DNA animation

[Piotr Wyderski]

Rick C wrote:

> 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.

From their side: "those funny humans were sending a lot of clear
signals, but recently most of it is noise. They most likely had a global
disaster and their communication network is deteriorating due to the
lack of maintenance. No sane civilization would emit so much noise, it's
obvious. Let's move to the next point of the agenda..."

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

One horse. A 150-year long RF window, empty on both ends.

Best regards, Piotr

 

[Joseph Gwinn]

On May 12, 2019, Piotr Wyderski wrote
(in article <qbaa79$47f$1@node2.news.atman.pl&gt:

Tom Gardner wrote:


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.

Start with the technology. They didn't have to go the long and hard way
we followed. If they had brilliant mathematicians and were of the
hardcore "think first" nature, their way could have been like "Sunday:
we have realized that EM waves exist. Monday: started implementing a
1024 QAM global communication network". Not that implausible as it may
sound.

They will continue to pick up radar signals, which are very powerful, and
obviously technological.

..<https://www.afspc.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/1126403/cobra-
dane-radar/>

..<http://www.radartutorial.eu/19.kartei/01.oth/karte003.en.html>

..<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Fylingdales>

Joe Gwinn

 

[Martin Brown]

On 10/05/2019 17:35, Rick C wrote:

On Friday, May 10, 2019 at 1:01:07 AM UTC-4, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2019-05-09, Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 12:31:11 AM UTC-4, Jasen Betts
wrote:
On 2019-05-08, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2019 16:54:08 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:


There is still a lot of hand waving. As in

"it is fruitful to consider the alternative possibility that
RNA was preceded by some other replicating, evolving
molecule, just as DNA and proteins were preceded by RNA."

Is that a fact? In modern life, DNA builds RNA.

Reverse transcriptase does the opposite.

but the RNA for that is found in retroviruses so it could be
argued that it's not "life", weasel words that pomoters of that
claim may cling to.

Really? There are people who claim viruses are not life? I
don't know what they think viruses are then.

See "MRS GREN" they do no have many of the properties associated
with living things

Which of those things are not true for viruses? I suppose
respiration maybe. But otherwise they do all of the above. You need
to look at their full life cycle and not just the spore state.

It depends a bit on how hard line you want to be. They don't do quite a
few of the things we normally describe as life until they infect a host
cell and manipulate its genome to reproduce. Even then they subvert the
cell to do these things they do not have their own metabolism as such.

In a strict sense they don't fit the usual definition of "Life".

The fact that they usurp a host cell to do these things doesn't mean
they aren't happening. Viruses are parasitic and like many parasites
they can not complete their life cycle without infecting the host.

But where do you draw the line? Are incorrectly folded protein
autocatalytic infectious agents like prions which cause scrapie in
sheep, CDJ and the insidious nvCJD aka BSE "alive". They need a host to
survive but are to all intents and purposes a catalyst that converts a
correctly folded protein into one which is a copy of the prion form.

They were given the opportunity in the UK to spread like wildfire
because someone thought that ground up abattoir waste would make a very
profitable cannibalistic addition to herbivore feed.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Martin Brown]

On 09/05/2019 23:06, Rick C wrote:

On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 5:12:05 PM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
On 09/05/2019 16:24, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 08 May 2019 21:49:14 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:

On May 8, 2019, John Larkin wrote (in
article<cto5depv30g3gh1dd4i6vm40e1m5cq5kta@4ax.com&gt:

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.

Sure it can. Very slowly, with lots of mistakes made and then
erased. Not an efficient process at all. But it does not need
to be.

But each incremental step must be an improvement or it won't be
selected. So how can evolution build an immensely complex
system, where all the pieces have to be working before any of it
it can work (and reproduce itself) ?

No. It doesn't. You are putting arbitrary constraints on what
evolution can and cannot do. Evolution has explored many weird dead
ends as well.

Sorry, your ideas aren't in line with reality. While any given trait
or even species can die out, when it formed and spread through a
population it provided an advantage or at least offered no
substantial liability. While a trait can spread through a population
over time even without being of much benefit, if it is a liability it
will be selected out.

It is you who fail to understand the meaning of "fittest". It does not
mean the global optimum of efficiency. If it did then nature would have
already fixed the defects in photosynthesis. It means gets to reproduce
and form a gradually increasing proportion of the population.

If the system is resource constrained then "fittest" pretty much is
determined by ability to get enough food, not get predated and find a
mate. This usually leads to comparatively simple camouflage.

But in the tropics particularly where the system is not resource limited
and food is abundant there is scope for more complex behaviour with what
are essentially arbitrary preferences of the usually drab female birds
being selected for in the males. These include bright colours, silly
tail feathers, collecting pretty things and beautiful songs.

The male peacocks tail and brilliant blue colour is a pretty good
example. If you think that 6' tail helps it to fly then you must be
completely mad! But without one he will never get a mate...

It is self limiting in that the ones that have tails too heavy to fly
cannot evade snakes or go up into the trees to proclaim their patch.

Amazingly they can fly just about gaining about 10' each time climbing a
tree from branch to branch until they are high enough to make their big
screeching call. First time I saw one I though it was a bin bag!

It basically spans the space of life forms and if there is a niche
with no competition eventually something will evolve to exploit
it.

Another assumption on your part. There is nothing to say all niches
will be populated. The basic increment of evolution is random
changes. Since they are indeed random that does not mean all will be
explored. There is also the fact that for many significant features
multiple traits had to develop before they became significant. So
while waiting for one change to develop and spread through a
population another change may die out.

If there is no competition for the niche then something will eventually
exploit it. Put another way with the same constraints and boundary
conditions approximately the same physical solution has been found more
than once by entirely different plants and animals isolated from each other.

Most recently in the news the flightless rail bird has re-evolved about
140ky after it was last known. Same environment same constraints without
ground predators on an isolated island. It is out of luck too since it
will probably go extinct again due to sea level rise.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/environment/bird-that-went-extinct-136000-years-ago-comes-back-from-the-dead-after-evolving-again/ar-AABbnvo

A change that is beneficial, neutral or only slightly detrimental
to individual survival can persist. Sickle cell anaemia is one such
example - not optimum for the individual but it confers some
immunity to deadly malaria not found in those of us with more
normal blood cells.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20450-how-sickle-cell-carriers-fend-off-malaria/


This does not prove your point.

It exactly proves my point. You fail to understand.

Where malaria is prevalent sickle
cells provide a benefit and so are established in the population.
They are spread more widely only recently since man's other
evolutionary changes have made transportation widespread. Give it a
few thousand generations and it most likely will be selected out.

It doesn't cause enough harm to die out though. And at present we are
still struggling with getting malaria beaten so it may never die out.

The requirement for a novel trait to establish in the population is
for the first person with that novel feature to survive and
reproduce (and for their offspring to be fertile).

And likewise for most subsequent carriers of that trait.

Nature can be very capricious. There are plenty of female spiders that
eat their mate immediately after sex (or before if the males courtship
dance isn't up to snuff). It has evolutionary advantage for the species
(though it is a bit tough on individual males).


--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Rick C]

On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 5:48:57 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

On 10/05/2019 17:35, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, May 10, 2019 at 1:01:07 AM UTC-4, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2019-05-09, Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 12:31:11 AM UTC-4, Jasen Betts
wrote:
On 2019-05-08, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2019 16:54:08 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:


There is still a lot of hand waving. As in

"it is fruitful to consider the alternative possibility that
RNA was preceded by some other replicating, evolving
molecule, just as DNA and proteins were preceded by RNA."

Is that a fact? In modern life, DNA builds RNA.

Reverse transcriptase does the opposite.

but the RNA for that is found in retroviruses so it could be
argued that it's not "life", weasel words that pomoters of that
claim may cling to.

Really? There are people who claim viruses are not life? I
don't know what they think viruses are then.

See "MRS GREN" they do no have many of the properties associated
with living things

Which of those things are not true for viruses? I suppose
respiration maybe. But otherwise they do all of the above. You need
to look at their full life cycle and not just the spore state.

It depends a bit on how hard line you want to be. They don't do quite a
few of the things we normally describe as life until they infect a host
cell and manipulate its genome to reproduce. Even then they subvert the
cell to do these things they do not have their own metabolism as such.

In a strict sense they don't fit the usual definition of "Life".

I think you are being rather arbitrary about judging viruses. There are numerous bacteria which do very little or nothing at all in a spore state. It is only when they are in a hospitable environment that they "come alive" and begin to reproduce. Same with many plant seeds.

Your point seems to fixate on the fact that the virus requires a host not just as food, but the means of reproduction. I don't see where that makes it any less alive. It reproduces, has motion, feeds and most importantly - the one essential thing left out of MRS GREN - mutates to allow for evolution.

In fact, that they reproduce in very large numbers and depend on mutation for their ability to survive clearly shows how well evolution provides for adaptation and survival enhancement. JL can't understand how replicating DNA could have evolved, but is that really so much more complex than resistance to medication which can happen relatively quickly to most evolution. It demonstrates the power of natural selection combined with mutation.

The fact that they usurp a host cell to do these things doesn't mean
they aren't happening. Viruses are parasitic and like many parasites
they can not complete their life cycle without infecting the host.

But where do you draw the line? Are incorrectly folded protein
autocatalytic infectious agents like prions which cause scrapie in
sheep, CDJ and the insidious nvCJD aka BSE "alive". They need a host to
survive but are to all intents and purposes a catalyst that converts a
correctly folded protein into one which is a copy of the prion form.

I'm not aware that they have definitively shown scrapie is caused by prions.. But even if so, that lacks every other aspect of live other than reproduction.

They were given the opportunity in the UK to spread like wildfire
because someone thought that ground up abattoir waste would make a very
profitable cannibalistic addition to herbivore feed.

Like here in the US? We only stopped using mechanically separated beef in 2004. This contains parts of the spinal cord and ganglia which might spread BSE as well as actual brain tissue does. We just got lucky.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Rick C]

On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 6:09:19 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

On 09/05/2019 23:06, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 5:12:05 PM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
On 09/05/2019 16:24, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 08 May 2019 21:49:14 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:

On May 8, 2019, John Larkin wrote (in
article<cto5depv30g3gh1dd4i6vm40e1m5cq5kta@4ax.com&gt:

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.

Sure it can. Very slowly, with lots of mistakes made and then
erased. Not an efficient process at all. But it does not need
to be.

But each incremental step must be an improvement or it won't be
selected. So how can evolution build an immensely complex
system, where all the pieces have to be working before any of it
it can work (and reproduce itself) ?

No. It doesn't. You are putting arbitrary constraints on what
evolution can and cannot do. Evolution has explored many weird dead
ends as well.

Sorry, your ideas aren't in line with reality. While any given trait
or even species can die out, when it formed and spread through a
population it provided an advantage or at least offered no
substantial liability. While a trait can spread through a population
over time even without being of much benefit, if it is a liability it
will be selected out.

It is you who fail to understand the meaning of "fittest". It does not
mean the global optimum of efficiency. If it did then nature would have
already fixed the defects in photosynthesis. It means gets to reproduce
and form a gradually increasing proportion of the population.

If the system is resource constrained then "fittest" pretty much is
determined by ability to get enough food, not get predated and find a
mate. This usually leads to comparatively simple camouflage.

But in the tropics particularly where the system is not resource limited
and food is abundant there is scope for more complex behaviour with what
are essentially arbitrary preferences of the usually drab female birds
being selected for in the males. These include bright colours, silly
tail feathers, collecting pretty things and beautiful songs.

The male peacocks tail and brilliant blue colour is a pretty good
example. If you think that 6' tail helps it to fly then you must be
completely mad! But without one he will never get a mate...

It is self limiting in that the ones that have tails too heavy to fly
cannot evade snakes or go up into the trees to proclaim their patch.

Amazingly they can fly just about gaining about 10' each time climbing a
tree from branch to branch until they are high enough to make their big
screeching call. First time I saw one I though it was a bin bag!

You seem to be in complete agreement with me.

It basically spans the space of life forms and if there is a niche
with no competition eventually something will evolve to exploit
it.

Another assumption on your part. There is nothing to say all niches
will be populated. The basic increment of evolution is random
changes. Since they are indeed random that does not mean all will be
explored. There is also the fact that for many significant features
multiple traits had to develop before they became significant. So
while waiting for one change to develop and spread through a
population another change may die out.

If there is no competition for the niche then something will eventually
exploit it. Put another way with the same constraints and boundary
conditions approximately the same physical solution has been found more
than once by entirely different plants and animals isolated from each other.

That is simply not true. For example, there are no creatures that absorb cosmic rays as their food source. Perhaps and extreme case, but it illustrates that not all niches can be filled. Evolution has to take a path of consistent survival. If there is no way to bridge a gap, a niche on the other side can't be filled.

Most recently in the news the flightless rail bird has re-evolved about
140ky after it was last known. Same environment same constraints without
ground predators on an isolated island. It is out of luck too since it
will probably go extinct again due to sea level rise.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/environment/bird-that-went-extinct-136000-years-ago-comes-back-from-the-dead-after-evolving-again/ar-AABbnvo


A change that is beneficial, neutral or only slightly detrimental
to individual survival can persist. Sickle cell anaemia is one such
example - not optimum for the individual but it confers some
immunity to deadly malaria not found in those of us with more
normal blood cells.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20450-how-sickle-cell-carriers-fend-off-malaria/


This does not prove your point.

It exactly proves my point. You fail to understand.

Where malaria is prevalent sickle
cells provide a benefit and so are established in the population.
They are spread more widely only recently since man's other
evolutionary changes have made transportation widespread. Give it a
few thousand generations and it most likely will be selected out.

It doesn't cause enough harm to die out though. And at present we are
still struggling with getting malaria beaten so it may never die out.

It has been less than 100 years since we have been able to battle malaria? So in Africa the pressure has been for the gene to remain. Give it a few thousand generations and see if the gene is still around. Also consider that sickle cell anemia is does not strongly prevent reproduction with an average age of death in the 40's.

The requirement for a novel trait to establish in the population is
for the first person with that novel feature to survive and
reproduce (and for their offspring to be fertile).

And likewise for most subsequent carriers of that trait.

Nature can be very capricious. There are plenty of female spiders that
eat their mate immediately after sex (or before if the males courtship
dance isn't up to snuff). It has evolutionary advantage for the species
(though it is a bit tough on individual males).

I'm glad I'm not a spider although some days I feel like one.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 13 May 2019 07:56:38 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
<gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:

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.
Someone (not here on SED) was suggesting I read "The Selfish Gene".
What didn't you like about it?

The basic concept is pretty much trivial, and he keeps repeating it.
It's boring.

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.
Some sort of panspermia should be checked. We should fly robots
to the likely planets and moons in the solar system. That would be
fun even if we didn't find any other life.

Panspermia is one of those ideas that is numerically probable but
mostly mocked for emotional reasons. Like germ theory and earth
circling the sun.

But probably not from our solar system, which is too small and too
young.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[George Herold]

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.

Someone (not here on SED) was suggesting I read "The Selfish Gene".
What didn't you like about it?

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.

Some sort of panspermia should be checked. We should fly robots
to the likely planets and moons in the solar system. That would be
fun even if we didn't find any other life.

George H.

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

 

[George Herold]

On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 11:31:25 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 13 May 2019 07:56:38 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:

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.
Someone (not here on SED) was suggesting I read "The Selfish Gene".
What didn't you like about it?

The basic concept is pretty much trivial, and he keeps repeating it.
It's boring.


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.
Some sort of panspermia should be checked. We should fly robots
to the likely planets and moons in the solar system. That would be
fun even if we didn't find any other life.

Panspermia is one of those ideas that is numerically probable but
mostly mocked for emotional reasons. Like germ theory and earth
circling the sun.

But probably not from our solar system, which is too small and too
young.

Sure, but maybe 'stuff' landed on other planets/ moons and started
life there too.

A long shot, but the payoff would be huge.

George H.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 13 May 2019 00:49:55 +0200, Piotr Wyderski
<peter.pan@neverland.mil> wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:

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.

What has always amazed me is the creationists' ability to claim
simultaneously that natural processes are not enough to create something
as complex as life, but seeing no problem with the existence of an
infinitely more complex entity that needs to be brought as a basis for
an "alternative explanation". In other words, life is too complex to
be created "by accident". Gods apparently aren't.

OK, evolution theory is wrong, genetics is a random fluke that happens
to work by pure accident, be that as it may. So now let's talk about a
credible theory of theogenesis...

Best regards, Piotr

What amazes me, or sadly doesn't much any more, it that the only ideas
that most people have, about possible alternates to primordial soup on
Earth, accidentally creating RNA which accidentally invented and
programmed DNA, is to scream "creationist!"

Of course, it's probably impossible to make or use DNA without already
having all the cellular machinery in place to support DNA, which is
all created by DNA.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[George Herold]

On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 2:31:06 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 13 May 2019 00:49:55 +0200, Piotr Wyderski
peter.pan@neverland.mil> wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:

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.

What has always amazed me is the creationists' ability to claim
simultaneously that natural processes are not enough to create something
as complex as life, but seeing no problem with the existence of an
infinitely more complex entity that needs to be brought as a basis for
an "alternative explanation". In other words, life is too complex to
be created "by accident". Gods apparently aren't.

OK, evolution theory is wrong, genetics is a random fluke that happens
to work by pure accident, be that as it may. So now let's talk about a
credible theory of theogenesis...

Best regards, Piotr

What amazes me, or sadly doesn't much any more, it that the only ideas
that most people have, about possible alternates to primordial soup on
Earth, accidentally creating RNA which accidentally invented and
programmed DNA, is to scream "creationist!"

Yeah, sadly science has now become political.
This was in the Nat. Rev. today,
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/evolutionary-theory-crowning-achievement-western-civilization/
(nothing new)

I took a seminar in college called the "origin of life".
Interesting to me... but there are not any new ideas since
then... AFAICT.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

We need to find other types of life to give us new ideas...
But if it started on Earth, then I think we're stuck with it
coming out of the primordial soup somehow.

George H.

Of course, it's probably impossible to make or use DNA without already
having all the cellular machinery in place to support DNA, which is
all created by DNA.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 13 May 2019 13:01:16 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
<gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:

On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 2:31:06 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 13 May 2019 00:49:55 +0200, Piotr Wyderski
peter.pan@neverland.mil> wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:

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.

What has always amazed me is the creationists' ability to claim
simultaneously that natural processes are not enough to create something
as complex as life, but seeing no problem with the existence of an
infinitely more complex entity that needs to be brought as a basis for
an "alternative explanation". In other words, life is too complex to
be created "by accident". Gods apparently aren't.

OK, evolution theory is wrong, genetics is a random fluke that happens
to work by pure accident, be that as it may. So now let's talk about a
credible theory of theogenesis...

Best regards, Piotr

What amazes me, or sadly doesn't much any more, it that the only ideas
that most people have, about possible alternates to primordial soup on
Earth, accidentally creating RNA which accidentally invented and
programmed DNA, is to scream "creationist!"

Yeah, sadly science has now become political.
This was in the Nat. Rev. today,
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/evolutionary-theory-crowning-achievement-western-civilization/
(nothing new)

I took a seminar in college called the "origin of life".
Interesting to me... but there are not any new ideas since
then... AFAICT.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

We need to find other types of life to give us new ideas...
But if it started on Earth, then I think we're stuck with it
coming out of the primordial soup somehow.

George H.

Why would life arrive here as spores? Why not robotic spaceships with
chem labs, to cook up something appropriate on the spot?

We've had electricity for a couple of centuries and electronics for
around 100 years, and we're just starting to understand our own
chemistry. What could some ancient civilization do in 10,000, or a
million years? Build a few billion AI robotic chem labs?

It's very probable. At least as good as the soup thing.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 13/05/19 21:21, John Larkin wrote:

Why would life arrive here as spores? Why not robotic spaceships with
chem labs, to cook up something appropriate on the spot?

All that has done is punted the problem from /here/
to /there/. None of the interesting questions are
addressed let alone answered!

 

[Dimiter_Popoff]

On 5/13/2019 23:48, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 13/05/19 21:21, John Larkin wrote:
Why would life arrive here as spores? Why not robotic spaceships with
chem labs, to cook up something appropriate on the spot?

All that has done is punted the problem from /here/
to /there/. None of the interesting questions are
addressed let alone answered!

Well the interesting questions are way beyond our knowledge (yet?...).

Evolution as we know it since Darwin can be designed into life by a
creator or life can have occurred spuriously and then evolved etc.,
that much we can ask. Of course if a creator has created life who
created the creator is the obvious next question, not sure if
it counts as one of the "interesting" ones .

And that superbly complex cellular mechanism, so nicely visualized
in the video John posted (mesmerizing to just look at) has come
into being.... how? Spuriously, by sheer chance? Does not look like it,
I would think it is no more statistically probable than say stable
nuclei to go into a chain reaction. OTOH given enough time who knows...
Then if a creator made it - again, who designed the creator.

Like you say, the best answers to that we have is "we don't know".
Neither do we know if we can possibly know these answers.

Dimiter

------------------------------------------------------
Dimiter Popoff, TGI http://www.tgi-sci.com
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 11:31:06 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

Of course, it's probably impossible to make or use DNA without already
having all the cellular machinery in place to support DNA, which is
all created by DNA.

So, is this a chicken-egg argument, that you label 'impossible'
rather than admit it's just complicated?

DNA can be used to store books and videos, by building it without
'cellular machinery', i.e. in a laboratory. It's make-able, and use-able,
and no 'probably' about either. Yet, you are comfortable saying 'probably impossible'.

<https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/134672-harvard-cracks-dna-storage-crams-700-terabytes-of-data-into-a-single-gram>

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 6:48:18 AM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:

On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 6:09:19 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

It basically spans the space of life forms and if there is a niche
with no competition eventually something will evolve to exploit
it.

Another assumption on your part. There is nothing to say all niches
will be populated.

If there is no competition for the niche then something will eventually
exploit it.

That is simply not true. For example, there are no creatures that absorb cosmic rays as their food source.

Nothing about these statements is 'simple'.

It's not so much 'untrue' as 'undecidable'. The biosphere, after all, DOES absorb
cosmic rays, and DOES require genetic variation, which comes (in part) from those
cosmic rays. Is a biosphere a 'creature'? Is absorption and utility evidence
that the radiation is 'as food'?

The 'niche' concept is similarly
ambiguous: who is to say what DOES constitute a niche? Is absence of an
occupant a temporary condition, or evidence that the ''niche' is nonexistent?

It's like arguing whether a policy is 'reasonable': some folk say it is, if
they aren't outraged by the policy statement, while others are sure it
is ONLY if a cogent logical treatment of causes and effects supports it.
A third view, is that a person in a discussion can be 'reaasonale' if and
only if he/she reacts to reasoned expressions, and no policy can do that.

 

[Piotr Wyderski]

Tom Gardner wrote:

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

Maybe he is right. But then he must accept that the creator
does require a creator too. By exactly the same reasoning.

The only intellectually honest way to leave this infinite loop is not to
enter it at all.

Best regards, Piotr

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 5/8/19 2:04 AM, 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

Well, no. Feynman's famous essay from 60 years ago is memorable, but
atoms are the same size now as they were then. In 1959 you could do
litho with a crayon, and today folks making feature sizes of ~10 lattice
constants of silicon in the lab and ~15 in production.

So not so much room remaining, really.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

 

[Piotr Wyderski]

John Larkin wrote:

What amazes me, or sadly doesn't much any more, it that the only ideas
that most people have, about possible alternates to primordial soup on
Earth, accidentally creating RNA which accidentally invented and
programmed DNA, is to scream "creationist!"

Because approaching it in a way significantly different than extreme
reductionism requires some act of creation. By a deity or your robotic
AI labs or the biker mice from Mars. Fine, but then the onus of
explaining them is on you.

Best regards, Piotr

 

[Piotr Wyderski]

John Larkin wrote:

> We may never know the origin of the universe or the origin of life.

We may never know the origin of the high-temperature superconductivity
as well. So what? Should we give up and not even try to find it out?

Best regards, Piotr