Fish Fear Me…

I just got back from a great fishing trip with one of my favorite people in the world. Here is a picture of the catch:

The Catch

The fish look a lot prettier right after they have been caught. Here is an example of what a fresh mahi-mahi (Coryphaena hippurus) looks like:

The ship's mate holding a fresh catch


  1. You are one lucky guy.

    Here’s something you should fear – reproducing life from pre-biotic materials is getting closer and closer. This has already been accomplished:

    “It is astonishing, but true, that molecular reproduction in the form of collectively autocatalytic sets of either DNA or RNA or peptides have been made. The most complex, created by Reza Ghadiri at Scripps and his former post-doctoral fellow, Gonen Askanazy, now at Ben Gurion University, consists in nine polypeptides, each 32 amino acids long, that mutually catalyze one another’s formation from fragments of each of these nine polypeptides. Critically, these results demonstrate conclusively that molecular reproduction need not be based on template replicating DNA, RNA.”

    Read further to see what’s in store in the near future.

    1. jlwile says:

      The difference between you and me is that I don’t fear scientific knowledge. You are forced to fear much of science, as it conflicts with your unscientific views. However, I have no problem with such experiments. In fact, they show how absurd the idea of abiogenesis is. As the article you linked specifically says:

      Three final but major points:

      1. Obviously, it is necessary to bring molecular reproduction, metabolism and something like a lipid bounding membrane and reproduction of a protocell together.
      2. The systems considered above are what biochemists call “exergonic”, they are fully spontaneous processes. Real cells link non-spontaneous processes, called endergonic, which do not occur without the addition of free energy, to spontaneous processes which supply that free energy. This must be brought into the picture, along with the performance of thermodynamic work cycles that link spontaneous and non-spontaneous processes like an engine. Real cells do work cycles.
      3. Third, and massively important, if early life started as sketched above, a “Darwinian transition” to cells that use DNA, RNA and code for proteins via a genetic code must take place at some point. The capacity of such DNA,RNA, protein systems to evolve is almost certainly much greater than the protocells hoped for above.

      This just confirms the view demonstrated quite clearly by Simon Conway Morris:

      Francis Crick can write ‘An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle’…More than two decades on from Crick’s ruminations, however, it still remains the case that the notion of an infinitesimally unlikely series of chemical reactions – that from our perspective can be described only as a ‘near miracle’…remains the unbidden and silent observer at much of the discussion of how life originated. Yet, as Iris Fry (note 85) reminds us, such terminology is effectively that of creationism. Put this way, nearly everyone will ask that the now unwelcome guest should vanish through the adjacent wall…

      You are amazingly good at trying to divert attention from your scientific blunders by bringing up unrelated issues. Nice try, but I won’t let it pass without pointing it out.

  2. And Ken Ham, you and the rest of the Creation Museum supporters should fear that patrons will go to the Smithsonian Human Origins exhibit. They might learn about actual scientific evidence if they do.

    1. jlwile says:

      Creationists don’t fear the Smithsonian Human Origins exhibit. However, evolutionists fear the Creation Museum, which is why they yell so loudly against it. This, of course, is because evolutionists are just like you – they fear serious science education. When people learn real science, they learn how inane evolutionary views are.

      Once again, you are amazingly good at trying to divert attention from your scientific blunders by bringing up unrelated issues. Nice try, but I won’t let it pass without pointing it out.

  3. This post was about fish! Come on, can’t I add some random real science to your blog?

    1. jlwile says:

      If it were real science, that would be one thing. However, what you are adding is nonsense, not science. Also, if you didn’t make a habit of trying to distract from your ridiculous blunders by posting irrelevant things, I would be a bit more tolerant of the occasional unrelated post.

%d bloggers like this: