I got email from someone calling himself “devoted natural science diletant”, criticizing me for paying attention to Intelligent Design creationism, a fair cop. I think he’s expressing a secular, scientific perspective, but I can’t read it, my brain starts sputtering and sparking as I try to plow through the all-caps stuff.
WHY HAVE YOU SO MUCH OF THIS “INTELLIGENT DESIGNER – STUFF” ? IT HAS THE SAME TREND, THAN “INFORMATION FIRST” SCENARIOS. I THINK AS MANY OTHER, THAT AT THE BEGINNING WAS SOME WIDE-SPREAD METABOLIC AND CATALYTIC ELEMENTS, LAYERED ON GROUND LIKE SILICON AND CLAY-ASHES AND PORES – ON CRATON ISLANDS – HAVING WETTED – DRIED, COOLED – WARMED – ENERGY-GRADIENTS + ELECTROMAGNETIC-NANO-SCALE-FORCES BRINGING PEPTIDE BONDS BETWEEN PRIMARY AMINO-ACID CHAINS . THIS COULD HAVE BEEN THE STUFF, what came first – before there was any INFORMATION ELEMENTS like RNA or DNA . I MEAN that the primary substance of LIFE and its primary catabolics and collective autocatalytics with interactions, must have PRECEDED this INFORMATIVE ORGANIZATION – there must be SOMETHING from where the information can CONDUCT ITS “ALPHABETS” ! SO THIS “DESIGNER” – was the beginning of CELL-like differentiation of OUTER and INNER environments. SO first AGENTIAL LIFE began maybe after many TRIALS in different places and times in EARTH HISTORY – and they were COLLECTIVE POPULATIONS at first without INFORMATIVE structures. When these PROTO-CELLS came bigger – they begin SPONTANEOUSLY divide smaller – (maybe) – the difficult part are from where came those ion-conducting MEMBRANE CHANNELS – which at first had HYDROGEN-or SODIUM -gradients and outer/inner DYNAMIC HOMEOSTASIS.
He sent me a follow-up to make sure I’d read it.
I SEND THIS COMMENT TO YOU. WHAT DO YOU THINK OF “INTELLIGENT DESIGNER” NOWADAYS.
OK. Does he think I favor intelligent design? Do I need to use more random capitalization to get my message through?
When was the last time PZ actually talked about Intelligent Design in a context other than “here’s what some yahoo from the Discovery Institute has been up to since Kitzmiller vs Dover?”
Email 1: WHY U TALK SO MUCH ABOUT INTELLIGENT DESIGN???
Email 2: WHAT U THINK ABOUT INTELLIGENT DESIGN???
To be fair, the content of this email is not made up of the usual creationist/ID talking points, and seems (as best I can tell) to be arguing that the “Creator” of life is not a purposeful agent but the process of evolution working on early metabolic pathways. But it’s still a bit of a word salad.
Your brain ain’t that fogged, PZ.
I also make it they’re explaining to you that there’s no ‘there’ in ID, and hoping you get it after that exposition. All natural stuff.
(“SO THIS “DESIGNER” – was the beginning of CELL-like differentiation of OUTER and INNER environments.”)
—
I do like the sense that it’s gone through a regime of Chinese Whisper, though it’s obviously a transliteration of someone’s thoughts into English.
“ON CRATON ISLANDS” is very nice.
I would be more impressed if he knew how to use the Caps Lock key on his keyboard.
It is on the left and labeled as…Caps Lock.
It’s a secret word cipher from RFK jr (reverse every fourth CAPITALIZED word minus the lower case words, inverte twice) telling you that the secret to avoiding flu is to sleep naked in the snow with a organic raspberry clenched between your buttocks.
It reads a bit like a poorly prompted bot (or “gen AI” in modern parlance) response with certain characteristics specified like use all caps some or “in the style of” some designation like a “weirdo cultist”.
TIL that cratons are associated with kimberlite.
I reckon I should have known that.
robro, not one bit. If there’s one thing LLMs can do is string words together appropriately and apparently coherently.
—
Here, first sentence:
“WHY HAVE YOU SO MUCH OF THIS “INTELLIGENT DESIGNER – STUFF” ? IT HAS THE SAME TREND, THAN “INFORMATION FIRST” SCENARIOS.”
My interpretation:
“Why do you go on posting about Intelligent Design? It’s no different to Creationism”.
(And so forth. There really is a there there)
Oh, right.
chrislawson @2, I think you’ve mistrepresented #2.
(“NOWADAYS” being the key term — interpretation: ‘so, now I’ve explained it to you, have you changed your stance?’)
Remind me again which of you two has “flu brain?”
And YES, his USE of CAPSlock is astounDING.
After reading his emails I believe this guy is so intelligent, we ordinary folks, will never be able to know exactly what he is saying.
Um, Raging Bee, to whom do you refer by “you two”?
But sure: the person who wrote “I can’t read it, my brain starts sputtering and sparking as I try to plow through the all-caps stuff” (PZ) and whose previous post was “Flu brain”, or the person who wrote “Your brain ain’t that fogged, PZ.” are the people about whom you ask (O so very innocently and slyly!) are the contenders for the ‘flu brain’ thingy, no?
Tricky question, that’s for fucking sure.
But, since you asked the ether, the ether responds, PZ.
The one who specifically, actually, explicitly, unambigously said so.
But hey, for such as you, that’s tricky territory, as your very post evinces.
You sure are showing me up!
(It’s OK, I know that to be embarassed you’d have to have half a clue, so no worries, eh?)
stuffin, I told you what they were saying, as I understood them.
Not that complicated, unless one has, um, ‘flu brainnnn’.
Also, seriously, “this guy”?
(You know that; how?)
[meta]
We’ve had commenters here who were thought to be male-coded by clueless punters.
SC, Carlie are my top picks.
(You are on the list too, chigau. Fucking oath!)
[mmmmmmmm — false positive, I think. Sorry, RB]
This guy was based on PZ’s description – “He sent me a follow-up to make sure I’d read it.” PZ referred to him as he.
As for being understood, I’m wondering if you are able to sense sarcasm.
Doesn’t initially make much sense even without the caps locks ALLCAPS random seeming “shouting.” I would guess there’s probly some sort of program that could take that email and take the caps out putting all in lower case eg. from this :
To this :
Only done automatically without me manually changing words from caps to lower case.
But then to deconstruct the emailers text is another task entirely.
Okay, long and confusing sentence – substance of life, primary substance of life and references autocatalysts and collectives autocatalysts (see : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocatalysis ) so talking chemical precursors of life / chemical ingrediants that enable life.. “preceded information organisation” which I guess means the organisation of earliest life.
” there must be something from where the information can conduct its “alphabets” so, okay, some vague undefined something at the level of chemical structure or organic chemistry at the boundary of inorganic chemistry. “Must be” – Must there be? For living things to exist there must be complex chemicals, certain autocatalytic reactions. I guess that’s true. At least for life as we know it. which is carbon-based and relies on organic chemistry and specific reactions eg ATP to work.
…so this “designer” – was the beginning of cell-like differentiation of outer and inner environments.” Which in this context means I guess the first protocells or cells and especially the development of a cell membrane diving inner environment inside the cell from the external environment. Hence the supposed “designer” (nice quotatation marks) was simply the development of the first cell mebrane.
Not a biochemist or mind-reader and its so badly written its hard to follow but I grok that the point of that paragraph was basically to say chemical reactions and the biochemical evolution was the so-called “designer.” But its bloody hard-going to get to that understanding and poorly communicated and the purpose of why the writer is saying that esp in an email to PZ is also, um, opaque.
The rest of it does not make pleasurable or clear reading which does not encourage one to read it.
“As for being understood, I’m wondering if you are able to sense sarcasm.”
Your acumen impresses me mightily.
(A question for the ages, no?)
^ Clarity fix : the point of that paragraph was basically to say chemical reactions and the biochemical evolution of the cell esp cell membrane was the so-called “designer.”
The follow up question :
is at least concise although why someone whould bother asking given PZ’s blog posts and previous very clear statements on the issue is beyond me. Especially given what this emailer seems to believe agrees with PZ and the scientific consensus on the topic. So why ask and make such a weird deal of it I really dunno.
Don’t answer.
It’s a form of leading question, whatever you say, he’s got a gotcha! follow-up ready to go.
“So why ask and make such a weird deal of it I really dunno.”
Um: “WHY HAVE YOU SO MUCH OF THIS “INTELLIGENT DESIGNER – STUFF” ? IT HAS THE SAME TREND, THAN “INFORMATION FIRST” SCENARIOS.”
It’s not the emailer who is making a big deal; actually, it’s the emailer who wonders wh PZ makes such a big deal.
(Is that really not obvious to you?)
John Morales @ #8 — “If there’s one thing LLMs can do is string words together appropriately and apparently coherently.”
“Can do”, yes, maybe. In the last couple of years, I’ve seen a lot of gen AI pumped out as part of my job. Some of it was passable. Some of it was gibberish. I’m not a prompt engineer, but I understand that’s key. Also, if you want it pump out gibberish, it will happily oblige.
“Also, if you want it pump out gibberish, it will happily oblige.”
It’s much harder to achieve that than the obverse:
—
Here, just now:
rephrase this in English: "SO first AGENTIAL LIFE began maybe after many TRIALS in different places and times in EARTH HISTORY – and they were COLLECTIVE POPULATIONS at first without INFORMATIVE structures. When these PROTO-CELLS came bigger – they begin SPONTANEOUSLY divide smaller – (maybe) – the difficult part are from where came those ion-conducting MEMBRANE CHANNELS – which at first had HYDROGEN-or SODIUM -gradients and outer/inner DYNAMIC HOMEOSTASIS."Initially, life with agency likely began after numerous trials in various locations and times in Earth’s history. These early life forms were collective populations without informational structures. As these proto-cells grew larger, they began to spontaneously divide into smaller units. The challenging aspect is determining the origin of ion-conducting membrane channels, which initially had hydrogen or sodium gradients and maintained outer/inner dynamic homeostasis.
@21. vereverum : ” whatever you say, he’s got a gotcha! follow-up ready to go.”
Even just telling him to fuck off ya reckon?
@23. robro : “In the last couple of years, I’ve seen a lot of gen AI pumped out as part of my job. Some of it was passable. Some of it was gibberish.”
Of course, the issue being that when it coems to technical and obscure stuff telling the gibberish from the passable can be hard for people who don’t know enough about the topic of discussion(s). Thus more misinformation and disinformation starts ozing up adding to the flood of such shit already out there.
@22. John Morales : Not really given the follow up question as quoted in #20 which seems to be asking PZ to write or say more about that topic.
. Dóh! Italics fail. Guess y’all know where. Sigh
“@22. John Morales : Not really given the follow up question as quoted in #20 which seems to be asking PZ to write or say more about that topic.”
Yes, really. cf. my #9.
“Now that I’ve explained, have you changed your view” is what is intended.
—
Seriously. If I get you, I can get that person, too.
@ Morales
Dude, in this thread alone you’ve accused someone of misgendering a person clearly gendered in the OP, not understood an obvious joke was a joke, accused someone else of trying to “show you up” when they hadn’t referred to you at all, and generally misinterpreted just about everything.
“Getting” people simply isn’t in your skillset. Maybe take a break.
@^
Oh, and I left out mistaking a comment clearly addressing PZ as addressing “the ether”.
:-/
Thank you, Silentbob @28 and 29! I started to read this thread of comments and then it quickly just became too much. John Morales has 11 out of 29 comments and a stretch of 4 in a row. Definitely time for a break!
Yet another John Morales fun fest I see. Not exactly sure what set this particular one in motion.
Two important points:
1) PZ, please don’t waste your time on these rtwing xtian terrorists and their drivel. Especially when you need to focus all your energy and mental power on getting well.
2) Please, people, most of you are good contributors, but, Set Your Ego Aside and address the important topics,
CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL PEOPLE!!!
heh. From the woodwork they come.
—
The usual thing. I comment on and about the topic, then others comment about me.
4 in a row.
(The important topic!)
—
PS
One way traffic, bob who is not Silent. My little obsessive toybog.
(I didn’t claim people get me; look at you, who has asserted I have a fragile ego and low self-esteem.
Remember? I do. Quite amusing when juxtaposed with another claiming the exact opposite.
That one made me laugh out loud for real)
coming out of the woodwork(!) to point out that nobody said anything to JM and then he tagged 4 people criticizing their posts that were not about him (see #8, 9, 12, 13)
See what I mean? Another post about me, nothing at all to do with the topic.
Be aware that though the comments aren’t specifically addressed to me (not JM, that’s a different commenter!) but rather to the readership, they are about me and, you know, this is a virtual place.
Talking about me in the third person is still talking about me, no?
Even if it’s ostensibly addressed to nobody.
(Like this very comment, right? ;)
Critics of John Morales; if you don’t care for his posts, you’re free to ignore them. He’s responding to the OP, to posts addressed to him (or which could be read as addressing him), and to posts about him. It’s called ‘commenting’.
Yet another John Morales fun fest I see. Not exactly sure what set this particular one in motion.
That would be John, same as he set all the other “fun fests” in motion. As for why, I dunno, maybe he was drunk and this was as close as he wanted to get to a bar-fight…?
Raging Bee @38: When you deliberately make yourself part of the ‘fun fest’, it’s the height of dishonesty to blame John for it.
“maybe he was drunk”. Classy!
lark’s tongue in aspic, i am also free to ‘comment’
and see post 12, morales absolutely made the bee part of the fun fest in this derailed comment thread
coffeepott @40: Yeah, we’re all (me included) free to comment! What exactly do you think has been derailed?
BTW, what’s your favourite track on Larks’ Tongues in Aspic? Or is that a derailment?
TOO LOUD: didn’t read
@41 Rob Grigjanis, to be honest i’m not familiar enough with that one to say – i’m a sucker for the discipline-beat-three of a perfect pair trio!
coffeepott @43: Didn’t care much for Beat, but the other two are fine albums. Larks’ Tongues in Aspic, Starless and Bible Black, and Red are KG’s peak, IMO, with an honourable mention to Islands.
“KG” = “KC”
I liked Bruford’s Master Strokes.
[Also, comments such as my #15 are apparently not taken into consideration.
That was an actual apology, and not a vague one, either.
Social media, how does it work? ;]
—
Also, thanks, Rob. I obs need no defender, and I know how you regard me.
(And vice-versa, no? Respect)