DNA animation

[Tom Gardner]

On 10/05/19 23:02, Rick C wrote:

On Friday, May 10, 2019 at 2:45:56 PM UTC-4, Neon John wrote:
On Thu, 9 May 2019 11:42:12 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:


I'm not a bit religious and I don't know exactly what your definition
of "creationist" is.

Someone who refuses to accept that evolution driven by natural selection
is quite capable of generating the diversity of life we see around us.

Proof?

Hint: Factor in speed after the Big Bang, relativility and the speed of
time relative to current earth years. I see no conflict.

I've done some measurements on this and it appears that time has been
proceeding at the same rate as long as I've been alive. Essentially it is
constant at 1 hour per hour.

Except when leap seconds are inserted ;}

Comments about the difference between dates and
times will be ignored

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, May 10, 2019 at 7:43:19 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 10/05/19 23:02, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, May 10, 2019 at 2:45:56 PM UTC-4, Neon John wrote:
On Thu, 9 May 2019 11:42:12 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:


I'm not a bit religious and I don't know exactly what your definition
of "creationist" is.

Someone who refuses to accept that evolution driven by natural selection
is quite capable of generating the diversity of life we see around us.

Proof?

Hint: Factor in speed after the Big Bang, relativility and the speed of
time relative to current earth years. I see no conflict.

I've done some measurements on this and it appears that time has been
proceeding at the same rate as long as I've been alive. Essentially it is
constant at 1 hour per hour.

Except when leap seconds are inserted ;}

Comments about the difference between dates and
times will be ignored

Then you are ignoring reality.

--

Rick C.

++++ Get a 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

Martin Brown wrote:

It may take a lot longer than 50 years. We may never know how the
universe, or life, started.

I expect us to get close enough to a workable solution within a few
decades now and possibly the same for simulating consciousness.

Since we know sparking primordial gasses makes amino acids, why did it
become common decades after that discovery to speculate about origins
from comets or something?

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 4:45:56 AM UTC+10, Neon John wrote:

On Thu, 9 May 2019 11:42:12 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:


I'm not a bit religious and I don't know exactly what your definition
of "creationist" is.

Someone who refuses to accept that evolution driven by natural selection
is quite capable of generating the diversity of life we see around us.

Proof?

That's a scientific claim, not a mathematical formulation, which might be susceptible to proof.

Scientific hypotheses merely have to be falsifiable, and not yet falsified.

The creationists have to demonstrate that evolution couldn't have generated the observed level of variation in the time available, and they don't even bother to try.

Hint: Factor in speed after the Big Bang, relativity and the speed
of time relative to current earth years. I see no conflict.

One has to wonder why he bothered to invoke relativity? And "the speed of time relative to current earth years" is equally bizarre.

It does suggest that he doesn't know what he is talking about.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 4:50:21 PM UTC+10, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 11/05/19 03:48, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 4:45:56 AM UTC+10, Neon John wrote:
On Thu, 9 May 2019 11:42:12 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

The good thing about The Blind Watchmaker is that
it uses baby steps to take you through
- the mechanisms that evolution has available
- simple examples of how they can produce complex
results
It falsifies the "complexity requires a designer"
contention that is the mainstay of creationism. Or
at least it does for someone with an open enquiring
mind.

I really hope JohnL manages to put aside his
emotional baggage, and takes the time to read the book.

It didn't strike me as going out of its way to flatter the reader when I read it, and that does seem to be one the things that John Larkin looks for in that kind of book.

Hint: Factor in speed after the Big Bang, relativity and the speed of time
relative to current earth years. I see no conflict.

One has to wonder why he bothered to invoke relativity? And "the speed of
time relative to current earth years" is equally bizarre.

It does suggest that he doesn't know what he is talking about.

Indeed, or it could merely be a troll's SOP.

Neon John isn't exactly a troll, but he definitely decidedly right-wing.

> Attempts to "bamboozle with buzzwords" are unlikely to work here!

Which doesn't seem to make them infrequent.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 11/05/19 03:10, Tom Del Rosso wrote:

Martin Brown wrote:

It may take a lot longer than 50 years. We may never know how the
universe, or life, started.

I expect us to get close enough to a workable solution within a few
decades now and possibly the same for simulating consciousness.

Since we know sparking primordial gasses makes amino acids, why did it
become common decades after that discovery to speculate about origins
from comets or something?

Why wouldn't it?

We don't have /all/ the answers, and making /falsifiable/
speculations is at the core of the scientific method.

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 11/05/19 03:48, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 4:45:56 AM UTC+10, Neon John wrote:
On Thu, 9 May 2019 11:42:12 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:


I'm not a bit religious and I don't know exactly what your definition
of "creationist" is.

Someone who refuses to accept that evolution driven by natural selection
is quite capable of generating the diversity of life we see around us.

Proof?

That's a scientific claim, not a mathematical formulation, which might be
susceptible to proof.

Scientific hypotheses merely have to be falsifiable, and not yet falsified.

The creationists have to demonstrate that evolution couldn't have generated
the observed level of variation in the time available, and they don't even
bother to try.

Yes indeed.

The good thing about The Blind Watchmaker is that
it uses baby steps to take you through
- the mechanisms that evolution has available
- simple examples of how they can produce complex
results
It falsifies the "complexity requires a designer"
contention that is the mainstay of creationism. Or
at least it does for someone with an open enquiring
mind.

I really hope JohnL manages to put aside his
emotional baggage, and takes the time to read the book.

Hint: Factor in speed after the Big Bang, relativity and the speed of time
relative to current earth years. I see no conflict.

One has to wonder why he bothered to invoke relativity? And "the speed of
time relative to current earth years" is equally bizarre.

It does suggest that he doesn't know what he is talking about.

Indeed, or it could merely be a troll's SOP.

Attempts to "bamboozle with buzzwords" are unlikely
to work here!

 

[Martin Brown]

On 11/05/2019 03:10, Tom Del Rosso wrote:

Martin Brown wrote:

It may take a lot longer than 50 years. We may never know how the
universe, or life, started.

I expect us to get close enough to a workable solution within a few
decades now and possibly the same for simulating consciousness.

Since we know sparking primordial gasses makes amino acids, why did it
become common decades after that discovery to speculate about origins
from comets or something?

A lot of the liquid water now on the Earth arrived in a later cometary
bombardment after the crust had solidified and chemistry in dense star
forming nebulae is capable of making quite a lot of complex molecules.

It isn't that far fetched that at least some of the precursors were made
in a hard UV illuminated environment as the solar system was forming. A
lot of simple organic chemicals have been seen in star forming regions.

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

Glycine was first detected in 2003 (Wiki list is out of date):

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/375637/meta

Curious C60 and C70 "dust" spectra had mystified astronomers for many
decades before the pure carbon compounds were found on Earth.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 11/05/19 08:24, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 4:50:21 PM UTC+10, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 11/05/19 03:48, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 4:45:56 AM UTC+10, Neon John wrote:
On Thu, 9 May 2019 11:42:12 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

snip

The good thing about The Blind Watchmaker is that it uses baby steps to
take you through - the mechanisms that evolution has available - simple
examples of how they can produce complex results It falsifies the
"complexity requires a designer" contention that is the mainstay of
creationism. Or at least it does for someone with an open enquiring mind.

I really hope JohnL manages to put aside his emotional baggage, and takes
the time to read the book.

It didn't strike me as going out of its way to flatter the reader when I read
it, and that does seem to be one the things that John Larkin looks for in
that kind of book.

It certainly doesn't patronise the reader, which can be
regarded as an indirect form of flattery.

I suspect John's emotions and emotional baggage are the
bigger impediment, though.

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

John Robertson wrote:

Of course hydrogen and the universe are a bit hard to explain, but why
does postulating a creator make it any easier?

A creator doesn't make "it" easier because "it" is "questioning", and
they don't ask questions anyway, which is another way of saying they
don't think. Someone else asked them a question and they answered, "a
creator", but don't realize that they are begging another question.
It's a shame that thinking people were involved in this process but they
were outnumbered.

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 9 May 2019 23:22:09 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 09/05/19 22:58, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 9 May 2019 21:36:33 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 09/05/19 21:31, whit3rd wrote:
On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 11:14:27 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 9 May 2019 16:28:43 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Why would a designer equip us with such a botched design having already
got it right in cephalopods? We have a blind spot where the nerve bundle
enters the eye. They do not. Ours is a considerably worse design.

Why would variation and selection result in an extraordinally complex
and optically inferior eye, when squid had a better one already?

In the absence of a creator, who would communicate the 'better design'
to the distant outposts of life? Squid only communicate their
design to their offspring.

Many of John's points and questions indicate he can't
get past the concept that a creator isn't necessary.

Many of the counter-arguments are clearly from people whose reasoning
is warped by needing to stay far away from facts that even suggest, or
give support to, creationism. So they stick with primordial soup.


Maybe if he read "The Blind Watchmaker", but I doubt it.


I'll get that and read it.

Please do.

Take the time to appreciate the beautiful prose and
the subtle arguments presented. The author avoids some
of the histrionics that pervade some of his later books.
Try to avoid distractions like the internet

I sure hope the Watchmaker book is better than The Selfish Gene. I
didn't finish that when it became obvious that he was going to keep
repeating a simple concept that deserved a short article at best.

Dawkins is an avid angry atheist first and secondarily a biologist.

It was written a long time ago, and I haven't re-read
it recently. Many of the arguments presented are
inevitably framed in terms used when written, e.g. the
term "intelligent design" hadn't been invented. But that
doesn't matter, since the term ID was largely created
as a response to the effectiveness of the arguments in
The Blind Watchmaker.

He should go into his lab and cook up some self-replicating RNA from
inorganic slush. But that would be intelligent design, wouldn't it?




--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

John Larkin wrote:

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

This is insane. This is impossible.

If it's impossible to have complex assemblies without intelligence,
maybe it's also impossible for our intelligence to emerge from a mere
complex assembly. Unless intelligence is something intrinsic to nature,
which explains both.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 11 May 2019 07:50:18 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 11/05/19 03:48, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 4:45:56 AM UTC+10, Neon John wrote:
On Thu, 9 May 2019 11:42:12 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:


I'm not a bit religious and I don't know exactly what your definition
of "creationist" is.

Someone who refuses to accept that evolution driven by natural selection
is quite capable of generating the diversity of life we see around us.

Proof?

That's a scientific claim, not a mathematical formulation, which might be
susceptible to proof.

Scientific hypotheses merely have to be falsifiable, and not yet falsified.

The creationists have to demonstrate that evolution couldn't have generated
the observed level of variation in the time available, and they don't even
bother to try.

Yes indeed.

The good thing about The Blind Watchmaker is that
it uses baby steps to take you through
- the mechanisms that evolution has available
- simple examples of how they can produce complex
results
It falsifies the "complexity requires a designer"
contention that is the mainstay of creationism. Or
at least it does for someone with an open enquiring
mind.

I really hope JohnL manages to put aside his
emotional baggage, and takes the time to read the book.

I've ordered it. I couldn't finish all of The Selfisg Gene. I hope his
style, and especially content, had improved some.

What I'm arguing here is *against* emotional baggage. The history of
biology is punctuated by the mainstream asserting that things are
impossible, that turned out to be so.

Nobody here but me will even consider anything but self-replicating
RNA crawling out of promordial soup and going on to invent all the
stuff in the video. They can't allow themselves.

None of these guys seem to design electronics either. That also
requires allowing ideas to happen.

That's OK, I know that I live in a world of people who refuse to
think. At least they can write purchase orders.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

John Larkin wrote:

I sure hope the Watchmaker book is better than The Selfish Gene. I
didn't finish that when it became obvious that he was going to keep
repeating a simple concept that deserved a short article at best.

Dawkins is an avid angry atheist first and secondarily a biologist.

People like him have made atheism a dogma, when dogma should be what
they are against. They think that telling people - dogmatically - to be
atheists will make them smart, as if because reason led them to atheism,
then atheism will lead other people to reason. That's so non-sequitur
it's bizarre.

That kind of "education" has led a lot of young people to be very smug
about their intelligence even though they are stupid.

What they should do is just teach people to think, and that has to start
very young.

It was written a long time ago, and I haven't re-read
it recently. Many of the arguments presented are
inevitably framed in terms used when written, e.g. the
term "intelligent design" hadn't been invented. But that
doesn't matter, since the term ID was largely created
as a response to the effectiveness of the arguments in
The Blind Watchmaker.

He should go into his lab and cook up some self-replicating RNA from
inorganic slush. But that would be intelligent design, wouldn't it?

Not if it's just from stirring a pot and giving it energy. We got as
far as amino acids doing that, and it took a matter of hours. Maybe it
just needs more time.

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 11 May 2019 08:49:19 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
A lot of the liquid water now on the Earth arrived in a later
cometary bombardment after the crust had solidified and chemistry in
dense star forming nebulae is capable of making quite a lot of
complex molecules.

It isn't that far fetched that at least some of the precursors were
made in a hard UV illuminated environment as the solar system was
forming. A lot of simple organic chemicals have been seen in star
forming regions.

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

Glycine was first detected in 2003 (Wiki list is out of date):

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/375637/meta

Curious C60 and C70 "dust" spectra had mystified astronomers for many
decades before the pure carbon compounds were found on Earth.

Sure, but a pile of TTL gates on a table don't spontaneously orgainze
themselves into a computer running Jill of the Jungle under MS DOS.

They don't reproduce either.

The big problem isn't evolution, it's the origin of the incredible
cellular mechanisms around DNA. People shout that they are the same
issue, to avoid dealing with the obvious problem of origin.

Macro structures of organs and tissues are pretty complex too, so if
evolution can explain them...

At the intermediate scale there is the system of brain cells. Protiens
aren't more complex than that.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 11 May 2019 08:49:19 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 11/05/2019 03:10, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:

It may take a lot longer than 50 years. We may never know how the
universe, or life, started.

I expect us to get close enough to a workable solution within a few
decades now and possibly the same for simulating consciousness.

Since we know sparking primordial gasses makes amino acids, why did it
become common decades after that discovery to speculate about origins
from comets or something?

A lot of the liquid water now on the Earth arrived in a later cometary
bombardment after the crust had solidified and chemistry in dense star
forming nebulae is capable of making quite a lot of complex molecules.

It isn't that far fetched that at least some of the precursors were made
in a hard UV illuminated environment as the solar system was forming. A
lot of simple organic chemicals have been seen in star forming regions.

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

Glycine was first detected in 2003 (Wiki list is out of date):

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/375637/meta

Curious C60 and C70 "dust" spectra had mystified astronomers for many
decades before the pure carbon compounds were found on Earth.

Sure, but a pile of TTL gates on a table don't spontaneously orgainze
themselves into a computer running Jill of the Jungle under MS DOS.
The big problem isn't evolution, it's the origin of the incredible
cellular mechanisms around DNA. People shout that they are the same
issue, to avoid dealing with the obvious problem of origin.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 11 May 2019 11:15:08 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
<fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2019 08:49:19 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
A lot of the liquid water now on the Earth arrived in a later
cometary bombardment after the crust had solidified and chemistry in
dense star forming nebulae is capable of making quite a lot of
complex molecules.

It isn't that far fetched that at least some of the precursors were
made in a hard UV illuminated environment as the solar system was
forming. A lot of simple organic chemicals have been seen in star
forming regions.

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

Glycine was first detected in 2003 (Wiki list is out of date):

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/375637/meta

Curious C60 and C70 "dust" spectra had mystified astronomers for many
decades before the pure carbon compounds were found on Earth.

Sure, but a pile of TTL gates on a table don't spontaneously orgainze
themselves into a computer running Jill of the Jungle under MS DOS.

They don't reproduce either.

See, it's an even bigger problem.

The big problem isn't evolution, it's the origin of the incredible
cellular mechanisms around DNA. People shout that they are the same
issue, to avoid dealing with the obvious problem of origin.

Macro structures of organs and tissues are pretty complex too, so if
evolution can explain them...

But it can't. It's all hand waving. There are biological processes
that have 20 steps, where any one step going wrong wrecks the whole
process, and none of the sub-sequences have any known function. So how
could that evolve?

"Evolution" is a kind of steak sauce that people dump on everything.

At the intermediate scale there is the system of brain cells. Protiens
aren't more complex than that.

How are visual memories, images, stored and retrieved in a fraction of
a second? Simple proteins!




--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 11 May 2019 10:29:46 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:

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

This is insane. This is impossible.

If it's impossible to have complex assemblies without intelligence,
maybe it's also impossible for our intelligence to emerge from a mere
complex assembly. Unless intelligence is something intrinsic to
nature, which explains both.



That sounds mystical, but maybe our universe is mystical. Some things
about QM are seriously weird.

"God does not play dice with the universe."

- A Einstein

In a universe where energy is equivalent to matter and information is
equivalent to energy it shouldn't be surprising.

What is the relation between information and intelligence? There is a
relation but can we define it precisely?

You see, it's no more mystical than physics in general.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 11 May 2019 10:29:46 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
<fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:

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

This is insane. This is impossible.

If it's impossible to have complex assemblies without intelligence,
maybe it's also impossible for our intelligence to emerge from a mere
complex assembly. Unless intelligence is something intrinsic to nature,
which explains both.

That sounds mystical, but maybe our universe is mystical. Some things
about QM are seriously weird.

"God does not play dice with the universe."

- A Einstein


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 11 May 2019 11:26:24 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
<fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

I sure hope the Watchmaker book is better than The Selfish Gene. I
didn't finish that when it became obvious that he was going to keep
repeating a simple concept that deserved a short article at best.

Dawkins is an avid angry atheist first and secondarily a biologist.

People like him have made atheism a dogma, when dogma should be what
they are against. They think that telling people - dogmatically - to be
atheists will make them smart, as if because reason led them to atheism,
then atheism will lead other people to reason. That's so non-sequitur
it's bizarre.

That kind of "education" has led a lot of young people to be very smug
about their intelligence even though they are stupid.

What they should do is just teach people to think, and that has to start
very young.


It was written a long time ago, and I haven't re-read
it recently. Many of the arguments presented are
inevitably framed in terms used when written, e.g. the
term "intelligent design" hadn't been invented. But that
doesn't matter, since the term ID was largely created
as a response to the effectiveness of the arguments in
The Blind Watchmaker.

He should go into his lab and cook up some self-replicating RNA from
inorganic slush. But that would be intelligent design, wouldn't it?

Not if it's just from stirring a pot and giving it energy. We got as
far as amino acids doing that, and it took a matter of hours. Maybe it
just needs more time.

Accidental origin fans could cook up self-replicating RNA in their
labs, and then do the math to demonstrate that it could have happened
accidentally.

Some people have done the latter and gotten preposterous numbers.
Impossible cubed.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics