DNA animation

[R Collins]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 7:42:36 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

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


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

This is insane. This is impossible.

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

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

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

I find it hard to believe the transcription was a real time video. The bases find the enzyme via diffusion which I would think would not be that fast.. But then the distances are very tiny so maybe my sense of how fast diffusion can work is the unrealistic part of it all. The video makes it look like there is a current funneling the bases into the enzyme.

It's pretty cool watching the RNA spew out from the enzyme at such a rate.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 08/05/19 16:54, Martin Brown wrote:

On 08/05/2019 16:26, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2019 15:38:37 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

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

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


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

This is insane. This is impossible.

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

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

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


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

Eventually. Given about 4.5bn years of evolution.

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

Then you will have heard of RNA-world.

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

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


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

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

Precisely.

Or merely magazine pages (or websites nowadays) to fill with copy.

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

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

Yebbut dark energy and dark matter are currently as appealing
as the luminiferous ĂŚther. More progress and understanding
required.

But the young earthers would never say the latter!

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

Synthesising designer DNA from scratch is already possible.

Craig Ventner is worth watching.

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

Yup, "emergent behaviour" is difficult for many people
to believe - even with the examples of modern operating
systems and machine learning!

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

Yup. I worked that out all by myself at, maybe, 10yo.

 

[R Collins]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 11:26:21 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

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

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

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


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

This is insane. This is impossible.

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

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

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


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

Eventually. Given about 4.5bn years of evolution.

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

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

https://www.closertotruth.com/

https://www.amazon.com/Hitchhikers-Guide-Galaxy-Douglas-Adams/dp/0345391802

Great minds think alike...

--

Rick C.

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

 

[R Collins]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 12:24:31 PM UTC-4, Tim Williams wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Tim

The thing we have not found out yet is whether there are forces directing evolution or not. We talk about it as if live was created randomly, but just as mountains are the inevitable results of movements of the earth's crust or planets are the inevitable results of coalescing clouds of gas, life may be an inevitable result of various self organizing forces we simply have not discovered.

While I doubt there is life elsewhere that would be at all like humanoids on Star Trek type TV shows, other beings may well have bilateral symmetry, have hands, walk erect, etc. I wonder if they would have very different eyes or see at other wavelengths or even have other senses we don't. While it is entirely possible they would be based on other chemistry, I suspect carbon would be a frequent theme.

Language would be the more interesting aspect of extra terrestrial, intelligent life. Look at the variations we have here on Earth. Then imagine the immense variety possible.

Would discovery of other intelligent life support of disprove creationism?

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

John Larkin wrote:

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

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

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

Tim

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

Each step is not as unlikely. Spark some gasses and you make amino
acids. The atoms don't go back and separate. When they form protiens
and enzymes they are stable and don't go backward.

Hold a ratchet wrench by the nut and bang you hand on your knee. It
occasionally clicks one step, and will eventually go all the way around.
The chance of it going around all at once is still small, but to go in
steps is 100%.

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

Tom Gardner wrote:

On 08/05/19 15:31, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 12:11:14 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2019 01:04:50 -0500, "Tim Williams"
tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> wrote:

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

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

Tim

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

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

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

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

You mean because the visual cortex is in the back? Nerves from the
retina pass through the brain horizontally and muscle control goes
vertically. The signals meet at lots of points that probably make
hand-eye coordination possible. How else could we react to movement
before cognizing it?

There are lots of other flaws though. I'm told that a fish's heart is
between its brain and throat, so the nerves to the throat pass by the
heart, and that they also pass by our hearts and a giraffe's heart
before going back up to the throat. Plenty of flaws are more obvious
like the backbone having the same design in bipeds and quadropeds, and
the giraffe having the same number of vertebra.

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 8 May 2019 16:54:08 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 08/05/2019 16:26, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2019 15:38:37 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

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

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


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

This is insane. This is impossible.

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

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

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


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

Eventually. Given about 4.5bn years of evolution.

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

Then you will have heard of RNA-world.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Synthesising designer DNA from scratch is already possible.

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

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

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

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

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.

Some lab should come up with a working non-DNA self-replicating system
that could evolve. But then that would be intelligent design.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

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

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 8 May 2019 17:35:25 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 08/05/19 15:31, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 12:11:14 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2019 01:04:50 -0500, "Tim Williams"
tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> wrote:

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

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

Tim

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

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

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

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

I read one book that suggests that our retinas aren't designed wrong.
The light has to make its way through a maze of nerves and blood
vessels to hit the sensitive stuff on the back of the retina, which
sounds bad, but the light is conveyed through the maze on fiber
optics.

I wonder how that could evolve by random processes.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 08/05/19 15:14, John Larkin wrote:

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

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


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

This is insane. This is impossible.

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

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

Nonsense. An example...

My very primitive third eye[1] is very useful; it has
saved me from injury many times.

Bury that in a depression and it would have a sense of
direction, and be as effective as the "extra" primitive
eyes in pit vipers.

[1] just above my upper lip

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

Tim Williams wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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


There's only one force in the universe powerful enough to construct
something that complex: evolution. One must either believe that, or
believe that there is something impossibly wrong with all known laws
of physics*.
(*And I don't just mean the stuff we don't know at the bottom, or the
subtle details between things we do. I mean the things that are
settled and proven.)

I'm always incredulous at the lack of thinking ability when people say
complexity requires a designer, but it doesn't occur to them that a
designer must also be complex.

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 8 May 2019 17:46:12 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 08/05/19 15:14, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 08 May 2019 09:44:21 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:

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


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

This is insane. This is impossible.

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

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

Nonsense. An example...

My very primitive third eye[1] is very useful; it has
saved me from injury many times.

Bury that in a depression and it would have a sense of
direction, and be as effective as the "extra" primitive
eyes in pit vipers.

[1] just above my upper lip

Certainly macro things like organs can evolve [2] but that's not the
issue. The big question is how the incredibly complex DNA mechanisms
could have evolved form inorganics, and how DNA got programmed to
manufacture, for example, DNA.

[2] a lot of work has been done lately on horizontal evolution, gene
swapping between organisms. That makes the neo-Darwinian concept of
mutation and selection somewhat less absurd.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

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

 

[R Collins]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 2:03:24 PM UTC-4, Tim Williams wrote:

"Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote in
message news:qav3jo$v1g$1@dont-email.me...
I'm always incredulous at the lack of thinking ability when people say
complexity requires a designer, but it doesn't occur to them that a
designer must also be complex.


Indeed, and not just complex, but _more_ complex.

And what if -- it's designers all the way down? Well, it *certainly* can't
be that. Any sufficiently advanced being would contain so much information
it would collapse into a black hole! To assume that such a "god" exists,
contradicts the laws of physics-as-we-know-them.

"… Lord, if you won't take care of us
Won't you please, please let us be?"

-- Randy Newman

--

Rick C.

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

 

[R Collins]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 2:03:24 PM UTC-4, Tim Williams wrote:

"Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote in
message news:qav3jo$v1g$1@dont-email.me...
I'm always incredulous at the lack of thinking ability when people say
complexity requires a designer, but it doesn't occur to them that a
designer must also be complex.


Indeed, and not just complex, but _more_ complex.

And what if -- it's designers all the way down? Well, it *certainly* can't
be that. Any sufficiently advanced being would contain so much information
it would collapse into a black hole! To assume that such a "god" exists,
contradicts the laws of physics-as-we-know-them.

Any such infinitely complex being that was capable of creating life likely knows a thing or two about the universe and is not bound by the limitations imagined by the likes of us.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[R Collins]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 1:28:28 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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


There's only one force in the universe powerful enough to construct
something that complex: evolution. One must either believe that, or
believe that there is something impossibly wrong with all known laws
of physics*.
(*And I don't just mean the stuff we don't know at the bottom, or the
subtle details between things we do. I mean the things that are
settled and proven.)

I'm always incredulous at the lack of thinking ability when people say
complexity requires a designer, but it doesn't occur to them that a
designer must also be complex.

As in "who designed the designer"? Well, those who assume a designer feel the designer is something special and "other worldly", therefore beyond our questioning.

Our special beings are constructed so that any questions about them are either answered obviously or are not allowed.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

John Larkin wrote:

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

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


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

This is insane. This is impossible.

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

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

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

Most of our DNA is said to be garbage that does nothing. Whether that
is true or not, it makes sense that random changes would replicate
whether they are good or neutral. As long as they are not fatal.

 

[Tim Williams]

"Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote in
message news:qav3jo$v1g$1@dont-email.me...

I'm always incredulous at the lack of thinking ability when people say
complexity requires a designer, but it doesn't occur to them that a
designer must also be complex.

Indeed, and not just complex, but _more_ complex.

And what if -- it's designers all the way down? Well, it *certainly* can't
be that. Any sufficiently advanced being would contain so much information
it would collapse into a black hole! To assume that such a "god" exists,
contradicts the laws of physics-as-we-know-them.

Tim

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

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 08/05/19 17:53, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 8 May 2019 17:35:25 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 08/05/19 15:31, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 12:11:14 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2019 01:04:50 -0500, "Tim Williams"
tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> wrote:

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

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

Tim

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

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

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

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

I read one book that suggests that our retinas aren't designed wrong.

I read one book that claimed we are all the result
of incest.

Neither books were written by even remotely competent
designers.

The light has to make its way through a maze of nerves and blood
vessels to hit the sensitive stuff on the back of the retina, which
sounds bad, but the light is conveyed through the maze on fiber
optics.

The cephalopod eye doesn't have any such mis-design: the
nerves are behind the retina and don't block and obscure
the light.

Neither does it have the "blind spot".


> I wonder how that could evolve by random processes.

It didn't, of course.

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 8 May 2019 13:28:23 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
<fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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


There's only one force in the universe powerful enough to construct
something that complex: evolution. One must either believe that, or
believe that there is something impossibly wrong with all known laws
of physics*.
(*And I don't just mean the stuff we don't know at the bottom, or the
subtle details between things we do. I mean the things that are
settled and proven.)

I'm always incredulous at the lack of thinking ability when people say
complexity requires a designer, but it doesn't occur to them that a
designer must also be complex.

I'm astounded that, facing a process of immense complexity, how many
people insist that they have a simple explanation, and mock all other
possibilities.

Emotion and prejudice always deflect the progress of science.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

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

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 3:34:51 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 8 May 2019 13:28:23 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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


There's only one force in the universe powerful enough to construct
something that complex: evolution. One must either believe that, or
believe that there is something impossibly wrong with all known laws
of physics*.
(*And I don't just mean the stuff we don't know at the bottom, or the
subtle details between things we do. I mean the things that are
settled and proven.)

I'm always incredulous at the lack of thinking ability when people say
complexity requires a designer, but it doesn't occur to them that a
designer must also be complex.



I'm astounded that, facing a process of immense complexity, how many
people insist that they have a simple explanation, and mock all other
possibilities.

Emotion and prejudice always deflect the progress of science.

Oh, dear lord. The irony gave me a belly laugh!

--

Rick C.

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

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 8 May 2019 20:52:56 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 08/05/19 20:34, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2019 13:28:23 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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


There's only one force in the universe powerful enough to construct
something that complex: evolution. One must either believe that, or
believe that there is something impossibly wrong with all known laws
of physics*.
(*And I don't just mean the stuff we don't know at the bottom, or the
subtle details between things we do. I mean the things that are
settled and proven.)

I'm always incredulous at the lack of thinking ability when people say
complexity requires a designer, but it doesn't occur to them that a
designer must also be complex.



I'm astounded that, facing a process of immense complexity, how many
people insist that they have a simple explanation, and mock all other
possibilities.

When you have a simple explanation that is sufficient,
then non-explanations should be mocked.

But there's lots of quantitative reasons to think it's not sufficient.
No feasible, even if improbable, explanation should be mocked when
there is no demonstrably correct explanation.

Most of the scientific establishment mocked Pasteur, Watson and Crick,
Townes, Einstein.

Go read "The Blind Watchmaker", slowly, with a few glasses
of your favourite tipple and no internet to distract you.
Wonderful prose, superb explanations.

I will, of course, be fascinated to hear whatever evidence
can be found to indicate how DNA first came to exist. After
that, all is trivial and guaranteed.


Emotion and prejudice always deflect the progress of science.

Yup, e.g. creationism.

People are literally afraid of considering any ideas that they think
might somehow encourage creationists. That's lame.




--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

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