Sigh (Lekatt, again. Not much of a pit)

[Czarcasm]

@Really Not All That Bright

Just for the record, I know that.

What I don’t know, is what IS the most commonly accepted scientific explanation for the origin of life? Is it as simple as “DNA formed randomly via naturally occurring chemical reactions?”

That’s a good question that deserves it’s own thread. Why don’t you start it up?

[SisterCoyote]

@Loach

He is not a troll. He is a true believer. As was pointed out to me a while ago lekatt is an internet institution. This is by far not the only place he posts. He is everywhere. Here is his website if you are interested. I can’t get past the music. IIRC he doesn’t leave GD and never does the Pit so this won’t ever get to him. He is too busy posting on dozens of MBs.

This wasn’t intended for him so much as a place for me (and others) to vent.

@Czarcasm

What is “true” about asking for answers, ignoring the answers given, then re-asking over and over and over again as if he were asking them for the first time?

This. This is exactly my complaint.

Also, Czarcasm, I started that thread. Because I want to know, too.

[Derleth]

@lissener

If more people would keep this rule in mind, posters like lekatt would go away after pissing into a vacuum for a while.

I used to believe that, but some people just want to harass others and/or get their message out there (for some values of ‘message’ and ‘out there’) and really don’t care if they get a single bite. As long as their crap is on the board for everyone else to see, it’s enough.

DNFTT only works for the more social, personal trolls out there. Spewbots or people emulating them aren’t affected.

[Marley23]

@Larry Borgia

I’ve been thinking about doing the same thing.

He’s not going to change. He’s not going to listen. He’s just going to re-type the same things he always types. When you see his posts don’t respond. At all.

What he (and several others) said. Ignore him. It’s always tempting to smack the guy down for saying something stupid, but it’s better to just skip it and pretend he isn’t there. lekatt generally doesn’t break any rules, although he’s got a very irritating combination of intense ignorance, density, and gobs of smarminess. It can be a challenge to ignore his pronouncements but at least that way he wouldn’t ruin so many threads.

[Frank]

@Derleth

I used to believe that, but some people just want to harass others and/or get their message out there (for some values of ‘message’ and ‘out there’) and really don’t care if they get a single bite. As long as their crap is on the board for everyone else to see, it’s enough.

He might not go away, but at least his posts would be isolated, and easy enough to skip over while following the mainline of the discussion. It’s irrelevant whether he gets a jolly from posting if nobody lets him get a jolly from attention.

[j666]

@lissener

That is not lekatt’s point. lekatt’s point is that all you have to do to “win” an argument is to refuse to accept the basic established facts that are relevant to the argument, and to pretend that any group of such facts is a “theory” and can simply be rejected by force of will, factuality be damned.

His claim that science is the same as religion is only true for people like him, who choose to treat them the same.

Actually, challenging widely accepted assumtions is a very good technique for learning and for arguing, and logical inference and deduction lead to theses, not facts. (I am not referring to lekatt’s posting style here, just making an observation).

The claim that science is the same as religion is NEVER TRUE. However, many (perhaps most?) people just ‘believe’ in science; they do not have the education to understand even basic concepts. I know I ‘believe’ what astronomers tell me, because I have never figured out the math.

Of course, none of the really relates to the OP, which was about lekatt hijacking a thread to ride a personal hobby horse …

Sorry.

[Lobohan]

@j666

I just posted to the thread on my own hobby-horse, which might bring the discussion back around.

lekatt has a serious point; science is not immune to the lure of dogma.

Read lobohan’s post #69 in that thread; if that is most people’s understanding of evolution, is there really any wonder that some people just don’t buy into it?

What was wrong with my post?

Oh and and ontopic, Lekatt is a fucking imbecile. He believes in ghosts and sentient god atoms, but thinks evolution has no real evidence going for it. :rolleyes:

[j666]

@Lobohan

What was wrong with my post?

Oh and and ontopic, Lekatt is a fucking imbecile. He believes in ghosts and sentient god atoms, but thinks evolution has no real evidence going for it. :rolleyes:

In the interest of Fighting Ignorance, I am resisting the urge to response to this

OK, but how does science feel about the origin of life, is it just a theory or do most scientists consider it factual?

with, “Most scientists agree that life does exist.”

But about your description of evolution:

Here’s my layperson description of evolution:

Wee little self replicating molecules vie with other ones for limited resources (the bits they need to self replicate). Every once in awhile one gets mutated, either by a cosmic ray, random replication errors or Jesus poking it with his oh so holy member, I dunno. Most of the mutations are bad, and don’t lead to advantages, like thalidomide flipper babies or spina bifida. Some very few mutations are good. that is to say the change makes the little guy more able to get food than the teeming masses around him. The self replicating molecule with the good mutation is more likely to live and pass on his mutation than the other un-mutated molecules around him. Eventually the new mutation becomes the norm because the old school molecules can’t keep up.

Keep this up for a few billion years and you have a species of hairless ape listening to ipods and fighting ignorance on message boards.

Please understand that I do not mean this as a personal insult; I assume you are really interested.

1. Your grasp seems to based on ‘survival of the fittest’.

2. You seem to focus on the individual rather than the species.

3. You do not seem to take into account ‘incomplete dominance’ in gene expression, much less phenotypes resulting from multiple, rather than single genes.

4. You seem to confuse unicellular organisms with molecules.

5. You leap from molecules to highly social, highly developed, post-evolutionary, multi-cellular organisms with multiple highly specialized organs in a single bound.

Still interested? OK.

1. ‘Survival of the fittest’ is based in a rather brutal economic theory. It does not take into account genetic drift, the tendency to adapt to use abundant resources rather than scares ones, or the simple differential thermodynamic stability of different cellular structures.

2. Certain traits maladaptive to an individual will persist because they are benefit to the species. For example, a failure to reproduce is ‘bad’ for the individual (can’t pass on the genes), but good for a social species, because it provides extra resources for raising the young.

3. Interaction among genes are necessary to pass on traits maladaptive to the individual but beneficial to the species, such as in the example above.

4. That was rather snarky of me, and I apologize.

**5. That leap is the problem most people have with evolution.
**
6. In general, evolution is taught as a competitive process between individuals, rather than a co-operative process within a species.

So, I assert that your post evinces a belief in science, and science isn’t about belief, bu about knowledge and understanding. Now, I don’t hold that everyone should fully understand every scientific concept and theory currently held (I know I don’t). My point is that people who do not “believe” are not necessarily willfully ignorant; they may simply be unwilling to accept the sketchy and inadequate scientific education they have received.

(I understand the post was a light-hearted and off-hand one; that is why I specifically referred to the post and not to you. And I’m very happy you asked me; I did feel I was talking about you behind your back.)

[mr.jp]

j666 I think you have a wrong or at least non-standard interpretation of the theory of evolution.

[Lobohan]

@j666

In the interest of Fighting Ignorance, I am resisting the urge to response to this
with, “Most scientists agree that life does exist.”

But about your description of evolution:
Please understand that I do not mean this as a personal insult; I assume you are really interested.

1. Your grasp seems to based on ‘survival of the fittest’.

2. You seem to focus on the individual rather than the species.

3. You do not seem to take into account ‘incomplete dominance’ in gene expression, much less phenotypes resulting from multiple, rather than single genes.

4. You seem to confuse unicellular organisms with molecules.

5. You leap from molecules to highly social, highly developed, post-evolutionary, multi-cellular organisms with multiple highly specialized organs in a single bound.

Still interested? OK.

1. ‘Survival of the fittest’ is based in a rather brutal economic theory. It does not take into account genetic drift, the tendency to adapt to use abundant resources rather than scares ones, or the simple differential thermodynamic stability of different cellular structures.

2. Certain traits maladaptive to an individual will persist because they are benefit to the species. For example, a failure to reproduce is ‘bad’ for the individual (can’t pass on the genes), but good for a social species, because it provides extra resources for raising the young.

3. Interaction among genes are necessary to pass on traits maladaptive to the individual but beneficial to the species, such as in the example above.

4. That was rather snarky of me, and I apologize.

**5. That leap is the problem most people have with evolution.
**
6. In general, evolution is taught as a competitive process between individuals, rather than a co-operative process within a species.

So, I assert that your post evinces a belief in science, and science isn’t about belief, bu about knowledge and understanding. Now, I don’t hold that everyone should fully understand every scientific concept and theory currently held (I know I don’t). My point is that people who do not “believe” are not necessarily willfully ignorant; they may simply be unwilling to accept the sketchy and inadequate scientific education they have received.

(I understand the post was a light-hearted and off-hand one; that is why I specifically referred to the post and not to you. And I’m very happy you asked me; I did feel I was talking about you behind your back.)

Oh I get it, you’re stupidly literal. Okay chester, back up a bit. Do you think that bogging down a simple one paragraph primer on evolution for someone utterly unschooled in science with all the useless clutter you posted above would do any good at all? Don’t you think that illustrating the basic concept of natural selection and mutation is a superior method to get across the concept in one paragraph?

Please, I expect when someone puffs up superior they should at least think about what they are talking about.

[mr.jp]

@Lobohan

Oh I get it, you’re stupidly literal. Okay chester, back up a bit. Do you think that bogging down a simple one paragraph primer on evolution for someone utterly unschooled in science with all the useless clutter you posted above would do any good at all? Don’t you think that illustrating the basic concept of natural selection and mutation is a superior method to get across the concept in one paragraph?

I got the impression that his beef was to a higher degree with your (correct) description of evolution as gene/allele-centric.

A problem I also have with your description though, is the use of “molucules”. At least mention that these molecules get to command a whole army of other molecules encapsuled in cells, or something.

[Czarcasm]

@Lobohan

Oh I get it, you’re stupidly literal. Okay chester, back up a bit. Do you think that bogging down a simple one paragraph primer on evolution for someone utterly unschooled in science with all the useless clutter you posted above would do any good at all? Don’t you think that illustrating the basic concept of natural selection and mutation is a superior method to get across the concept in one paragraph?

Please, I expect when someone puffs up superior they should at least think about what they are talking about.

Frankly, I think the both of you have missed the mark. Simple answer fit for a 10 year old, or complicated answer fit for a research paper-it doesn’t fucking matter because he has been told all this stuff before, over and over and over and over and over again! He isn’t on this board to gather information. He uses this board to grace us with the TRUTH that he has gathered from his fevered imagination and his indigestion-fueled dreams. When it comes to science and the supernatural, he is the most closed-minded individual I have ever met, and when it comes to posting questions about those subjects, he is the most dishonest individual I have ever known. No matter what he has been told, no matter what evidence is presented, no matter what scientifically valid cite is given-he will start all over again as if it never happened at all the next time the subject comes up.

I know that some think that it would be best if he is just ignored, but in my personal opinion no one should get a free pass in the fight against ignorance. While we can do nothing against his own personal ignorance, we can damn well clean up the mess he leaves behind.

[j666]

@Lobohan

Oh I get it, you’re stupidly literal. Okay chester, back up a bit. Do you think that bogging down a simple one paragraph primer on evolution for someone utterly unschooled in science with all the useless clutter you posted above would do any good at all? Don’t you think that illustrating the basic concept of natural selection and mutation is a superior method to get across the concept in one paragraph?

Please, I expect when someone puffs up superior they should at least think about what they are talking about.

You asked. I answered.

In that answer, I clearly stated that I was not decrying your intelligence or knowledge but only the level of understanding demonstrated in the post, acknowledged that your original post was not intended as an accurate description of the theory of evolution in all its complexity, and suggested that you not read if you weren’t interested.

I offered you the respect of reading your post, assuming your question was honest, and that you had the intellectual and emotional fortitude for an honest answer.

I apologize for that.

And I repeat, what most people are taught is inadequate. They are not taught enough to make that leap from microbes to humans. Simplying scientific concepts and theories do the point where they are just flat wrong does more harm than good! I won’t back down on that.

Chester.

[j666]

@mr. jp

j666 I think you have a wrong or at least non-standard interpretation of the theory of evolution.

I assume you’re referring to point 6? I’ll look for some open articles, but I shouldn’t keep hijacking this thread.

[bluecanary]

@Loach

IIRC he doesn’t leave GD and never does the Pit so this won’t ever get to him. He is too busy posting on dozens of MBs.

He posted in the Pit here - so it’s clearly not a hard-and-fast self-prohibition.

[j666]

@mr. jp

j666 I think you have a wrong or at least non-standard interpretation of the theory of evolution.

I started this thread about it, if you’re interested.

[Guinastasia]

@Czarcasm

When it comes to science and the supernatural, he is the most closed-minded individual I have ever met, and when it comes to posting questions about those subjects, he is the most dishonest individual I have ever known. No matter what he has been told, no matter what evidence is presented, no matter what scientifically valid cite is given-he will start all over again as if it never happened at all the next time the subject comes up.

Ah, but if science has done a study that has results that HE likes, he will use it as proof-THEN science is a good thing. Haven’t you noticed?

[Czarcasm]

@Guinastasia

Ah, but if science has done a study that has results that HE likes, he will use it as proof-THEN science is a good thing. Haven’t you noticed?

And almost 100% of those are misinterpretations on his part where the scientific cites says the opposite of what he claims they say.

[dropzone]

@Bryan Ekers

I was thinking about pitting you people for humouring him.

You did NOT say that! Let’s just be happy the other thread seems to finally have a stake in it and that few people would defend lekatt

Yeah, I know you were making a sick joke, but Larry Borgia took you seriously. :eek:

[Larry_Borgia]

@dropzone

You did NOT say that! Let’s just be happy the other thread seems to finally have a stake in it and that few people would defend lekatt

Yeah, I know you were making a sick joke, but Larry Borgia took you seriously. :eek:

I’m honestly not sure how to take your post, but I’m still serious. If Lekatt isn’t banned–and I don’t see where he violates any rules–the only way to keep threads from going off the rails is simply not to respond to his predictable nonsense. Simply resist the urge to call him on his BS. It never does any good.

Note that this only applies to threads he butts into with irrelevant crap. If he starts a thread, if someone starts a thread calling him out, or if he’s in a thread on NDE’s or cheesy new-age spirituality, knock yourself out. Just don’t enable him in otherwise interesting threads.