DNA animation

[Clive Arthur]

On 11/05/2019 15:34, John Larkin wrote:

<snipped>

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

Nonsense and prejudice. There's little point reading his work starting
from there.

He's an evolutionary biologist who doesn't kowtow to theists. That's
all. The anger comes from people who don't like their beliefs challenged.

Cheers
--
Clive

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 10:42:44 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

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.

Dear god, this many starts a thread marveling at the complexity of the DNA machine and then complains when people don't agree with him that it all must have been created... but worse in this off topic thread complains about people who aren't here to discuss electronics!!!

Isn't that the true definition of a Troll?!!!

--

Rick C.

----- Get a 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
----- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 11:42:39 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

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.

You mean because you don't understand it, it can't be true?

Tell us what biological process you are talking about and maybe we can help you understand how it could have evolved?

I'd be willing to bet your basic premise that the 20 steps all had to be fully functional at once to be at all useful is flawed. You already tried to apply that concept to the human eye and failed.

--

Rick C.

----+ Get a 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
----+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 11/05/19 15:42, John Larkin wrote:

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.

I didn't finish "The Selfish Gene", nor some of his other stuff!

OTOH, his "The Ancestor's Tale" is a good reference book which
can be dipped into anywhere - an d you'll usually find an
interesting snippet.

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.

We all have emotional baggage, whether or not we acknowledge
it. Your emotional baggage appears to be a comfort blanket
related to an omnipotent being designing us.

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.

I don't think that's the case; they don't see any need
for your comfort blanket, and think it raises more questions
than it answers.

OTOH, they are still looking for possibilities and evidence
for the bits we don't yet understand.

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 11/05/19 15:34, John Larkin wrote:

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.

It is much better, but don't expect it to be something
you can speedread.


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

He was biologist first, and is pissed off at people
misrepresenting evolution in ways that suits their
agenda.

Yes, he is too strident; think of it as not suffering
fools gladly.

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

John Larkin wrote:

Absurd. I never suggested any such thing, and specifically said that I
am not invoking some diety to explain DNA-based life.

All I have suggeted is that the primordial soup immaculate conception
thing (remember when spontaneous generation was orthodox? You're too
young) is improbable, so something else might be considered. The
response from people without ideas is "creationist!"

I think you're too young to remember spontaneous generation too.

But what are the other alternatives, at least in general terms?

If intelligence was involved, whether it's god or aliens, then the
intelligence still needs its origin explained.

If not intelligence, then what?

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 11 May 2019 18:41:53 +0100, Clive Arthur
<cliveta@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote:

On 11/05/2019 15:34, John Larkin wrote:

snipped

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

Nonsense and prejudice. There's little point reading his work starting
from there.

The difficulty of reading his work is how boring it is.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 11 May 2019 21:22:35 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 11/05/19 15:42, John Larkin wrote:
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.

I didn't finish "The Selfish Gene", nor some of his other stuff!

OTOH, his "The Ancestor's Tale" is a good reference book which
can be dipped into anywhere - an d you'll usually find an
interesting snippet.


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.

We all have emotional baggage, whether or not we acknowledge
it. Your emotional baggage appears to be a comfort blanket
related to an omnipotent being designing us.

Absurd. I never suggested any such thing, and specifically said that I
am not invoking some diety to explain DNA-based life.

All I have suggeted is that the primordial soup immaculate conception
thing (remember when spontaneous generation was orthodox? You're too
young) is improbable, so something else might be considered. The
response from people without ideas is "creationist!"

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.

I don't think that's the case; they don't see any need
for your comfort blanket, and think it raises more questions
than it answers.

Of course questioning orthodoxy raises questions!

OTOH, they are still looking for possibilities and evidence
for the bits we don't yet understand.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

Tim Williams wrote:

"Rick C" <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1972f2e5-a142-41aa-aed1-978f966d4af0@googlegroups.com...
Dear god, this many starts a thread marveling at the complexity of
the DNA machine and then complains when people don't agree with him
that it all must have been created... but worse in this off topic
thread complains about people who aren't here to discuss
electronics!!!

Isn't that the true definition of a Troll?!!!


You must be new here.

JL is the top poster here I'd bet. Make of that whatever you like.

But is mostly on topic so deserves slack.

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 11 May 2019 17:27:28 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Absurd. I never suggested any such thing, and specifically said
that I am not invoking some diety to explain DNA-based life.

All I have suggeted is that the primordial soup immaculate
conception thing (remember when spontaneous generation was
orthodox? You're too young) is improbable, so something else might
be considered. The response from people without ideas is
"creationist!"

I think you're too young to remember spontaneous generation too.

But what are the other alternatives, at least in general terms?

I read a book about Louis Pasteur when I was a kid. It's amazing that
people didn't already understand about germs, from mere folklore.

Well they though fish "spontaneously generated" from water, and flies
from rotten meat, so if they saw visible mold they'd think the same.

Folklore should have informed people that if you get hit on the head you
lose consciousness, yet it took a long time to realize that mind was the
function of the brain. The Egyptians preserved a mummy's organs in
separate jars but threw the brain away. Aristotle thought it was a
cooling system for the heart.

Folklore about contagion led to theories about "bad air" or something.

And AFAIK the Greeks didn't even think to speculate about gravity, which
is not hard to observe, but they seem not to have noticed it. They
noticed that things fall (heavy bodies fall faster, right) but didn't
wonder why.

If intelligence was involved, whether it's god or aliens, then the
intelligence still needs its origin explained.

If not intelligence, then what?



If life popped up spontaneously on Earth, a few billion years ago,
from lifeless origins, it probably popped up somewhere else billions
of years before. The universe is maybe 1e10 years old and has maybe
1e21 stars. Big numbers.

But life needs heavy elements from at least 2nd generation stars. Maybe
our seeds formed before our sun, but it would still be a matter of
spontaneous, random processes.


> Consider the possibilities.

You keep saying that but what are the possibilities?

 

[Tim Williams]

"Rick C" <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1972f2e5-a142-41aa-aed1-978f966d4af0@googlegroups.com...

Dear god, this many starts a thread marveling at the complexity of the DNA
machine and then complains when people don't agree with him that it all
must have been created... but worse in this off topic thread complains
about people who aren't here to discuss electronics!!!

Isn't that the true definition of a Troll?!!!
>

You must be new here.

JL is the top poster here I'd bet. Make of that whatever you like.

Tim

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

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 11 May 2019 17:27:28 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
<fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Absurd. I never suggested any such thing, and specifically said that I
am not invoking some diety to explain DNA-based life.

All I have suggeted is that the primordial soup immaculate conception
thing (remember when spontaneous generation was orthodox? You're too
young) is improbable, so something else might be considered. The
response from people without ideas is "creationist!"

I think you're too young to remember spontaneous generation too.

But what are the other alternatives, at least in general terms?

I read a book about Louis Pasteur when I was a kid. It's amazing that
people didn't already understand about germs, from mere folklore.

If intelligence was involved, whether it's god or aliens, then the
intelligence still needs its origin explained.

If not intelligence, then what?

If life popped up spontaneously on Earth, a few billion years ago,
from lifeless origins, it probably popped up somewhere else billions
of years before. The universe is maybe 1e10 years old and has maybe
1e21 stars. Big numbers.

Consider the possibilities.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 6:17:41 PM UTC-4, Tim Williams wrote:

"Rick C" <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1972f2e5-a142-41aa-aed1-978f966d4af0@googlegroups.com...
Dear god, this many starts a thread marveling at the complexity of the DNA
machine and then complains when people don't agree with him that it all
must have been created... but worse in this off topic thread complains
about people who aren't here to discuss electronics!!!

Isn't that the true definition of a Troll?!!!


You must be new here.

JL is the top poster here I'd bet. Make of that whatever you like.

I'm just reading what he writes. His words speak for themselves. He may be the most frequent poster, but he is also the most frequent troll. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

--

Rick C.

---++ Get a 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
---++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 5:47:22 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 11 May 2019 17:27:28 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Absurd. I never suggested any such thing, and specifically said that I
am not invoking some diety to explain DNA-based life.

All I have suggeted is that the primordial soup immaculate conception
thing (remember when spontaneous generation was orthodox? You're too
young) is improbable, so something else might be considered. The
response from people without ideas is "creationist!"

I think you're too young to remember spontaneous generation too.

But what are the other alternatives, at least in general terms?

I read a book about Louis Pasteur when I was a kid. It's amazing that
people didn't already understand about germs, from mere folklore.


If intelligence was involved, whether it's god or aliens, then the
intelligence still needs its origin explained.

If not intelligence, then what?



If life popped up spontaneously on Earth, a few billion years ago,
from lifeless origins, it probably popped up somewhere else billions
of years before. The universe is maybe 1e10 years old and has maybe
1e21 stars. Big numbers.

Consider the possibilities.

Yep, and if life exists elsewhere in the universe, how would we know over the vastness of space??? So the idea that for life to evolve spontaneously requires us to be aware of other life in the universe is not a good argument... just like all your other arguments about the origins of life.

It's actually almost certain that there is life elsewhere in the universe. In fact, it is nearly certain that intelligent life exists somewhere other than Earth. It's actually much of Earth where we have our doubts.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 11/05/19 22:47, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 11 May 2019 17:27:28 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"

If intelligence was involved, whether it's god or aliens, then the
intelligence still needs its origin explained.

If not intelligence, then what?



If life popped up spontaneously on Earth, a few billion years ago,
from lifeless origins, it probably popped up somewhere else billions
of years before. The universe is maybe 1e10 years old and has maybe
1e21 stars. Big numbers.

Consider the possibilities.

Yup, it seems likely that it life has occurred elsewhere.

A more interesting question is what are the chances we
will find out about it and/or converse with them, given
the timescales and distances involved.

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

Tom Gardner wrote:

Yup, it seems likely that it life has occurred elsewhere.

A more interesting question is what are the chances we
will find out about it and/or converse with them, given
the timescales and distances involved.

If it's feasible to make a super optical telescope with a big array of
big space telescopes, then we might see visible evidence long before
meeting them. It sure would be safer that way.

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 8:27:22 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:

Tom Gardner wrote:

Yup, it seems likely that it life has occurred elsewhere.

A more interesting question is what are the chances we
will find out about it and/or converse with them, given
the timescales and distances involved.

If it's feasible to make a super optical telescope with a big array of
big space telescopes, then we might see visible evidence long before
meeting them. It sure would be safer that way.

Not really. It has been demonstrated that we broadcast enough EM signals that any civilization that could reach us would have already heard our signals and would be looking for us by now.

We let that horse out of the barn some time ago.

--

Rick C.

--+-- Get a 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, May 12, 2019 at 12:35:06 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

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.

He was a biologist long before he got into the public atheist role.

As an atheist, he's a lot less impressive that he is as a biologist. "The God Delusion" is essentially a polemic, while there is probably quite a to be said about why humans are susceptible to the delusions that there's a personal god talking to them. Religious mania is a well known psychological disorder, and the difference between the people who have to be committed up in a psychiatric institution and those who voluntarily commit themselves to a religious institution is merely a difference in degree.

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?

Dawkins doesn't have that kind of lab. The people who do have much more profitable things to do with their time.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 12/5/19 7:47 am, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 11 May 2019 17:27:28 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Absurd. I never suggested any such thing, and specifically said that I
am not invoking some diety to explain DNA-based life.

All I have suggeted is that the primordial soup immaculate conception
thing (remember when spontaneous generation was orthodox? You're too
young) is improbable, so something else might be considered. The
response from people without ideas is "creationist!"

I think you're too young to remember spontaneous generation too.

But what are the other alternatives, at least in general terms?

I read a book about Louis Pasteur when I was a kid. It's amazing that
people didn't already understand about germs, from mere folklore.

I read once a story about a medical missionary in the New Guinea
highlands, who couldn't get people to take antibiotics to stop them
going blind, because the witch-doctor said the blindness was caused by
demons.

He put his finger in an infected person's eye and rubbed it in his own
and a few days later had a full-on infection they could recognize, then
treated it with the antibiotics and got better (which no-one ever did)
and they weren't convinced.

So he brought a microscope, put some eye goo on a slide and let them
look at the "demons" for themselves. Told them the antibiotic killed the
demons and they were all convinced immediately and he was able to save
many people's eyesight.

Adapting an incorrect belief is easier than adopting a correct one.

Clifford Heath.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, May 12, 2019 at 1:55:06 AM UTC+10, 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.

It's certainly possible to have complex assemblies without intelligence - Darwinian evolution explains how that happens. John Larkin can't follow the explanation, but that doesn't invalidate it.

The intelligence we have looks impressive to us, but there may be a higher level of comprehension which makes us looks like an ant colony with faster communications.

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

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/God_does_not_play_dice_with_the_universe

He was objecting to statistical mechanics, and he does seem to have been wrong.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney