatever our Theological doctrine tells us.-a Of course this is
not the case, but is ironically the exact thing they do, only in reverse.

I do notice though that those who do are often the loudest voices in the crowd, for some reason.-a What bothers me is those who do think they have the high ground and choose to deceive others into believing the ID proponents are things they are clearly not.-a Protecting our kids from hearing anything that implies anything crazy like the supernatural is
the usual motive, but people on the design side think similarly and
would just like a fair shake.-a To be able to honestly show the problems
and limitations of evolutionary theory.-a Thus we get to the Katzmiller
v. Dover case Ron so often brings up as totally refuting the whole ID viewpoint.-a He would have us believe all is lost in the ID circle
because of the actions of a handful of people involved in it.-a I don't
find that to be the case.-a If similar treatment was given to evolution scientists, people would be outraged.-a Fortunately, judges usually don't rule on whether or not a researchers intentions are scientific or not.
Of course the case was not appealed as all the pro board members were
ousted and the new board president wanted nothing of it.-a Though, I personally think the original intent seemed reasonable and that Judge
Jones certainly stepped outside the normal lines of judicial behavior, I personally don't really care if ID is taught in the schools, though it
would seem obvious the theory of evolution and it's shortcomings should
be part of the course.-a In the end, you find people, like some of those here, who just like to muck up any topic with this constant reference to this one case and claim a total victory of some kind.-a I think it should
be pretty much tuned out or you get nowhere.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 11:49:38 -0500, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:

On 8/29/2025 7:41 PM, MarkE wrote:

My approach is to avoid conflating science and theology. Therefore, I
generally discuss the science only. My theological beliefs are not
relevant to interpreting science.

I would agree with you Mark on this, with a caveat that obviously there
are two completely different world views in this discussion, and both
should be considered. The evidence can have completely different >interpretations depending on which view you are using to analyze it. >Excluding one view or the other is being less than honest, IMO. Where a >result might make no sense in one view, it would make total sense in the >other. That doesn't mean it is proven, it means it should be considered.

All the same, I'm happy to discuss my faith and have done so here. So to
reiterate my approach:

In my opinion, growing scientific understanding of the functional
complexity of even minimal life is leading to deepening problems with
abiogenesis. As a consequence, consideration of a supernatural
explanation becomes increasingly warranted as a rational response to
scientific evidence.

Supernatural comes off as a scary word. It's also the second part of
this. I don't go right to claiming this must have been of supernatural >origins per se, though it may lead to that. I first decide if what I am >seeing is reasonable or if it requires information and intelligence to
have happened. My response is thus not it must have been supernatural, >rather it appears to require some kind of intelligence and it appears to >have been designed. I go from there and think most people do.

It's not an either/or; it's not a suggestion to abandon science. Keep
doing science, but don't rule out supernatural explanation. Moreover, do
so with these in mind:

Nobody wants to say religion has all the answers and science can be >abandoned. I find it's quite the opposite and not only don't fear
science, I eagerly await new findings. Ignoring the suggestion that ID
is a possibility is not science, it is religion.

- don't be too hasty to appeal to the supernatural -- that is the god-
of-the-gaps error;
- recognise the boundary of science, i.e. that science cannot, by
definition, tell us anything about a hypothesised supernatural cause.

No, it certainly can't. But it strikes me as dishonest that the
naturalism die-hards attack so many things with this God of the Gaps >rhetoric, when for example they've been unable to successfully answer
some real problems like with Big Bang theory and came up with the
Multiverse Theory. To me that's a parallel type of solution and similar
to what they accuse in the God of the Gaps attacks.

Some will only consider natural explanations because science has no
access to the supernatural, or an erroneous belief that science is the
only possible source of knowledge. That's akin to a child putting their
hands over their eyes and declaring you can't see them.

I don't care if there are people who dismiss anything they consider >supernatural. It is quite an amazing and difficult thing to actually >consider it might exist. As someone who does think this is designed, I
find I certainly do have doubts and questions because it is such an >incredible thing. Of course, thinking life arose on a non-living rock
is similarly incredible to me. I look for answers in science. Then I
weigh the results and move on from there. I get the feeling the
naturalist community doesn't think we honestly look at things and just >accept whatever our Theological doctrine tells us. Of course this is
not the case, but is ironically the exact thing they do, only in reverse.

I do notice though that those who do are often the loudest voices in the >crowd, for some reason. What bothers me is those who do think they have
the high ground and choose to deceive others into believing the ID >proponents are things they are clearly not. Protecting our kids from >hearing anything that implies anything crazy like the supernatural is
the usual motive, but people on the design side think similarly and
would just like a fair shake. To be able to honestly show the problems
and limitations of evolutionary theory. Thus we get to the Katzmiller
v. Dover case Ron so often brings up as totally refuting the whole ID >viewpoint. He would have us believe all is lost in the ID circle
because of the actions of a handful of people involved in it. I don't
find that to be the case. If similar treatment was given to evolution >scientists, people would be outraged. Fortunately, judges usually don't >rule on whether or not a researchers intentions are scientific or not.
Of course the case was not appealed as all the pro board members were
ousted and the new board president wanted nothing of it. Though, I >personally think the original intent seemed reasonable and that Judge
Jones certainly stepped outside the normal lines of judicial behavior, I >personally don't really care if ID is taught in the schools, though it
would seem obvious the theory of evolution and it's shortcomings should
be part of the course. In the end, you find people, like some of those >here, who just like to muck up any topic with this constant reference to >this one case and claim a total victory of some kind. I think it should
be pretty much tuned out or you get nowhere.

Before you two can reasonably claim that supernatural causes are valid alternatives to naturalistic ones, you need to identify:
1. what you mean by supernatural, with examples, and
2. how presuming supernatural causes explain anything.
I stipulate for arguments' sake the possibility of a supernatural
Creator. Now then, tell me how that helps you say whether X is more
or less likely than Y. With naturalistic causes, there are physical
limits which are identifiable and can be experimentally demonstrated.
Not so with supernatural causes.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 31/08/2025 3:11 pm, jillery wrote:

On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 11:49:38 -0500, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:

On 8/29/2025 7:41 PM, MarkE wrote:

My approach is to avoid conflating science and theology. Therefore, I
generally discuss the science only. My theological beliefs are not
relevant to interpreting science.

I would agree with you Mark on this, with a caveat that obviously there
are two completely different world views in this discussion, and both
should be considered. The evidence can have completely different
interpretations depending on which view you are using to analyze it.
Excluding one view or the other is being less than honest, IMO. Where a
result might make no sense in one view, it would make total sense in the
other. That doesn't mean it is proven, it means it should be considered.

All the same, I'm happy to discuss my faith and have done so here. So to >>> reiterate my approach:

In my opinion, growing scientific understanding of the functional
complexity of even minimal life is leading to deepening problems with
abiogenesis. As a consequence, consideration of a supernatural
explanation becomes increasingly warranted as a rational response to
scientific evidence.

Supernatural comes off as a scary word. It's also the second part of
this. I don't go right to claiming this must have been of supernatural
origins per se, though it may lead to that. I first decide if what I am
seeing is reasonable or if it requires information and intelligence to
have happened. My response is thus not it must have been supernatural,
rather it appears to require some kind of intelligence and it appears to
have been designed. I go from there and think most people do.

It's not an either/or; it's not a suggestion to abandon science. Keep
doing science, but don't rule out supernatural explanation. Moreover, do >>> so with these in mind:

Nobody wants to say religion has all the answers and science can be
abandoned. I find it's quite the opposite and not only don't fear
science, I eagerly await new findings. Ignoring the suggestion that ID
is a possibility is not science, it is religion.

- don't be too hasty to appeal to the supernatural -- that is the god-
of-the-gaps error;
- recognise the boundary of science, i.e. that science cannot, by
definition, tell us anything about a hypothesised supernatural cause.

No, it certainly can't. But it strikes me as dishonest that the
naturalism die-hards attack so many things with this God of the Gaps
rhetoric, when for example they've been unable to successfully answer
some real problems like with Big Bang theory and came up with the
Multiverse Theory. To me that's a parallel type of solution and similar
to what they accuse in the God of the Gaps attacks.

Some will only consider natural explanations because science has no
access to the supernatural, or an erroneous belief that science is the
only possible source of knowledge. That's akin to a child putting their
hands over their eyes and declaring you can't see them.

I don't care if there are people who dismiss anything they consider
supernatural. It is quite an amazing and difficult thing to actually
consider it might exist. As someone who does think this is designed, I
find I certainly do have doubts and questions because it is such an
incredible thing. Of course, thinking life arose on a non-living rock
is similarly incredible to me. I look for answers in science. Then I
weigh the results and move on from there. I get the feeling the
naturalist community doesn't think we honestly look at things and just
accept whatever our Theological doctrine tells us. Of course this is
not the case, but is ironically the exact thing they do, only in reverse.

I do notice though that those who do are often the loudest voices in the
crowd, for some reason. What bothers me is those who do think they have
the high ground and choose to deceive others into believing the ID
proponents are things they are clearly not. Protecting our kids from
hearing anything that implies anything crazy like the supernatural is
the usual motive, but people on the design side think similarly and
would just like a fair shake. To be able to honestly show the problems
and limitations of evolutionary theory. Thus we get to the Katzmiller
v. Dover case Ron so often brings up as totally refuting the whole ID
viewpoint. He would have us believe all is lost in the ID circle
because of the actions of a handful of people involved in it. I don't
find that to be the case. If similar treatment was given to evolution
scientists, people would be outraged. Fortunately, judges usually don't
rule on whether or not a researchers intentions are scientific or not.
Of course the case was not appealed as all the pro board members were
ousted and the new board president wanted nothing of it. Though, I
personally think the original intent seemed reasonable and that Judge
Jones certainly stepped outside the normal lines of judicial behavior, I
personally don't really care if ID is taught in the schools, though it
would seem obvious the theory of evolution and it's shortcomings should
be part of the course. In the end, you find people, like some of those
here, who just like to muck up any topic with this constant reference to
this one case and claim a total victory of some kind. I think it should
be pretty much tuned out or you get nowhere.

Before you two can reasonably claim that supernatural causes are valid alternatives to naturalistic ones, you need to identify:

1. what you mean by supernatural, with examples, and
2. how presuming supernatural causes explain anything.

I stipulate for arguments' sake the possibility of a supernatural
Creator. Now then, tell me how that helps you say whether X is more
or less likely than Y. With naturalistic causes, there are physical
limits which are identifiable and can be experimentally demonstrated.
Not so with supernatural causes.

This is a fundamental issue in this debate. Intending to be constructive
and open-minded, what if I frame it this way:

Separate from and prior to specific discussions about science, how do
you regard naturalistic vs supernatural* explanations of origins?

Do you regard one more likely or worthy of consideration that the other,
and why?

* The so-called "God hypothesis", which might be summaried as: A transcendent/supernatural agent (an unspecified God, intelligent
designer, non-material cause), involved in the origin and/or
organisation of the material universe.






--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: talk.origins

On 8/31/2025 5:41 AM, MarkE wrote:

On 31/08/2025 3:11 pm, jillery wrote:

On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 11:49:38 -0500, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:

On 8/29/2025 7:41 PM, MarkE wrote:

My approach is to avoid conflating science and theology. Therefore, I
generally discuss the science only. My theological beliefs are not
relevant to interpreting science.

I would agree with you Mark on this, with a caveat that obviously there
are two completely different world views in this discussion, and both
should be considered.-a The evidence can have completely different
interpretations depending on which view you are using to analyze it.
Excluding one view or the other is being less than honest, IMO.-a Where a >>> result might make no sense in one view, it would make total sense in the >>> other.-a That doesn't mean it is proven, it means it should be
considered.

All the same, I'm happy to discuss my faith and have done so here.
So to
reiterate my approach:

In my opinion, growing scientific understanding of the functional
complexity of even minimal life is leading to deepening problems with
abiogenesis. As a consequence, consideration of a supernatural
explanation becomes increasingly warranted as a rational response to
scientific evidence.

Supernatural comes off as a scary word.-a It's also the second part of
this.-a I don't go right to claiming this must have been of supernatural >>> origins per se, though it may lead to that.-a I first decide if what I am >>> seeing is reasonable or if it requires information and intelligence to
have happened.-a My response is thus not it must have been supernatural, >>> rather it appears to require some kind of intelligence and it appears to >>> have been designed.-a I go from there and think most people do.

It's not an either/or; it's not a suggestion to abandon science. Keep
doing science, but don't rule out supernatural explanation.
Moreover, do
so with these in mind:

Nobody wants to say religion has all the answers and science can be
abandoned.-a I find it's quite the opposite and not only don't fear
science, I eagerly await new findings.-a Ignoring the suggestion that ID >>> is a possibility is not science, it is religion.

- don't be too hasty to appeal to the supernatural -- that is the god- >>>> of-the-gaps error;
- recognise the boundary of science, i.e. that science cannot, by
definition, tell us anything about a hypothesised supernatural cause.

No, it certainly can't.-a But it strikes me as dishonest that the
naturalism die-hards attack so many things with this God of the Gaps
rhetoric, when for example they've been unable to successfully answer
some real problems like with Big Bang theory and came up with the
Multiverse Theory.-a To me that's a parallel type of solution and similar >>> to what they accuse in the God of the Gaps attacks.

Some will only consider natural explanations because science has no
access to the supernatural, or an erroneous belief that science is the >>>> only possible source of knowledge. That's akin to a child putting their >>>> hands over their eyes and declaring you can't see them.

I don't care if there are people who dismiss anything they consider
supernatural.-a It is quite an amazing and difficult thing to actually
consider it might exist.-a As someone who does think this is designed, I >>> find I certainly do have doubts and questions because it is such an
incredible thing.-a Of course, thinking life arose on a non-living rock
is similarly incredible to me.-a I look for answers in science.-a Then I >>> weigh the results and move on from there.-a I get the feeling the
naturalist community doesn't think we honestly look at things and just
accept whatever our Theological doctrine tells us.-a Of course this is
not the case, but is ironically the exact thing they do, only in
reverse.

I do notice though that those who do are often the loudest voices in the >>> crowd, for some reason.-a What bothers me is those who do think they have >>> the high ground and choose to deceive others into believing the ID
proponents are things they are clearly not.-a Protecting our kids from
hearing anything that implies anything crazy like the supernatural is
the usual motive, but people on the design side think similarly and
would just like a fair shake.-a To be able to honestly show the problems >>> and limitations of evolutionary theory.-a Thus we get to the Katzmiller
v. Dover case Ron so often brings up as totally refuting the whole ID
viewpoint.-a He would have us believe all is lost in the ID circle
because of the actions of a handful of people involved in it.-a I don't
find that to be the case.-a If similar treatment was given to evolution
scientists, people would be outraged.-a Fortunately, judges usually don't >>> rule on whether or not a researchers intentions are scientific or not.
Of course the case was not appealed as all the pro board members were
ousted and the new board president wanted nothing of it.-a Though, I
personally think the original intent seemed reasonable and that Judge
Jones certainly stepped outside the normal lines of judicial behavior, I >>> personally don't really care if ID is taught in the schools, though it
would seem obvious the theory of evolution and it's shortcomings should
be part of the course.-a In the end, you find people, like some of those >>> here, who just like to muck up any topic with this constant reference to >>> this one case and claim a total victory of some kind.-a I think it should >>> be pretty much tuned out or you get nowhere.

Before you two can reasonably claim that supernatural causes are valid
alternatives to naturalistic ones, you need to identify:

1. what you mean by supernatural, with examples, and
2. how presuming supernatural causes explain anything.

I stipulate for arguments' sake the possibility of a supernatural
Creator.-a Now then, tell me how that helps you say whether X is more
or less likely than Y.-a With naturalistic causes, there are physical
limits which are identifiable and can be experimentally demonstrated.
Not so with supernatural causes.

This is a fundamental issue in this debate. Intending to be constructive
and open-minded, what if I frame it this way:

Separate from and prior to specific discussions about science, how do
you regard naturalistic vs supernatural* explanations of origins?

The issue with trying this gambit is that there is no way to separate
the natural from the supernatural in terms of what we currently observe
about nature. Some god could have done something in any conceivable way including using naturalistic processes to get the job done. Miller has claimed that maybe the creator jiggles atoms to get things to turn out
the way it wants during the evolution of life on this planet. The atoms
would have already existed, and the creator would have just sent them
down one of the possible paths that they could have taken in the future.
Just because some creationists want things to have been created in a
puff of smoke like Behe, doesn't mean that any god responsible for this creation would have done any such thing. Just ask a Deist like Denton.

Ron Okimoto

Do you regard one more likely or worthy of consideration that the other,
and why?

* The so-called "God hypothesis", which might be summaried as: A transcendent/supernatural agent (an unspecified God, intelligent
designer, non-material cause), involved in the origin and/or
organisation of the material universe.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2