Murchison Meteor Questions

Razd:A great deal actually...If artificial synthesis of amino acids results in racemic mixtures, and the extracts of Murchison are the same. Then it lends further credence to the position that the adenine was synthesized rather than extracted.You don't remember avoiding this already in my message #45? Somewhere you said it was not even on topic, but I reminded you that it was part of the OP topic.From the Op: As I said to you before about this, I'd say it's later now... eh?

You know what? Forget about the chiralty issue Razd.The more I think about it, the more I think it will just be a big mess.The fact is, no one is disputing that amino acids were found on Murchison. So it's not as thought they were synthesized. Even if it were totally clear that they are racemic (which is a big mess of it's own), it wouldn't lend any help to me (that I am aware of) for arguing that it has anything to do with the synthesis of adenine as opposed to extraction.However, if after looking the issue over, you find that it lends help to your position, feel free to bring it up. It is part of the topic...Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

You've once again misstated my position and so have forced yet another reply.There was never an instance where you committed an error, said "Oh, you're right," and moved on, then I replied claiming the error invalided all your arguments.It was always the case that you made an error, then said that we're all human, we all make mistakes, and therefore your error was of no consequence (or arguments along these lines). This is what I always replied to. That and misrepresentations of my position, such as your misbegotten accusation that I erred in saying you were talking about peer review when that's exactly what you were talking about.It is much easier to avoid error in discussion when you focus on the topic instead of side issues like snide remarks, misleading characterizations of your opponent's positions, and self-serving excuses. Also, when entering into discussion of a topic area unfamiliar to you, to avoid error you have to read over what you just wrote to make sure it makes sense. Read over the relevant portions of technical papers again and again to make sure you understand them. Be on the lookout for misinterpretations, because these are extremely easy to make in unfamiliar technical fields. As time goes by and the area becomes more and more familiar, such practices will become less and less necessary.It is also a good idea to have what someone actually said in a past message right in front of you when revisiting a previous point, rather than going from memory.Such practices would probably have avoided some of your more obvious blunders, like claiming that empirical and empiricism were two different things, or constructing arguments around the assumption that rationality and Rationalism were the same thing, or even your most recent one, where you somehow concluded that RAZD was equivocating simply because he's thorough enough to mention all the known possibilities.--Percy

Percy:That is not the record....I never said that I was not talking about peer review. I was refuting your claim, that I had said that truck drivers make better peer reviewers. I only asked if it took a truck driver to do a thorough and objective job.You should know that sometimes it helps to get someone from the outside to critique a given system. Insiders often protect their own interests. It's called bias and It happens with everyone. I am not immune from the temptation. Like you, I try not to engage in such behavior. But we are on the inside of our respective worldviews.Percy:The words emperical and empericism can have different meanings depending on their application and how strictly one defines them. I went overboard on that count... but conceded the point like you wanted, but you still won't let it go.And I never said that 'rationalism' and 'rationality' were the same.
The way I used them was an equivocation but I was incorrectly using the word rational in leu of 'logic' or 'philosophy'. It was another misunderstanding...Frankly, you're being rather 'irrational' about it all. The problem here isn't any of my blunders or those of others. The reason they occur at all is because we are often fighting, rather than communicating. I'll take some of the responsibility. But don't try and put it all on me Percy. I can't bear the sins of the whole world. My own are heavy enough...I am the only one here, who has said words like, 'that's true', or 'you're right', or 'I must concede'... in this thread. I have shown others here to be wrong on this point or that, but they do not concede a thing (actually, I remember MattP agreeing with one of my premises, though I had not really stated the premise in such a way).We're not working together to find the truth. You're trying to undermine every argument of mine in any way possible as I attempt to understand the truth about these extractions and learn along the way.I think most of my difficulties have come from overreacting to the attacks of you and the others. It can be chaulked up to a lack of confidence on my part; kind of like a witness who is railroaded by an agressive and overbearing attorney. I even made that point to Buzz in the moderation thread.Percy:The fact that we have a different worldview doesn't mean we are misstating each other. We just don't see eye to eye. You're attempting to undermine my arguments by essentially impuning my charater. That is a logical fallacy...I have not intentionally misstated or misrepresented anyone! I can only call them as I see them. This is difficult ground and requires complete attention. Acting defensively often leads to mistakes. And I think that describes the difficulties between you and I better than anything.In defense of molbiogirl, you said it yourself Percy, in message 3: It works both ways...Any failure of me to understand your arguments, or those of others, is as much your fault, or theirs, as it is my own.There is no-one here that is above 'the human condition'.Can we stop with the personal attacks couched in sophisticated defensive postures and discuss the issues?Rather than this kind of defense, you may want to jump on the fact that I really blew it on the chiralty issue as far as it is relevant to adenine and the Murchison extractions. That was another embarrassing blunder on my part. Another good example of my ignorance laid bare for all to see.Maybe you can use it to make me look like a complete idiot. Especially if I deny it as you claim I always do.You know, I don't always take your word for it and concede right away because I don't trust you. You're often too emotionally attached to your Materialism as all of us can be when we are commited to a particular worldview.As a Christian, I struggle with it too. There is this side of us that wants to kill, to give the final blow, to devastate the opposition. I confess that such emotions played a large part in inspiring this thread. I very much dislike the the arrogance of molbiogirl. Frankly, hers is offensive to my own!It is emotions like that, that get in the way of objectivity. It is what lead molbiogirl to posit the Murchison extractions as evidence of nonbiological adenine. And though there are problems with Murchison, my errors about what those are, and are not, came from reactionary postures of my own.Nonetheless, there are still issues to discuss objectively if we all get a grip. Please... can we let the last 100 posts be about the subject?

All A is B
B
Therefore AThis is a logical fallacy Rob, because there is B that is notA.The evidence is that adenine and other prebiotic chemicals are synthesized by natural chemical processes in space, and because they are natural chemical processes like the "artificial synthesis of amino acids" they too would result in racemic mixtures.If you had said all natural non-biological chemical synthesis reactions result in racemic mixtures you would have been much closer to the truth. Did you actually read your own article where they explain this?Enjoy.ps - for the record: (modified to provide link to msg - use "peek" to see how)I remember saying that chirality was not a big issue in Message 29.Why not start a new thread on chirality?

Some of the possible solutions to any Chirality can be found in The Recurrent Problem of Chirality.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You're right Razd... it doesn't follow. But I wasn't saying that all B is A because all A is B. Only that it lends credence to the conclusion that the extractions were not natural in origin. But even that won't wash...Hear me out...Razd:Actually, from what I uderstand, even that may be irrelevant.

​

That is the point I wanted to make, but it's not that simple. It appears that purines may not even be subject to chiralty. They are 'prochiral'. I simply don't have a handle on the issue...Razd:Yeah, I read it for the third time after putting out here for you again. It made me realize that chiralty in amino acids has little or nothing to do with purines like adenine.That's why I said forget it in my second response a bit ago. I began to realize it was comparing apples and oranges. It may be worth discussing in another context, but not as it regards purine extractions of Murchison.So, you were accidently correct! Chiralty appears to be irrelevant to Murchison extractions of adenine.Hey... I see that once in a while you get lucky too. Razd:I think my hands are full enough with what's here already... don't you?

So discuss it at The Recurrent Problem of Chirality. Note the purines attach to D- chiral sugar in making DNA ... So are we done here? Time for summary of positions?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Razd:We're done with chiralty here... I may get to it in the other thread. But probably not any time soon.I don't know that it is time for summaries yet, but you've been the major participant representing the counterperspective, so do as you wish.I think I am going to take a little break from all of this. Recharge...

There are no personal attacks coming from me. When you advance an erroneous argument, noting the errors in your argument is not a personal attack.We're engaged in this subdialogue because you continue to claim that errors in your arguments are of no consequence, that your arguments stand as valid whether they're erroneous or not. That's not true. When your arguments are flawed, your point fails.For example, when you confused Rationalism and rationality, all your arguments based upon that misunderstanding were wrong, and therefore the point you were making about science being misdefined failed.As long as we see no more arguments from you along the lines of, "We're all human, we all make mistakes, therefore my mistakes don't matter," then we're good.--Percy

Percy:You're right if you mean that it is not necessarily an overt attack. But when it is done purely for the purpose of taking political advantage, then yes, it is. I now have a better insight as to your thinking on the matter: ( http://EvC Forum: AdminNosy banned? -->EvC Forum: AdminNosy banned? )As I said before, there were many times in this thread that those giving the counterperspective made mistakes. I didn't try to slit their throat because of it. I realize that they believe in the institution of science with mostly pure intentions.This isn't Armaggedon Percy (not yet), this is a 'virtual debate' on the internet.Most people here are laymen, and I think some of you do a bit too much feasting upon the weak, using what relatively little knowledge you have, to smite those who know even less. I only know that because of my own animal instincts which want to do the same. It's a human tendency; to exalt ourselves. If you read many of my older posts, you'll see that 'killer instinct' still blatently at work in me. It is controlled in me to the point now, that even a casual sarcastic remark aimed at science in general is rebuffed by AdminBuzz who rightly expects higher standards from me.And let's not forget that I have already admitted that such an emotion partially motivated this thread. Forgive me... molbiogirl made an honest mistake.I'd like to get back to working together to find the truth.Percy:( parenthetically I find it interesting that you keep using derivatives of the word, 'truth'.)When one uses the wrong word such as 'rational', instead of the correct word 'logic', and his opponents misunderstand him and therefore attempt to confuse the issue and take political advantage... it is not his argument that is defeated. It is communication, resolution, and truth that is defeated.Kuresu, Razd, Javaman, and MattP haven't engaged in such tactics (Razd maybe to a limited degree, but almost with a smile on his face); they were predominantly talking about the topics and sub topics. But I think they recognize a legitimate missunderstanding or lazy grammar for what it is. But they were able to let it go...Only you have persistently tried to deliver the fatal blow to my credibility in this debate rather than try to understand the points.It is this kind of thing that I was complaining about earlier, but I couldn't put my finger on exactly what it was. My apologies if most of it belongs in the moderation thread. But most of your participation in this thread... doesn't belong anywhere. We have probably wasted 50 posts on this [i]'subdialogue'[/qs] (as you call it).This is an internet debate forum. Your tactics belong on a battlefield where the victor will use the word of his mouth as a double-edged sword. Though even there it will not be for the sake of slaughter, but of truth.

Rob, I really don't understand what you're on about. There's nothing I can do about any emotional reactions you're having to the discussion.All I can do is call attention to and/or correct any misstatements or errors you might make, so in that vein I guess I have to respond again. Could you *PLEASE* in your next post, if you choose to respond since it isn't really necessary and since you've expressed that you'd like to bring this exchange to a halt anyway, make sure that you don't misrepresent anything? Because if you don't make further misrepresentations then I really have nothing more to add and there won't be any reason for me to respond and you'll get your wish for this subdialogue to go away.Anyway, here's your latest misrepresentation: You did not use "rational" in place of "logic", and no one said you did. You confused rationality with Rationalism, leading you to make arguments based upon the misperception that Javaman had said science isn't rational, when what he actually said was that science cannot be equated with Rationalism.I mentioned this as an example of the type of error that is fatal to an argument, because an example seemed appropriate because you didn't seem to understand that my point was about errors affecting the effectiveness of arguments. I did not by any means intend it as a personal attack. I was not trying to assassinate your credibility. I was, and am, trying to make the point that effective arguments don't contain significant, relevant errors. If you now understand this, there's no need to respond.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Percy:Of course no one said I did... they were trying to say that I confused rationalism with rationality. But I did not do so... I used the wrong term. I was being lazy...I am the one who said I used the term 'rational' in place of philosophy (ie. logic). And here is where I said it: http://EvC Forum: Murchison Meteor Questions -->EvC Forum: Murchison Meteor Questions 'Rationalism' in place of 'philosophy' and 'logic' in general... Not... 'THE PHILOSOPHY of RATIONALISM'.This whole mess was caused because you were all driving along with the intention of destroying the enemy (winning the debate) and not in what I was trying to say. And now there is confusion piled upon confusion...Yes, it is my responsibilty to speak clearly and effectively, but you're not here to help with that. You are here to push me off the edge...Here is where it started: http://EvC Forum: Murchison Meteor Questions -->EvC Forum: Murchison Meteor QuestionsAnd here is where I first used the term 'rationalism' in place of philosophy by mistake. But I only did so, because JavaMan had invoked it...I was never arguing for pure empiricism or pure rationalism. I was always making the case that they must be combined if truth is to be found.The resulting combination is neither 'empiricism' nor 'rationalism' per se... but it is, as are both of the others, a predominately philosophical worldview. I call it a 'Christian worldview', but others may simply call it 'scientific'.If you were not so preoccupied with reaching for my jugular while polishing the pretension of one who is curtious and polite, you might hear the words that are coming out of my mouth (fingers actually).As you said: Exactly!Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

doh! you did it again: Do you see that you are still using rationalism and its derivatives incorrectly?You argue that you aren't using rational(ism) in the sense of the philosophy. Only in the sense of philosophy (or logic, depending on your need at the time).Then you state that you were never arguing for a pure version of empiricism or rationalism.Then you quote yourself making the argument that the two must be combined. But its clear that you are using rationalism in the sense of the philosophy for one reason. You are arguing for the combination of the two. Since empiricism already has a rational (that is, logical, not the Rationalism of Descartes) basis, that leaves only one other option--that you are using rationalism to mean Rationalism, the philosophy of Descartes.Thus you are equivocating in the paragraph quoted.Thus you are positing a contradiction--that the philosophy of apriori and aposteriori knowledge should be combined when they are largely exclusive. If you have one stating that knowledge is gained solely through reasoning (a priori) and one stating that knowledge is gained solely through experience (a posteriori) you cannot combine the two. You must leave out crucial elements of these philosophies in order to combine them. At which point, you should stop using the labels "empiricism" and "Rationalism" because they no longer are such.And a hint--if you are arguing that empiricism must be combined with logic, well, guess what? Logic has been at the basis of empiricism since the beginning. Try reading Locke's treatises and tell me how they are not logical. Then move on to Berkeley. And next, that guy you so love to quote and hate, Hume. You'll note that all use logic. The point is that logic is a part of empiricism and has been since Locke (at least).Javaman never invoked Rationalism as a substitute for philosophy. He invoked Rationalism as the Rationalist Philosophy of Descartes. He makes that clear.Empiricism is a philosophy.
Rationalism is a philosophy.
rational(ism) is not a philosophy.We see the words coming out of your fingers--a bunch of nonsensical sentences confusing the meanings of rationalism and Rationalism.

Kuresu:Yes, that's what I said...Rob: