DNA animation

[John Larkin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpHaxzroYxg

This is insane. This is impossible.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[Tim Williams]

Hardly. There's a lot of room at the bottom. A phrase still as true today
as it was half a century ago!

What's insane is people still think this stuff was created in the snap of
some magic finger.

Tim

--
Seven Transistor Labs, LLC
Electrical Engineering Consultation and Design
Website: https://www.seventransistorlabs.com/

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in message
news:k9m4de93eokbg9gh91ekedg0vsu06kg34q@4ax.com...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpHaxzroYxg

This is insane. This is impossible.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[Robert Baer]

Tim Williams wrote:

Hardly.  There's a lot of room at the bottom.  A phrase still as true
today as it was half a century ago!

What's insane is people still think this stuff was created in the snap
of some magic finger.

Tim

But of course! A snap of the middle one...

 

[Martin Brown]

On 08/05/2019 05:24, John Larkin wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpHaxzroYxg

This is insane. This is impossible.

It is an impressive anination of the the copying and transfer of DNA is
actually occurring at a molecular level inside every cell. Thanks for
sharing. It is a shame that you cannot be bothered to understand it.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 7:25:05 PM UTC+10, Martin Brown wrote:

On 08/05/2019 05:24, John Larkin wrote:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpHaxzroYxg

This is insane. This is impossible.

It is an impressive animation of the the copying and transfer of DNA is
actually occurring at a molecular level inside every cell. Thanks for
sharing. It is a shame that you cannot be bothered to understand it.

Asking him to understand it is trifle unreasonable - he hasn't got the education on which an understanding might be built. And while we can probably understand the transcription from DNA to messenger RNA (which is presumably what was being animated) the business of getting from there to protein synthesis is trickier.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 8/5/19 10:03 pm, Martin Brown wrote:

On 08/05/2019 12:42, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 7:25:05 PM UTC+10, Martin Brown wrote:
On 08/05/2019 05:24, John Larkin wrote:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpHaxzroYxg

This is insane. This is impossible.

It is an impressive animation of the the copying and transfer of
DNA is actually occurring at a molecular level inside every cell.
Thanks for sharing. It is a shame that you cannot be bothered to
understand it.

Asking him to understand it is trifle unreasonable - he hasn't got
the education on which an understanding might be built.  And while we
can probably understand the transcription from DNA to messenger RNA
(which is presumably what was being animated) the business of getting
from there to protein synthesis is trickier.

It is worth watching to the end. It does show mRNA being created and
then follows it to the next stage where it is read and the protein being
formed by amino acids.

It's a peptide chain at that point. Not many proteins are formed of just
one, so when transcription of the assorted bits is done, still "some
assembly is required".

Clifford Heath.

 

[Martin Brown]

On 08/05/2019 12:42, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 7:25:05 PM UTC+10, Martin Brown wrote:
On 08/05/2019 05:24, John Larkin wrote:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpHaxzroYxg

This is insane. This is impossible.

It is an impressive animation of the the copying and transfer of
DNA is actually occurring at a molecular level inside every cell.
Thanks for sharing. It is a shame that you cannot be bothered to
understand it.

Asking him to understand it is trifle unreasonable - he hasn't got
the education on which an understanding might be built. And while we
can probably understand the transcription from DNA to messenger RNA
(which is presumably what was being animated) the business of getting
from there to protein synthesis is trickier.

It is worth watching to the end. It does show mRNA being created and
then follows it to the next stage where it is read and the protein being
formed by amino acids. Essentially not unlike a Turing machine.

It also shows the intricacy of the DNA replication process. I hadn't
realised that whilst one half of the strand can be copied without any
difficulty the other has to be copied by skipping along a loop and then
working backwards. The molecular machinery has a preferred direction.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Joseph Gwinn]

On May 8, 2019, John Larkin wrote
(in article<k9m4de93eokbg9gh91ekedg0vsu06kg34q@4ax.com&gt:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpHaxzroYxg

This is insane. This is impossible.

Yes, but that is how it works. It took some billions of years for all that
organized complexity to evolve, one trick at a time.

The current general opinion is that the RNA world emerged first, and only
later did the DNA world to emerge. The problem with RNA as a genetic store is
that it is too error-prone, sharply limiting how big and fancy a critter can
be. DNA removed that limitation.

Very interesting video.

Joe Gwinn

 

[Martin Brown]

On 08/05/2019 15:14, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 08 May 2019 09:44:21 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:

On May 8, 2019, John Larkin wrote
(in article<k9m4de93eokbg9gh91ekedg0vsu06kg34q@4ax.com&gt:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpHaxzroYxg

This is insane. This is impossible.

Yes, but that is how it works. It took some billions of years for all that
organized complexity to evolve, one trick at a time.

But it couldn't evolve one bit at a time. If it doesn't all work, none
of it works. And it builds every bit of itself.

The very first step is probably something like an RNA molecule that can
copy itself or catalyse the formation of its own components. Things can
bootstrap up from there given geological timescales. The exact details
are still unclear but plenty of people are working on the problem.

It builds us too, but that's a detail.

Eventually. Given about 4.5bn years of evolution.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 12:11:45 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 8 May 2019 10:25:00 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 08/05/2019 05:24, John Larkin wrote:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpHaxzroYxg

This is insane. This is impossible.

It is an impressive anination of the the copying and transfer of DNA is
actually occurring at a molecular level inside every cell. Thanks for
sharing. It is a shame that you cannot be bothered to understand it.

And you understand it?

He didn't say that. He probably does know enough to know where to look to find out exactly what is going on, and enough to know that it would take a while.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 12:11:14 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 8 May 2019 01:04:50 -0500, "Tim Williams"
tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> wrote:

Hardly. There's a lot of room at the bottom. A phrase still as true today
as it was half a century ago!

What's insane is people still think this stuff was created in the snap of
some magic finger.

Tim

It's even crazier that some people think it happened at random.

Nothing crazy about it. That's what random variation plus selection can manage.

The crazies are the intelligent design fans, who think that an intelligent designer would have gone to all that trouble then not put in any error detection and correction coding.

> There are math analyses of that, and they involve a lot of zeroes.

So what? Three billion base pairs is already quite a few zeros.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 08 May 2019 09:44:21 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
<joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:

On May 8, 2019, John Larkin wrote
(in article<k9m4de93eokbg9gh91ekedg0vsu06kg34q@4ax.com&gt:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpHaxzroYxg

This is insane. This is impossible.

Yes, but that is how it works. It took some billions of years for all that
organized complexity to evolve, one trick at a time.

But it couldn't evolve one bit at a time. If it doesn't all work, none
of it works. And it builds every bit of itself.

It builds us too, but that's a detail.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 8 May 2019 10:25:00 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 08/05/2019 05:24, John Larkin wrote:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpHaxzroYxg

This is insane. This is impossible.

It is an impressive anination of the the copying and transfer of DNA is
actually occurring at a molecular level inside every cell. Thanks for
sharing. It is a shame that you cannot be bothered to understand it.

And you understand it?


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 8 May 2019 01:04:50 -0500, "Tim Williams"
<tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> wrote:

Hardly. There's a lot of room at the bottom. A phrase still as true today
as it was half a century ago!

What's insane is people still think this stuff was created in the snap of
some magic finger.

Tim

It's even crazier that some people think it happened at random. There
are math analysies of that, and they involve a lot of zeroes.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 12:15:07 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 08 May 2019 09:44:21 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:

On May 8, 2019, John Larkin wrote
(in article<k9m4de93eokbg9gh91ekedg0vsu06kg34q@4ax.com&gt:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpHaxzroYxg

This is insane. This is impossible.

Yes, but that is how it works. It took some billions of years for all that
organized complexity to evolve, one trick at a time.

But it couldn't evolve one bit at a time.

Actually, that's exactly what it did.

> If it doesn't all work, none of it works.

A famous fallacy. Each stage of development has to work, but the successive evolutionary steps can follow any path that works.

> And it builds every bit of itself.

Eventually. Haekel said that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory

which happens to be wrong, but in an educational way.

> It builds us too, but that's a detail.

But important to us, at the moment. We clearly need intelligent redesign.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 8 May 2019 15:38:37 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 08/05/2019 15:14, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 08 May 2019 09:44:21 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:

On May 8, 2019, John Larkin wrote
(in article<k9m4de93eokbg9gh91ekedg0vsu06kg34q@4ax.com&gt:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpHaxzroYxg

This is insane. This is impossible.

Yes, but that is how it works. It took some billions of years for all that
organized complexity to evolve, one trick at a time.

But it couldn't evolve one bit at a time. If it doesn't all work, none
of it works. And it builds every bit of itself.

The very first step is probably something like an RNA molecule that can
copy itself or catalyse the formation of its own components. Things can
bootstrap up from there given geological timescales. The exact details
are still unclear but plenty of people are working on the problem.


It builds us too, but that's a detail.

Eventually. Given about 4.5bn years of evolution.

I've read several books lately about evolution at the biochemical
level. There's a lot of hand waving about the initial origins of life,
the accident in the conjectured primordial soup thing. Some math
analysies put the probability of that happening, anywhere in the
universe any time in the past 12 billion years, so close to zero it
would be tiring to type all the digits.

The great mysteries are the origin of the universe, the origin of
life, and consciousness. So far we are clueless about all three.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[George Herold]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 8:03:14 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

On 08/05/2019 12:42, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 7:25:05 PM UTC+10, Martin Brown wrote:
On 08/05/2019 05:24, John Larkin wrote:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpHaxzroYxg

This is insane. This is impossible.

It is an impressive animation of the the copying and transfer of
DNA is actually occurring at a molecular level inside every cell.
Thanks for sharing. It is a shame that you cannot be bothered to
understand it.

Asking him to understand it is trifle unreasonable - he hasn't got
the education on which an understanding might be built. And while we
can probably understand the transcription from DNA to messenger RNA
(which is presumably what was being animated) the business of getting
from there to protein synthesis is trickier.

It is worth watching to the end. It does show mRNA being created and
then follows it to the next stage where it is read and the protein being
formed by amino acids. Essentially not unlike a Turing machine.

It also shows the intricacy of the DNA replication process. I hadn't
realised that whilst one half of the strand can be copied without any
difficulty the other has to be copied by skipping along a loop and then
working backwards. The molecular machinery has a preferred direction.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Cell and molecular biology is fascinating... At one time in my youth
I thought I wanted to be a biologist. I haven't kept up at all with the
subject. Anyone know of some good books?

I found this list,
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-good-books-on-molecular-biology

George H.

 

[Martin Brown]

On 08/05/2019 16:26, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 8 May 2019 15:38:37 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 08/05/2019 15:14, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 08 May 2019 09:44:21 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:

On May 8, 2019, John Larkin wrote
(in article<k9m4de93eokbg9gh91ekedg0vsu06kg34q@4ax.com&gt:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpHaxzroYxg

This is insane. This is impossible.

Yes, but that is how it works. It took some billions of years for all that
organized complexity to evolve, one trick at a time.

But it couldn't evolve one bit at a time. If it doesn't all work, none
of it works. And it builds every bit of itself.

The very first step is probably something like an RNA molecule that can
copy itself or catalyse the formation of its own components. Things can
bootstrap up from there given geological timescales. The exact details
are still unclear but plenty of people are working on the problem.


It builds us too, but that's a detail.

Eventually. Given about 4.5bn years of evolution.

I've read several books lately about evolution at the biochemical
level. There's a lot of hand waving about the initial origins of life,
the accident in the conjectured primordial soup thing.

Then you will have heard of RNA-world.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3331698/

We can haggle about whether life first got started in the proximity of
deep water smokers or in a tepid pool somewhere. Self organising redox
chemical reactions are very rare but not completely unknown in inorganic
chemistry. It isn't that much of a stretch for a particular sequence to
occur once that can then take over. RNA instability pretty much
guarantees that it will evolve to become better or vanish without trace.

Some math
analysies put the probability of that happening, anywhere in the
universe any time in the past 12 billion years, so close to zero it
would be tiring to type all the digits.

Usually such "analyses" are done by Young Earth Creationists with their
own huge axes to grind.

The great mysteries are the origin of the universe, the origin of
life, and consciousness. So far we are clueless about all three.

We are not too bad on the origin of the universe. Big bang cosmology
works right back to the first 10^-43s or so when physics breaks down.

Biologists are making huge progress with the origin of life. Sequencing
entire genomes for species has become almost routine today.

Synthesising designer DNA from scratch is already possible.

Consciousness is the most elusive of the three to pin down. I am
inclined to believe that it is an emergent behaviour in a sufficiently
complex network of computational elements. Time will tell - computer
simulations of the brain are getting closer to being able to match a
human and if Moore's law holds for another decade or so will get there.

The most recent attempt I am aware of simulated 1s of 1% of a human
brain and took 40 minutes to do it on one of the top supercomputers.
They are still about 100x short on capacity and 2400x too slow.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/10567942/Supercomputer-models-one-second-of-human-brain-activity.html

Science progresses by experimenting with nature to see how and why it
works. You seek to invoke magyck that merely pushes back the problem to
the next layer of the onion with "who designed the designer?".

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Tim Williams]

"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:dfa3d2c1-ef88-43c5-abac-c583a2e83bcf@googlegroups.com...

It's even crazier that some people think it happened at random.

Nothing crazy about it. That's what random variation plus selection can
manage.

The crazies are the intelligent design fans, who think that an intelligent
designer would have gone to all that trouble then not put in any error
detection and correction coding.

There are math analyses of that, and they involve a lot of zeroes.

So what? Three billion base pairs is already quite a few zeros.

There's only one force in the universe powerful enough to construct
something that complex: evolution. One must either believe that, or believe
that there is something impossibly wrong with all known laws of physics*.

(*And I don't just mean the stuff we don't know at the bottom, or the subtle
details between things we do. I mean the things that are settled and
proven.)

Tim

--
Seven Transistor Labs, LLC
Electrical Engineering Consultation and Design
Website: https://www.seventransistorlabs.com/

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 08/05/19 15:31, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 12:11:14 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2019 01:04:50 -0500, "Tim Williams"
tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> wrote:

Hardly. There's a lot of room at the bottom. A phrase still as true
today as it was half a century ago!

What's insane is people still think this stuff was created in the snap
of some magic finger.

Tim

It's even crazier that some people think it happened at random.

Nothing crazy about it. That's what random variation plus selection can
manage.

The crazies are the intelligent design fans, who think that an intelligent
designer would have gone to all that trouble then not put in any error
detection and correction coding.

Plus give us humans clearly "suboptimal" designs when
there are better designs available, e.g. the "wiring"
between our retina and our brains.