The Dawkins Delusion

[Tara Carreon]

In "The Genius of Charles Darwin," presented by Richard Dawkins, http://www.naderlibrary.com/geniusdarwin.toc.htm , Richard says we are machines, vehicles for the immortal selfish gene beings that ride inside us, vehicles that are thrown away when the precious genes, who are constantly looking after their own interest -- they have eyes -- are handed on to the next generation.
He wants us to have a genes-eye view.
And look at the world from their perspective.
It is the genes that really survive, not us.
Effectively, they are alive, and we are dead.
We're like zombies controlled from within by genes.
WELL, THE CART IS BEFORE THE HORSE, NOW!
What a strange idea: genes as beings!
WHO are these immortal selfish gene beings?
Is our mind not really our mind, and we're actually filled with 30,000 gene-minds who rule our Not-mind as the Communist God-gene collective?
Mind is by definition ONE.
Only a Mind is a being.
Therefore, a gene is NOT a being.
Where is the gene that stands alone?
All beings stand alone in their own self-identity.
Where is a gene's life, its experience, its joy and pain?
The idea that a gene is an immortal being, the same in parent and child, is mind-boggling. Self-identity becomes all-beings identity.
One mind becomes all minds.
Communism is taken to new heights.
How can a being be both parent and child? The idea is irrational.
Only beings have thoughts, feelings, and emotions.
A gene is NOT a being, so it cannot be selfish.
This is another Frankenstein idea. Trying to make the thing, the chemical, the blueprint, live.
Certainly genes are the product of Life/Mind, not the other way around.
Does nature produce Life/Mind, or Life/Mind produce nature?
Ask the first Life/Mind that appeared in this world.
Certainly, we don't need to believe in the Bible to believe in some type of "God/dess" Creator. The Jews didn't invent the concept of a mono-Creator God/dess, even though they'd like to claim full copyright privileges. Meditating on Darwin's realization, it appears that the mono-Creator concept is embedded in the very nature of Life/Mind itself.
All beings are related.
What does that mean?
That Life/Mind is One.
If it wasn't One, it couldn't be Life/Mind.
Meeting no Others, Life/Mind simply communicates with itself without limitation.
It's fractal.
Perhaps this is the real source of Richard's "selfish gene" concept. He meant to say "Selfish Life/Mind," but he has a nihilistic bent.
"God" is transformed into "The Immortal Selfish Gene," with all its majesty and glory.
Similar concept.
"God" makes a comeback yet again, but in a way more convincing than before.
How does someone who believes we are determined by immortal genes believe genes can also regularly "misfire" to give us freedom?
To have freedom, we must have being, we must have mind.
Actually, Richard does NOT want to be determined by The Immortal Selfish Gene God.
He wants Mind to rule Gene, not the other way around.
But now his theory is going everywhere.
Just because Life/Mind is primordially One, doesn't mean it's selfish. There are simply no others. How can it be selfish, when it is alone? There are no others to be selfish towards.
It would probably be more accurate to call it the Lonely Being.

Looking everywhere for an other, but not being able to see it should it be encountered because of its difference, it is forever and eternally lonely. Everywhere it looks, it sees only its own face. The whole world is a mirror reflecting itself. There only APPEAR to be children, the "Parent's" schizophrenic attempt at creating others by recreating itself. Perhaps due to its loneliness, it is filled with violence, mirroring massive brutality throughout the earth, yet sometimes mixed with a strange love, producing hatred and confusion in itself. It knows not that true love does not kill. It knows not that happiness is dependent upon peace and harmony. Some of its "children" disown him/her/it.

It seems important to keep two concepts straight from each other: (1) the Lonely Being who creates images of itself, and (2) the individual images with separate identities, some of whom want nothing to do with their Creator. Truly it is a paradox, but despite the apparent fact of One Lonely Being creating all life on earth, individual identity is a reality, which can't/shouldn't be destroyed with the reality/concept of oneness. Perhaps Life is like a mobius strip, both inside and out: the Lonely Being is on the outside, all of us apparent and real entities on the inside. It appears our thinking must include the possibility that two seemingly contradictory realities can exist at the same time for the truth to be told. Otherwise, how do we admit that the evidence points to one source of life, and endless copies of itself -- apparently immortal -- AND the existence of innumerable individual identities with choice? A unified theory of everything will not suffice.

I hate the whole idea of "God," but is it better to replace it with this nihilistic, communistic, immortal gene-god concept? At least "God" has a mind, and is a unified being. Why not replace it with the truth as I see it? A confused, murderous, sadistic, lecherous, misogynistic (it MUST be a male) Lonely Being appeared on earth and created progeny who rightly hate it. And of course there's evolution, natural selection, individual choice, and the world is very, very, very old. That's the way its life unfolded.

But why did evolution have to occur in the context of a struggle for survival? Why did we need to have so many species? Why couldn't the creator god, presuming that's what it was, have been a source of life that drove evolution through contests of strength, beauty, art, and intelligence without the need to kill and be killed? This a sign of his/her/its inferiority, its low quality life force, by an absolute supreme standard: true love does not kill. Certainly, humans have no need to evolve their bodies in killing matches. It's their minds that count.

If someone created a church to decry this god creator of which Darwin and Evolution speaks, I would go to that church. I would call it "The Church of Decry." It could teach Science and Evolution. It would be the ultimate in wailing and gnashing of teeth. We could flagellate ourselves with DNA whips, each whip having 46 strands, one for each chromosome, and wear shoes that have "Darwin" printed on the soles. A huge statue of Darwin, our patron saint, would stand in the entryway. In Madame Tussaud style, is a prison with God inside it, surrounded by skulls. (We don't want to torture him, just punish him as he rightly deserves). It would be the ultimate Skull & Bones ritual, but without the desire for death. We would decry coming from an unbroken line of killers and rapists ("Not a single one of my ancestors died young; not a single one of my ancestors failed to copulate. That's why we're so good at what we do".) -- no wonder the world is so fooked up -- and give sermons on how a GOOD god creator would have created life on earth.

Inconceivably, Richard asks us to be satisfied and inspired by the whole situation, asking how much more do we want? I would answer, A WHOLE LOT MORE. A WHOLE WORLD MORE. Why should we settle for this KILLING world? There is a HUGE amount of change to be made, a HUGE amount of matter to be moved, a GARGANTUAN amount of energy to expend before the world is a better place for all of us. We shouldn't be satisfied with the way it is for even one second, or think that doing just a little will be enough. Revolution is needed on a BIG scale. We need to completely transform our world into a peaceful place, which is completely possible. There's not one reason in the world why we should kill anything.

The TERRIBLE irony here, of course, is that in the same way non-believers rightly criticize Bible worshippers for believing that a text whose authors are unknown accurately record the word of "God," evolutionists also are ignorant of the true origins of life. They have all the answers, but know not its true source. If it turned out that a creator god dumped its life force here on earth and started the whole life process, would that make a difference how we interpreted the evidence? Probably. The difference, of course, is that there is REAL evidence for evolution, evidence we can see, as opposed to the Bible worshippers' so-called "evidence," which has turned out to be nothing but a book of lies. Certainly there is no more case for the truth of the Bible holding the word of "God," but there still seems to be a possibility that something akin to a god created life on earth. What else had the power to produce all life on earth? I think it's fair to call that thing a "god," rather than a "tree." A tree is not a good example of sentience. Like deists do. Deists like Thomas Paine, for example.

Then I'd like to go on to more important questions, like how much does it really matter that a god created life on earth when it comes to our life today? This god certainly doesn't appear available to help us out right now. Is contemplating this question going to put food on the table? The same is true of evolution and natural selection, another huge contemplation on the past. We've seen the dangers of focusing excessively on the struggle for existence through the creation of social Darwinism, and the terrible amount of excuse-making for violent human behavior we hear. We should focus more on our cooperative skills, and our desire to make the world better. Too much focus on the past gets us nowhere today.

Further questions Richard should answer: What is this "misfiring gene" concept? How does that fit with the immortal gene idea and evolution and natural selection in general? How is "The Immortal Selfish Gene Collective " not Communism. (We already have enough Communism with religion.) How did John D. Rockefeller "get it right"? What is the "lust for trust"? And why does atheism compel nihilism? Is your agenda here really to teach evolution, or to push nihilism and communism? Let's add up the charges: (1) The Immortal Gene-Being Collective rules over the machine-like individual, (2) lust compels action, not choice, (3) empathy is due to gene compulsion with an expectation of return, (4) natural selection occurs through random, goalless forces when he could at least say that the goal is to survive -- this seems to be pure, gratuitous nihilism for its own sake, (5) sexual selection occurs mainly when males rape females, not through consensual choice, or females choosing male partners for beauty, (6) people are insignificant compared with the bigness of the universe, and (7) evolution is determined by an unending fight to the death.

[Tara Carreon]

Women choosing their mates, or fathers for their children, is NOT eugenics. What a strange idea. As misguided as the one that says John D. Rockefeller somehow "got it right in hindsight." Another theory for deactivating women. Eugenics is something done by racist groups, associations, corporations, not by individual women choosing their sexual partners for very personal reasons. Let's not confuse the Bride of Frankenstein with a real, live woman. In fact, the whole issue of individual females choosing their sexual partners has been eliminated from the discussion of evolution by males wanting to erase real, live females from the life process. The only example of this -- the peacock lesson -- was actually edited from this very movie, and I found it in another version on Google videos. On the one hand, when discussing animal sexual behavior -- at least certain birds, and humans -- scientists admit that females choose their sexual partners among males eager to court them with great displays of beauty and strength, choosing them for beauty, intelligence and health -- evolution equals what females choose -- but when it comes to the theory of evolution, we hide this fact, or put it way at the back. We are not allowed to see a model of females guiding evolution by choosing their mates. When it comes to sex discussion, it is all about males raping females, guided by a blind lust. The only place where the feminine operates in the theory of evolution is as a depersonalized female "nature" selecting for survival characteristics in a fight to the death (which in large part it does), turning the discussion into a life equals death discussion, a kind of Skull & Bones death-cult contemplation, or a Kali goddess visualization of a cruel, killer female force ruling our destiny.

There is nothing about "nature" that is more female than male, and it must be some kind of androgynous being tending towards male that was our parent to give us both males and females and things in-between, and switching from one to the other, and highly misogynistic; and certainly his/her/its characteristics leave something to be desired since it practices murder on a mass scale, but certainly this being's characteristics are none of our fault, and certainly not the fault of females. So there is something misogynistic about this theory of evolution.

Why do we need to eliminate the fact that creatures of all types constantly make CHOICES, and thus guide their evolution in a conscious way? Every creature has a mind. Choice didn't just start with modern humans. It has been operating all along. The selfish gene is allowed to make choices (be selfish and empathic), but not animals. All action and intention goes to the gene, not the being. This is nihilism, giving identity to the thing, and taking it away from the individual. Any idea that tries to make the individual nothing is nihilism. Nihilism is NOT a liberal view, but a right wing view. Nietzsche, Hegel and Strauss were nihilists, and they are the philosophers to whom the neocons look for guidance. Existentialism is also a nihilist philosophy. Animal behavior is not just guided by lust, whatever that is. Sexuality among animals is a matter of choosing among both females and males. We are not compelled to be empathic due to gene development in small kinship groups. There is something nihilistic about a theory of evolution that tries to eliminate actors or institute only compulsion or randomness. We don't need to kill everyone just because we want to kill God.

[Tara Carreon]

Meditating on evolution
All life comes from one source
The One Lonely Being
Making endless copies of Itself
We are also the One Lonely Being
That is why we are unable to see inside anyone else’s head
And experience their experience
It’s a kind of original solipsism
You might call it “selfish”
But really it is lonely.
There are no others.
But it’s also the reason for empathy and love
Because we are lonely
We want others around us
Even though we can only experience their outward bodies
That is why so many people don’t care that our government kills people in other countries
They don’t exist
Other people in general
Do not exist
Only The One Lonely Being exists and its multiple copies
That is why it is such an evolutionary accomplishment to realize
That other people are just like ourselves
They see the world in the same way we do
They feel the deep emotions we feel
This is the birth of love
The ultimate Bridge to all others
Transforming our blocklike lonely solipsism
Into a shared experience
Knowing that others exist and feel as we do
Then by knowing ourselves more fully
We can know others more fully
Our thoughts are their thoughts
Our emotions are their emotions
We love them the same as ourselves
And don’t want any harm to come to them

Meditating on evolution
Produces thoughts I’ve never had before
Profound thoughts based on true facts
I believe that science has the information correct
I believe that the machines have computed the DNA correctly
I believe we came from one life source
I never knew this before
I suppose its kind of obvious
But perhaps many life forms rained down simultaneously on the earth
Producing many “different” life forms
But now I know we are all related
That changes the meditation
And surprisingly, many questions are now answered by this truth
That’s the way of truth
It explains things
Seeing this, I can see how the brain has evolved
Thinking new thoughts, the brain thinks new things
And thinks new things, and thinks new things
But nihilism is a dead end to thinking
It is the end

Opening up Richard Dawkins’s book “The God Delusion”
It opens up to the “magic” page 108
“4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being – namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which did not exist.
Ergo:
7. God does not exist.”
Is this called logic and reason?
THE MAN IS INSANE!, I cry.
Then going to the preface to the paperback edition, I hear him say that anyone who is against him is a NIHILIST! The ultimate nihilist calls all his detractors nihilists!
Then he says Douglas Adams, Douglas Adams, Douglas Adams
Is his best friend
Yeah, and Robert Anton Wilson's best friend was Buckminster Fuller
Well, they may have known each other
But Douglas Adams was against everything Richard Dawkins stands for
A Nihilistic Proposal: Identity Divided by Infinity Equals Zero Vignette
http://www.naderlibrary.com/hitch.ZEROPOP1.htm
n/infinity = 0.000000000000000
On the Non-Existence of God Vignette
http://www.naderlibrary.com/hitch.vignettec1.htm
“OH DEAR,” SAYS GOD. “I HADN’T THOUGHT
OF THAT,” AND PROMPTLY VANISHES IN A PUFF
OF LOGIC.
Now I really hate this guy.
And see him as TOTALLY dishonest and evil.
For a short time there I liked him, and was grateful that someone was hitting on the "God" of the Bible concept.
But he's doing so much more than that.
He's attempting a coup!
To grab all those people unhappy with the lies of the Bible
And take them straight to Nihilist hell!
BASTARD!

[Tara Carreon]

Talking to little children over at RichardDawkins.net is a total waste of time for an adult. They don't fucking know anything. And they demand that you come down to THEIR level. Inconceivable! What has the world come to when adults are pushed around and bullied by little kids? Where do the adults talk to each other? You give them a forum like this, and they don't come. The world is doomed. No one really fucking gives a shit.

Where are you, Iggy?


It's All Shit

http://www.american-buddha.com/iggy.its.all.shit.htm#IGGY -- Its all shit

If it walks like shit
Talks like shit
It must be shit
If it feels like shit
Tastes like shit
It must be shit
If it looks like shit
Sounds like shit
It must be shit
If it smells like shit
Tells like shit
It must be shit

See Times Square
A vacuum of feeling
Listen little man
Advertise this
That it’s all shit
It’s all shit
Nothing but shit
Billboard shit

Love just keeps on coming
Love will clean it up
Love just keeps on coming
Love will sweep it out
Love just keeps on coming
Love just keeps on coming

If it walks like a duck
Talks like a duck
It must be a duck
If it smells like a duck
Tastes like a duck
It's a goddamned duck
If it feels like a duck
Tells like a duck
It must be a duck
If it looks like a duck
Sounds like a duck

Walking blinded
In an eternal night
Of hype no magic
Fake no love
Child actors

How depressing
Little adults
With fancy pants

Love just keeps on coming
Love just keeps on coming baby
Love just keeps on coming
Love just keeps on coming
Love will weed ‘em out
Love just keeps on coming baby
Love just keeps on coming baby

Love
Love
Your fucking cache is over baby
Skybar shit
Nobody cares
Nobody cares
Nobody cares
Nobody cares
Nobody cares
Nobody cares
Nobody cares
Nobody cares
Nobody cares
Nobody cares
Nobody cares
Nobody cares
Nobody cares
Nobody cares
Nobody cares
Nobody cares
Nobody cares
Nobody cares
Nobody cares
Nobody cares
Nobody cares

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=106387

[Tara Carreon]

[Tara Carreon]

I am really excited about Chagrapanga’s view. I feel like it gives my mind wings to fly. Not like this Dawkins view which is a total nihilistic dead end. If that was to become the official view of reality, we’d all be living in a fascist world where all the questions had been answered, and there was nothing more for anyone to think. Thinking itself would become a crime.

I realize now what a unitized world view we’ve all been stuck in, not only the religionists, but the evolutionists. With the religion people it’s “God,” with the evolutionists, it’s mind and nature are One. Making mind and nature Two makes all the difference in the world. Instead of coming from animals, and excusing our violent behavior due to our nasty origins, we’re only related to animals’ bodies. Our mind has come from a different place. It doesn’t have to be from outer space, but can be part of our current environment, just a more subtle part, the realm of invisible vibrational waves. It’s certainly no more ridiculous than imagining a pre-biotic world where chemicals and conditions existed that somehow created life. Instead of being a condition imagined 4 billion years in the past, a time which is impossible to recreate or imagine correctly, it exists right now, and there’s a chance we could collect data on it. It erases the paradox of how all beings are elated to the first life source, yet are each unique individual beings. Instead of there being the One Lonely Hateable Creator Being, finally, there are multiple beings everywhere: giraffe beings and zebra beings and turtle beings and human beings. Instead of mind being an expression of neurons firing, it is something independent that makes the neurons fire in order to express its will. Instead of the genes being the boss of the mind, the mind is the boss of the genes. The mind drives natural selection and gene development, not an impersonal nature. To natural selection is added mind selection.

Suddenly there is room to think, and ideas from the past gain respectability. The Buddhist idea that subtle mind beings watch their parents copulate, then enter into union of sperm and egg doesn’t sound as ridiculous. The idea that minds continue to exist after the body dies doesn’t sound as ridiculous. The idea that there are souls doesn’t sound as ridiculous. The idea that during dreams our minds go forth into the realm of subtle appearances and meet other subtle light bodies doesn’t sound as ridiculous. It also explains how from time to time you may bump up against some other entity from some other dimension .

It makes every mind an individual entity, free from matter, able to travel through the universe, and free from death. Simply put, it is FREEDOM to be and think and exist perhaps eternally. It fulfills the need of every being NOT to be locked into a mental prison locked in a physical body, and to travel freely. And we do. Our minds go out to the furthest galaxies in our thoughts. In dreams our minds travel to who knows where, places we’ve never been to that have appearance, color, inhabitants, space, “real” qualities of all types, and meet people we’ve never met before that look like real human beings. We even fall in love with dream beings we meet. Our dreams mix with our waking life in ways that is sometimes difficult for us to distinguish which memory came from a dream, and which came from real life.

Why should we be locked into a unitized version of being? Why can’t it be like Chagrapanga says, that our bodies are one thing, and our minds another? Software and hardware? Radios and radio waves? Parasites live inside other bodies and use their bodies as their own. It’s a similar concept without the negative connotation.

Since we don’t know the real answers yet, wouldn’t it be better for us to think in this way, which is positive, and NOT nihilistic, and accommodates other views?

[Tara Carreon]

TRANSCRIPT OF BIOGENESIS VIDEO

Since the dawn of humanity, civilizations have created myths to explain our origins.
Grounded not in fact, but in belief, the thousands of different creation myths all share one common thread …
The Supernatural
No human mind could conceive of a means of life originating through purely natural processes.
Life only appears to come from life, therefore a natural origin was out of the question.
Before we continue let’s get one thing straight.
The origin of life, Abiogenesis, has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
Scientific theories are designed to explain a specific set of facts.
You would not claim the theory of gravity is wrong because it doesn’t explain germs (that’s what germ theory is for)
Claiming evolution is wrong because it doesn’t explain the origin of life, is like claiming an umbrella doesn’t work because it doesn’t predict the paths of hurricanes.
Abiogenesis explains the origin of life …
Evolution explains how life changes once it already exists.
Creationists have made a number of arguments why they think abiogenesis is wrong.
Here are the top 4.
Creationist Arguments Against Abiogenesis:
Argument 1: Spontaneous generation of complex organisms is impossible.
Spontaneous generation was actually scientifically tested and proven false in 1668 by Francesco Redi, in 1765 by Lazzaro Spallanzani, and in 1859 by Louis Pasteur, and has never been claimed by scientists since.
Way to be current.
Argument 2: The probability of a single cell forming by chance is 1 in 10 50,000.
Disregarding the fact that these numbers are made up, all it shows is that early life could not have been as complex as modern cells.
Argument 3, Taken from Ben Stein: “Life was created by lightning striking a mud puddle.” And that’s just silly.
Actually, there is only one book that claims life was formed from dirt. Holy Bible.
Argument 4: The 1953 Miller-Urey experiment did not create life.
This is like claiming it’s impossible to fly to the moon simply because the Wright brothers didn’t.

The early earth had orders of magnitude more: Time, space, complex chemistry, & environmental conditions

So what can science tell us about the origin of life?
This video is a summary of work by Dr. Szostak, Professor at Harvard Medical School
We know from experiments and observations made in the fields of astronomy, chemistry, geology, and meteorology that the early pre-biotic earth was filled with organic molecules, the building blocks of life.
Organic molecules are actually quite common in space.
We also know from the creationist arguments discussed earlier, that early life must have been extremely simple, meaning no complex protein machinery.
Modern cells separate themselves from the environment with a lipid layer.
The problem with modern phospholipids is they are too good at what they do. They form a nearly impenetrable barrier.
Modern cells must use proteins to move molecules across their surface.
But life didn’t have to start with modern chemicals!
The pre-biotic environment contained many simple fatty acids.
Under a range of pH they SPONTANEOUSLY form stable vesicles.
And they are permeable to small organic molecules, meaning no complex proteins are required to get stuff in.
When a vesicle encounters free fatty acids in solution, it will incorporate them. Eating and growth are driven purely by thermodynamics. (THIS IS NOT EATING AND GROWTH)
When a vesicle grows it adopts a tubular branched shape … Surface area grows faster than volume, which is easily divided by mechanical forces (waves, currents, rocks …)
During mechanical division, none of the contents of the vesicle are lost.
So far, with naturally occurring simple fatty acids, we have a vesicle that can spontaneously grow and divide.
So what about the genetic material.

Again, modern nucleotides are too stable and require complex protein machinery to replicate.
The pre-biotic environment contained hundreds of types of different nucleotides (not just DNA and RNA). (All it took was 1 to self polymerize.)
Recent experiments have shown that some of these are capable of spontaneous polymerization, such as Phosphoramidate DNA.
Monomers will base pair with a single stranded template and self ligate.
(Hydrogen Bonds Base Pair – Covalent Bond Ligation)
They can also polymerize in solution, and spontaneously form new templates, or extend existing templates. No special sequences are required, it’s just chemistry.
So far we have lipid vesicles that can grow and divide, and nucleotide polymers that can self replicate, all on their own.
But how does it become life?
Here’s how.
Our fatty acid vesicles are permeable to nucleotide monomers, but not polymers.
Once spontaneous polymerization occurs within the vesicle, the polymer is trapped.
Floating through the ocean, the polymer- containing vesicles will encounter convection currents, such as those set up by hydrothermal vents. (fatty acid vesicles are stable under near boiling conditions)
The high temperatures will separate the polymer strands and increase the membrane’s permeability to monomers.
Once the temperature cools, spontaneous polymerization can occur. And the cycle repeats.
Here’s where it gets cool.
The polymer, due to surrounding ions, will increase the osmotic pressure within the vesicle, stretching its membrane.
A vesicle with more polymer, through simple thermodynamics, will “steal” lipids from a vesicle with less polymer.
This is the origin of competition. They eat each other.
A vesicle that contains a polymer that can replicate faster, will grow and divide faster, eventually dominating the population.
Let’s Review:
1. Monomers diffuse into a fatty acid vesicle
2. Monomers spontaneously polymerizer and copy any template
3. Heat separates strands, increases membrane permeability to monomers
4. Polymer backbones attract ions increasing osmotic pressure
5. Pressure on the membrane drives its growth at the expense of nearby vesicles containing less polymer
6. Vesicles grow into tubular structures
7. Mechanical forces cause vesicles to divide
8. Daughter vesicles inherit polymers from the parent vesicle
9. Polymer sequences that replicate faster will dominate the population
Thus beginning evolution!
Early genomes were completely random and therefore contained NO information.
It was their ability to spontaneously replicate, irrespective of sequence, that drove growth and division of the fatty acid vesicles.
Any mutation that increases the rate of polymer replication would be selected for.
And as I’ve shown before
Mutation + Natural Selection = Increased Information
Early beneficial mutations would include: change sequence to contain only the most common nucleotides.
Early beneficial mutations would include:
1. Don’t form secondary structures that block replication.
2. Form sequences that are stable yet separate easily.
3. Form secondary structures that show some enzymatic activity.
Just like RNA, early nucleotides could both store information and function as enzymes.
Early polymer enzymes would:
1. Enhance replication
2. Use high energy molecules in the environment (near thermal vents) to recharge monomers.
3. Synthesize lipids from other molecules in the environment.
4. Modify your lipids so they don’t leave your membrane.
And that’s it.
A simple 2 component system that SPONTANEOUSLY forms in the pre-biotic environment, can eat, grow, contain information, replicate, and EVOLVE, simply through thermodynamic, mechanical, and electrical forces.
No ridiculous improbability
No supernatural forces
No lightning striking a mud puddle
Just chemistry.
Think about it.

[Tara Carreon]

Posting on the Richard Dawkins forum over at RichardDawkins.net has been one of the more miserable experiences of my life. This was one of my posts about my experience there:

Well, I’ve learned a lot here. I learned that no one is allowed to come here and talk about the things THEY want to talk about, to ask questions they want to ask, that there’s a pack of Dawkins’ dogs that go around biting everyone to death, insisting that you talk about the things THEY want to talk about, or get the hell out! The question THEY always want to ask is, “What did we come from?” not the question YOU want to ask which is “Who are we and how are we to be when we no longer believe in the God of the Bible?” THEY insist that you listen to THEM, and THEY do NOT want to listen to you, even though you HAVE listened to them, transcribed and prepared an entire illustrated screenplay and screencap gallery of “The Genius of Charles Darwin,” and started reading “The God Delusion.” Even though they are children, and you are an adult, the children hound the adults into a corner.

Hardly anyone read my two initial posts, and everything that arose in this thread after that was based on attacks and responses to attacks. This is due to their essentially nihilist agenda, in that the content was rigorously excluded. And then when I would use content from my original posts to answer some attack – nothing but attacks – people wouldn’t know what I was talking about, and would attack the content as coming out of the blue.

YOU want to discuss where we are to stand now, what shall be our identity in the world that exists NOW, all around us. THEY insist that you travel five billion years back into an unknown, imagined past and contemplate fatty acid lipids, monomers, spontaneous polymerization, and become totally familiar with projected ideas of a chemistry that no longer exists.

YOU want to be able to answer the questions that are posed on many of these forums, by people wondering how to face life when everything is chaos, with an answer more comforting than the nihilist comments given like, “I hate to advocate drugs, violence and sex, but that’s always worked for me,” and “Just get over it!” and “Speak for yourself, I LOVE life!, and “Some people’s glass is half full while others’ are half empty.” YOU want to say, we can gain comfort in our compassionate impulse, and that by helping and loving others our lives can be fulfilled, but THEY will scream you down with their nihilist atheistic message that we are NOTHING but chemistry. “AND THAT’S IT!”, say the nihilists at the end of Biogenesis, cynically imagining that they have made the leap from passive forces to life that would engage the forces of natural selection.

But you are not allowed to say anything of this. “GET A CLUE, OLD LADY – GET THE FU*K OUT!”

The huge difference here, of course, between this view and Richard Dawkins’ view, is that one does NOT get one’s inspiration from nature – how could someone who wants at least the human world to be a vastly better place, a place with no killing, gain inspiration from brutal nature? – but from the MOST ADVANCED ideas of the human mind, i.e., love and compassion for all that exists. People – and I have seen it all over these forums – who get their so-called “inspiration” from nature, can still think it’s cool to kill, can give a shit whether other people die, whether our government kills innocent people all over the world, whether suffering and despair exist to such an extent that the screams of the oppressed are heard all through the ether. There is no inspiration in nature. No, I would say “DO NOT TAKE YOUR INSPIRATION FROM AN INHUMAN NATURE, FROM CHEMICALS AND MACHINES AND VISION THINGS, BUT TAKE YOUR INSPIRATION FROM YOUR OWN HIGHEST VALUES TO LOVE, VOW NEVER TO KILL ANOTHER LIVING THING, AND STOP THE KILLING NOW.”

[Tara Carreon]

Some examples of attacks made on me from the second I got there:

[Tara Carreon]

Then I was publically humiliated by the moderator who gathered together all of my supposed crimes, and judged them violative of the posting agreement,