DNA animation

[Clifford Heath]

On 9/5/19 3:38 am, John Larkin wrote:
> Is that a fact? In modern life, DNA builds RNA.

There are primitive organisms that only have RNA, no DNA at all. That
pretty-much eliminates your argument here.

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 9/5/19 12:31 am, Bill Sloman wrote:
> 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.
Again, one of the whole aims of "Godel Escher Bach" is to show that
every possible improvement in such a defense mechanism just increases
the attack surface of corner cases. The more sophisticated a system
becomes in its own defense, the more ways there are to attack it.

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

Tom Gardner wrote:

But when I was 7yo I worked out that "doubting" Thomas
was right to insist on feeling the stigmata before
believing Christ had risen from the dead.

I could tell a very funny anecdote about the day Sister Mary Priscilla
said, "THOMAS, COME TO ME AND PUT YOUR HAND ON MY WOUND!!" and I was
daydreaming but awakened when I heard my name yelled.

But I won't because it's too embarassing.

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 8 May 2019 23:32:28 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 08/05/19 21:21, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2019 20:48:56 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 08/05/19 18:28, 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.

Yup, and they certainly can't get the "its
turtles all the way down" joke concept.

You assume that the only thing that could design our form of life is
our form of life. Maybe it's not all turtles.

No, I don't.

But when I was 7yo I worked out that "doubting" Thomas
was right to insist on feeling the stigmata before
believing Christ had risen from the dead.

So, yes, I demand evidence rather than unsupported fantasies.

This is a design group. Design involves considering possibilities.
Adherence to orthodoxy and reflexive rejection of possibilities is
poison to design.

Besides, the random mutation and selection concept of the origin of
life is just another fantasy, and not a very good one. There's no
evidence for it either.

Any time that the biological origin of life is freely considered, some
people will start to scream about religion to shut off possibilities
that they don't approve of.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

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

 

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 12:24:38 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

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

This is insane. This is impossible.

https://www.statnews.com/2019/05/08/phage-therapy-how-genetically-engineered-viruses-may-have-prolonged-teens-life/

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 9 May 2019 09:16:03 +1000, Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net>
wrote:

On 9/5/19 3:38 am, John Larkin wrote:
Is that a fact? In modern life, DNA builds RNA.

There are primitive organisms that only have RNA, no DNA at all. That
pretty-much eliminates your argument here.

RNA viruses? They are built by DNA.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

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

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 9/5/19 12:11 am, 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.

So instead, you assume that completely out of the blue, a Creator just
magically appeared who was capable of designing this, and that's not an
even crazier thought?

Right. You see that doesn't even start to answer the problem of origins.

Clifford Heath.

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 9/5/19 6:21 am, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 8 May 2019 20:48:56 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 08/05/19 18:28, 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.

Yup, and they certainly can't get the "its
turtles all the way down" joke concept.

You assume that the only thing that could design our form of life is
our form of life. Maybe it's not all turtles.

Turing machines, computability. It's been proved that every
Turing-complete computer can simulate every other one. The DNA mechanism
is a Turing-complete computer. That means that what "our form of life"
can be simulated by any other form of life that's also Turing complete.
So it's possible that some of the turtles are frogs and some are
lizards, but it's still reptiles (Turing machines) all the way down.

Read "Godel, Escher, Bach" and you'll understand what these machines
are, what formal systems are, and why life and computation fit together
in this way.

Certainly current theories of evolution assume that simpler forms
preceded complex forms.

Yes; and the apparently "uphill" progress has been explained; all these
"uphill" steps increase dissipation, the rate of energy usage. Anything
that dissipates the available energy source faster tends to dominate
over the slower processes and so win out - so it's not really "uphill".

Clifford Heath.

 

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 10:43:53 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 12:15:07 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 08 May 2019 09:44:21 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:

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


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

This is insane. This is impossible.

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

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

Actually, that's exactly what it did.

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

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

And it builds every bit of itself.

Eventually. Haekel said that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny

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

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

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

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

Only an unimaginative fool would believe living organisms evolved at random.. The process was very deterministic beyond a certain point where the organism's interaction with its environment influenced its gene development and DNA chemistry. It's called epigenetics.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 12:24:38 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

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

This is insane. This is impossible.

Wait for the part when the toad eats the beetle:
https://www.brut.media/us/international/the-bombardier-beetle-ejects-a-hot-chemical-spray-c214bd89-705d-42a7-96dd-c1eb8ebf3446

Sure that's a random adaptation...<smirk>...

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 7:16:09 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:

On 9/5/19 3:38 am, John Larkin wrote:
Is that a fact? In modern life, DNA builds RNA.

There are primitive organisms that only have RNA, no DNA at all. That
pretty-much eliminates your argument here.

Huh? You saw an argument???


--

Rick C.

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

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 4:31:31 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 4:11:15 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2019 15:55:18 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2019 13:03:36 -0500, "Tim Williams"
tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> 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.

Tim

There are lots of reasonable paths to building our biology other than
random mutation and selection, but too many people refuse to even
think about them, but prefer to use their limited imaginations to
manufacture insults.

Well I didn't intend to insult you, and it isn't apparent that you are a
creationist. I interpreted the original post as amazement rather than
skepticism.

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


But what explanations are there that don't involve randomness and
selection?



Design by some creature that evolved in a different way, something
that had a more reasonable incremental path to complex structure.

Panspermia of DNA-based life, which merely suggests that the solution
to the DNA mystery happened far away, billions of years ago, in a very
different environment. A gas giant planet or something.

Quantum mechanical, essentially quantum computing, mechanisms that are
more efficient at evolution than cosmic rays whacking base pairs.

If you believe in evolution (which most people actually don't) you
might consider that evolution evolves better mechanisms to speed
evolution.
Yeah, it's called sex! great invention. :^)

It's almost impossible to have an intelligent conversation here.
(unless it's about electronics or instrument design for which we have a
lot of wisdom)

I was reading this during lunch... science losing it's way.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/05/07/5-httlpr-a-pointed-review/

George H.

Very interesting...

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 4:25:21 PM UTC-4, Clive Arthur wrote:

On 08/05/2019 15:11, 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.


There are lots of places in the universe with no DNA, it's possible
there are no others. The folks who don't exist in these other places
aren't discussing it. You got lucky.

The universe is a big place. I bet we don't have a monopoly on DNA. Given that chemistry is likely the same everywhere, it's possible we are more alike than anyone would expect. I believe the term is "strange attractor".

--

Rick C.

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

 

[whit3rd]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 7:11:14 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

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.

Every breath you take (ideal gas laws) gets math analyses, with lots of zeroes.
Molecule size to planet size (lots of zeroes), microseconds in a year (lots of zeroes)
and years of life presumably in development... yes, certainly lots of zeroes.

 

[Joseph Gwinn]

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.

The engineering application of evolution is "genetic programming´. There
is a huge literature.

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

One thing in the simulation video that wasn´t quite right: The announcer
said that the chromosomes were a blueprint of the critter to be made.
Actually, it´s a kind of recipe, a long series of steps to be taken in
order. This is critical, because making slight changes to recipes is done all
the time, and over time those recipes evolve and improve. Blueprints are a
little harder.

Also mentioned was junk DNA - people back in the day said that because they
didn´t know what that DNA did. (I didn´t believe this because the junk
DNA had the same kind of statistics as music or written language.)

It turned out to be the control system that controlled the development
program. But don´t think machine-tool G-code, which tells a machining
center what cutting moves to make. It´s more like interacting analog
control loops that force a sequence including waits (checkpoints) to ensure
that things are ready for the next step to be taken.

Biology is astoundingly complicated, and it´s hard to do it justice on a
newsgroup. I´d read an introductory textbook. Whatever the local colleges
are using as the intro text. The best such book I ever read was written by
either Watson or Crick of DNA helix fame, but that book is dated now.

Circling back to engineering, back in the days when I was a computer
programmer, I had great success in applying research methods from biology
(how to make progress on something too complex to understand) to debugging
software and the like.

Joe Gwinn

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 9:49:23 PM UTC-4, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

Also mentioned was junk DNA - people back in the day said that because they
didn´t know what that DNA did. (I didn´t believe this because the junk
DNA had the same kind of statistics as music or written language.)

It turned out to be the control system that controlled the development
program. But don´t think machine-tool G-code, which tells a machining
center what cutting moves to make. It´s more like interacting analog
control loops that force a sequence including waits (checkpoints) to ensure
that things are ready for the next step to be taken.

Biology is so complex because it was *not* created by intelligence which would limit it's capabilities. It happened by random changes, some of which were removed by natural selection while others remained. So the manner interactions in the systems that evolved can be inordinately complex, as long as they work... mostly.

I recall an evolutionary experiment which I believe was done in an analog circuit simulation, I don't recall for sure. It used the typical method of introducing small, random changes with a selection step and may have included multiple paths with intermittent sharing. It's been too long to recall details. What I do remember is that it only took a few thousand cycles for the circuit to evolve to the point where it mostly met the specification. There would be some spurious elements in the signal produced, but they were not dominant. The odd part is that the circuit did not operate remotely like anything a human would have designed. The circuit appeared to be a random jumble of components without a clear form or structure. Very much like life and very unlike anything designed by a person with intent.

Didn't NASA design an antenna by similar means with a similar result of it not looking remotely like it was a designed component?

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 9:42:21 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 8 May 2019 23:32:28 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 08/05/19 21:21, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2019 20:48:56 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 08/05/19 18:28, 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.

Yup, and they certainly can't get the "its
turtles all the way down" joke concept.

You assume that the only thing that could design our form of life is
our form of life. Maybe it's not all turtles.

No, I don't.

But when I was 7yo I worked out that "doubting" Thomas
was right to insist on feeling the stigmata before
believing Christ had risen from the dead.

So, yes, I demand evidence rather than unsupported fantasies.

This is a design group. Design involves considering possibilities.
Adherence to orthodoxy and reflexive rejection of possibilities is
poison to design.

There's a big difference between having an open mind and having a mind so open that your brains fall out.Design does involve rejecting possibilities that can be shown not to be able to work, which isn't the same as rejecting possibilities that nobody else seems to have looked at.

Besides, the random mutation and selection concept of the origin of
life is just another fantasy, and not a very good one. There's no
evidence for it either.

None that John Larkin knows about.

Any time that the biological origin of life is freely considered, some
people will start to scream about religion to shut off possibilities
that they don't approve of.

You seem to be one of them. You do seem to have the delusion that a belief in Darwinian evolution by imperfect reproduction and subsequent selection is some kind of religion, but this is just one of your many misapprehensions..

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 1:26:21 AM UTC+10, 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.

At least one of them was intelligent design propaganda.

There's a lot of hand waving about the initial origins of life,
the accident in the conjectured primordial soup thing. Some math
analysis 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.

Intelligent design advocates are good at that kind of hand-waving analysis. It's worthless for anything except for supporting their arguments from selective ignorance.

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

John Larkin certainly is.

The origin of live is almost certainly the random shuffling of nonliving molecules which eventually produced one that could copy itself, and it's been imperfect copying with selection ever since.

The origin of the universe is a silly question - there's nothing outside the universe for it originate from.

Consciousness is just a monitoring program running in our minds - one of many other programs. The only mystery there is why anybody takes it seriously.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 8 May 2019 13:31:26 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
<gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 4:11:15 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2019 15:55:18 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2019 13:03:36 -0500, "Tim Williams"
tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> 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.

Tim

There are lots of reasonable paths to building our biology other than
random mutation and selection, but too many people refuse to even
think about them, but prefer to use their limited imaginations to
manufacture insults.

Well I didn't intend to insult you, and it isn't apparent that you are a
creationist. I interpreted the original post as amazement rather than
skepticism.

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


But what explanations are there that don't involve randomness and
selection?



Design by some creature that evolved in a different way, something
that had a more reasonable incremental path to complex structure.

Panspermia of DNA-based life, which merely suggests that the solution
to the DNA mystery happened far away, billions of years ago, in a very
different environment. A gas giant planet or something.

Quantum mechanical, essentially quantum computing, mechanisms that are
more efficient at evolution than cosmic rays whacking base pairs.

If you believe in evolution (which most people actually don't) you
might consider that evolution evolves better mechanisms to speed
evolution.
Yeah, it's called sex! great invention. :^)

It's almost impossible to have an intelligent conversation here.
(unless it's about electronics or instrument design for which we have a
lot of wisdom)

I was reading this during lunch... science losing it's way.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/05/07/5-httlpr-a-pointed-review/

George H.

Yup, most gene correlation studies are wrong.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 8 May 2019 09:38:35 -0700 (PDT), R Collins
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

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.

If you're going to copy a few million base pairs, you've got to move
along. One part of RNA polymerase, the helicase, spins at about 10,000
RPM as it unwinds and rewinds the DNA double helix.

Some bacterial flagellum motors rotate at 300 rps, 18,000 RPM.
Biologists once mocked the idea that any part of a bacteria could
rotate.




--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics