OT: How life came to Earth...

[Tom Gardner]

On 14/02/22 16:35, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:45:07 +0100, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 14/02/2022 01:24, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 00:17:54 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 13/02/22 23:54, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:18:25 +1100, Clifford Heath
I\'m glad your daughter is polite to you, even though she must be aware
you\'re a lost cause.

She has ideas too. Must run in the family.

Ideas are easy and cheap.

Then why do so few people have them?


/Everyone/ has ideas.

The only strange thing is that some people have this twisted concept
that /they/ are special in regard to ideas - that /their/ ideas are
somehow better than everyone else\'s, or that only /they/ have good ideas.

I guess. It\'s almosy guaranteed that those people don\'t have good
ideas. Internally, they will actually reject their on.


Maybe it is because in the past, you have had a couple of unusually good
ideas. It happens - people get lucky. If you also have some reasonable
skill in the relevant field, good connections with the right people, and
enough determination and courage to run with the idea, then you can
achieve success with it. That\'s great - it\'s good for the person, and
(often) good for others.

But you have got yourself into a kind of narcissism or megalomania where
you think /all/ your ideas are great, and other peoples\' are not.

I never said anything like that. Many of my ideas are crazy;
deliberately crazy, because all idea genaration is exercize for
creating and considering ideas.

It /looks/ as David describes it.

It wouldn\'t if you listened to and understood the reasons
other people give you. Instead you either ignore them or
resort to irrelevant points (e.g. \"design something\").

Now the reasons other people give you might be incorrect,
but you are free to understand and correct those reasons.
But typically you act as if you don\'t want to understand
their reasons.

Perhaps you\'ve had too many people around you - at home or at work - who
kept telling you your ideas are good and worth considering.

Yeah, too many big companies keep buying the things I design.

Competence in one area means zero about competence in another.

If you were
into politics instead of electronics, maybe you\'d be at a podium telling
people your ideas of injecting bleach, nuking hurricanes, or shining
bright UV lights insight your body - they must be good ideas because you
are a \"very stable genius\". Fortunately for the world, you are just a
harmless electronics engineer.

Your ideas are like everyone else\'s. Mostly they are rubbish, mostly
derivative, mostly they don\'t stand up to scrutiny or fit with reality.

But some of them really work.

We aren\'t doubting or challenging that.

You don\'t
realise that everyone else has ideas just like you, and condemn them for
having better filters than you.

Too many filters, applied way too soon. Idea abortion.

If the idea has demonstrable gross foetal abnormalities, it
should be aborted.

 

[server]

On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 11:09:22 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 17/02/22 07:24, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 3:49:05 AM UTC+11, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 16/02/22 16:21, David Brown wrote:
On 16/02/2022 17:11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 15:20:14 +0100, David Brown
david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 15/02/2022 16:58, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 16:08:43 +0100, David Brown
david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 15/02/2022 14:40, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:51:40 +0000, Martin Brown
\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

snip

So you know everything (including electronic design and biology) and
you\'re always right and you have no tolerance for non-standard ideas.

What kind of misreading could lead you to that conclusion? Do you bother
paying any attention at all to things people write? You apparently don\'t
read posts here, nor do you read any articles on the web (even the ones
you link to yourself). I think you just skim posts looking for trigger
words or phrases so that you can tell people how wonderful you are and
how bad others are.

I used to think Bill\'s (automated?) comments were OTT and unjust.

They aren\'t automated, but John and I have been posting here for some twenty
five years now, and John keeps on posting the same kind of nonsense, so my
responses are well-practiced. I do look for ways of varying them a bit, but
the information content has remained depressingly constant.

Arthur C Clarke accused Hollywood PR droids of having
a single key that generated \"never in the history of
motion pictures\". That\'s the level of \"automation\" I
had in mind.

Having said that, your ripostes are sometimes amusing,
the content usually refers to the previous content.
Not all posters manage to achieve that.


Having seen John\'s responses recently, the \"skim looking for trigger
phrases\" concept does appear to be accurate.

Shame.

I think \"gullible twit\" covers more of John Larkin\'s output.

That\'s would be the consequence of skimming and reacting
to phrases. \"Confirmatory bias\" springs to mind.

I find that nowadays there is too much /stuff/ competing
for our eyeballs, and that encourages skimming. In that
sense it was better a few decades ago, when you devoured
any data you could get your hands on to extract useful
information.

I\'ve been thinking about torque motors, which are beautiful and
interesting gadgets, and specifically about simulating them to a
FADEC. Being lazy, I do my hard thinking while I\'m asleep. Coffee and
a shower provoke delivery.

I can\'t build a reasonable board that would absorb energy during
acceleration and return it during deceleration, but most customers
wouldn\'t demand that. But we could simulate the system moment of
inertia and loading and compute angular position and report that and
then simulate an encoder.

We can have programmable coil resistances too. Programmable inductance
is a whole nother issue.

COE is a PITA.



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 11/02/22 18:35, Jeroen Belleman wrote:

On 2022-02-11 19:12, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 11/02/22 17:02, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 16:42:33 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 11/02/22 15:39, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:25:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 11 Feb 2022 05:12:01 -0800) it happened
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
lonc0h1l5k6a9tbn00ib4u9fle8gd7nbvj@4ax.com>:

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 06:54:29 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

How life came to Earth ?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/02/220210125828.htm
quantum tunneling?

The problem of life isn\'t coming up with small molecular building
blocks, it\'s the astoundingly complex mechanism by which DNA works in
a cell and reproduces itself. It\'s not so much a chemistry problem as
a programming problem.

Our form of life was almost certainly designed and planted on earth.
And yes, it\'s quantum mechanical.

The article describes how the basic chemicals needed for RNA an DNA could
form in space.

If you say \'was designed\' you get into a loop,
start:
\'who or what designed it, and who or what designed that...
goto start

It could have been designed by some intelligence that had a less
complex, more incremental evolutionary path. Something that evolved
billions of years before earth formed.

If you believe in evolution, you will give that a fair consideration.

OK.
0.1s interval
Jan has already addressed that, you\'ve ignored it or not
understood it, viz:
     \'who or what designed it, and who or what designed that...\'

If you believe in spontaneous generation and evolution, you might
consider that life should have evolved in billions of places in the
universe, billions of years ago.

Give that another 100 milliseconds of thought before you dismiss it.

“Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe
or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.” ― Arthur C. Clarke

My personal belief is that intelligent life has evolved many
times, but we haven\'t yet communicated with other examples.

Many people have indeed given that serious consideration,
famously Enrico Fermi\'s name and fellow physicists Edward Teller,
Herbert York and Emil Konopinski - back in 1950. FFI, see the
inconclusive musings about \"The Fermi Paradox\".

I think intelligent life is unstable. By the time it has become
sufficiently powerful to communicate or travel over cosmic distances,
it also has become powerful enough to blow itself into oblivion,
and will, after a short while (on cosmic timescales).

That\'s one of the factors in the Drake equation. People
will continue to argue/refine the parameters - sometimes
through careful thought/experiment, sometimes through
prejudice.

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 8:14:27 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 15:57:45 +0000, Tom Gardner
spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 13/02/22 15:32, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Making DNA from primordial soup is as likely as putting a bunch of
parts into a Cuisinart and getting a cell phone.

That\'s unknown.

We know there is a very small number (probability of molecules
banging together) multiplied by a very large number (length of
time, number of planets).

I believe the very large number will turn out to be more
significant than the very small number. You believe the opposite.

Some competant biologists have done the math. It doesn\'t look
promising. So other possibilities might be condidered.

Sadly, this is a lot like the Drake equation. There\'s LOTS of variables,
including how many non-DNA life possibilities exist; if there\'s a billion
different other candidates, that multiplies by 10**9 the probability that one of them
gets explored and becomes... us. Even a smart biologist cannot
have the whole equation worked out; that math tells us very little
about the world, only allows us to discard an occasional set of assumptions.

 

[server]

Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
news:su6ok6$ado$1@dont-email.me:

On 11/02/22 18:35, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 2022-02-11 19:12, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 11/02/22 17:02, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 16:42:33 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 11/02/22 15:39, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:25:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 11 Feb 2022 05:12:01 -0800) it happened
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
lonc0h1l5k6a9tbn00ib4u9fle8gd7nbvj@4ax.com>:

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 06:54:29 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

How life came to Earth ?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/02/220210125828.
htm quantum tunneling?

The problem of life isn\'t coming up with small molecular
building blocks, it\'s the astoundingly complex mechanism by
which DNA works in a cell and reproduces itself. It\'s not
so much a chemistry problem as a programming problem.

Our form of life was almost certainly designed and planted
on earth. And yes, it\'s quantum mechanical.

The article describes how the basic chemicals needed for RNA
an DNA could form in space.

If you say \'was designed\' you get into a loop,
start:
\'who or what designed it, and who or what designed that...
goto start

It could have been designed by some intelligence that had a
less complex, more incremental evolutionary path. Something
that evolved billions of years before earth formed.

If you believe in evolution, you will give that a fair
consideration.

OK.
0.1s interval
Jan has already addressed that, you\'ve ignored it or not
understood it, viz:
     \'who or what designed it, and who or what designed
that...\'

If you believe in spontaneous generation and evolution, you
might consider that life should have evolved in billions of
places in the universe, billions of years ago.

Give that another 100 milliseconds of thought before you
dismiss it.

“Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe
or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.” ― Arthur C.
Clarke

My personal belief is that intelligent life has evolved many
times, but we haven\'t yet communicated with other examples.

Many people have indeed given that serious consideration,
famously Enrico Fermi\'s name and fellow physicists Edward
Teller, Herbert York and Emil Konopinski - back in 1950. FFI,
see the inconclusive musings about \"The Fermi Paradox\".

I think intelligent life is unstable. By the time it has become
sufficiently powerful to communicate or travel over cosmic
distances, it also has become powerful enough to blow itself into
oblivion, and will, after a short while (on cosmic timescales).

That\'s one of the factors in the Drake equation. People
will continue to argue/refine the parameters - sometimes
through careful thought/experiment, sometimes through
prejudice.

Same question I asked JB... ever see the movie \"Lucy\"?

total fiction but great... fun movie nonetheless.

 

[David Brown]

On 14/02/2022 16:51, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 18:24:13 +0100, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 13/02/2022 16:50, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 07:19:58 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 12 Feb 2022 15:19:00 -0800 (PST)) it happened Anthony
William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
fb8fcd39-787c-4c26-b366-eb511aa8fabcn@googlegroups.com>:

Why evolution didn\'t come up with error-detecting and -correcting codes as well
(or instead) is an even more interesting question.

Actually it did
https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-replication-and-causes-of-mutation-409/

Cool.

It is. Maybe you should read the article to see how cool.

It follows

No.

that the repair mechanisms distinguish

No.

between uselesss/fatal mutations

No.

and potentially useful ones.

No.

They must

No.

let a calibrated

No.

fraction of potentially useful

No.

ones past the checks.


No.


Perhaps you should read the article to see what is going on. Small
local errors - the most common ones - are usually fixed before they lead
to big errors. That\'s all. It\'s useful, and is part of why life is
stable and can support the kind of reproduction seen in many eukaryotes.
But there is nothing calculating about it, nothing that predicts useful
or dangerous effects.

No is your mantra. Maybe is mine.

I reply \"yes\" to most people in this kind of thread. Your posts stand
out as extraordinarily silly and ignorant, so you pick up a lot of no\'s.

Would you feel better if I wrote \"/Yes/, you failed to read the article.
/Maybe/ you haven\'t a clue what you are writing about\" ?

When you make a comment that is less sensible than \"Maybe the moon is
made of green cheese\", the sane response is \"No.\" If you want a \"yes\",
write something that isn\'t idiotic. (And yes, you sometimes /do/ write
things that aren\'t idiotic, and you sometimes get a \"yes\" in reply. It
doesn\'t happen much in the biology threads.)

 

[David Brown]

On 14/02/2022 17:05, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 14:53:43 +0000, Martin Brown
\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

..........

Established church tended to be into burning heretics and their books.
New knowledge conflicting with scripture was viewed as very dangerous by
the authorities. US YEC\'s still haven\'t got out of those Dark Ages.

The \"Genesis is a literal description of creation\" is a modern idea -
young earthers, like flat earthers, are not people that never left the
Dark Ages, they are people who have chosen to re-enter it. Until people
started finding geological proof that the earth is old, and Darwin and
others (before and afterwards) began to understand evolution, few people
really thought about the creation of the earth in any kind of real
sense. Theologians of the day knew fine that Genesis was not a literal
record of creation - they could see perfectly well that it contains two
contradictory accounts and thus literalism cannot possibly make sense.

But modern science and technology developed mainly in Christian
countries. The Jesuits have been great scientists and mathematicians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jesuit_scientists

Europe was dragged kicking and screaming out of the dark ages by the
Islamic scholars. India and China were /way/ ahead for a long time.
But in the past few centuries the west took over.

However, it was not /because/ of the Christian church, it is mainly
/despite/ it. For a long time, scientists in the west were all
religious - part of that was that saying anything could get your badly
burned, literally or at least metaphorically. And since education was
in the hands of the church, and education is required for real progress
in science, there was a strong overlap for a while. As long as the
scientists did not contradict the church (this was Martin\'s point), that
was fine.

The real point is that, as the Enlightenment and modern science
advanced, the church stepped aside.

Yes.

Science really took off in the west took off after the enlightenment,
when people started questioning the church teachings a lot more. But
the church still provided the backbone of higher education for a long
time. (Not least was the teaching of Latin, giving educated people a
common language.)

I would not say the church \"stepped aside\" - it would be more accurate
to say they were pushed aside. It was not a voluntary process on the
part of the church.

Le Sage doesn\'t really work, but there is no point in arguing with you
about this since you don\'t actually understand relativity at all. That
seems to be a big failing in many electrical engineering courses.

I think that all EEs take a couple of physics courses. I took two, but
they didn\'t get to QM and relativity. That\'s not a \"failing\", as
relativity is not used much in electronic design.

The big failing in modern EE courses is too much easily-forgotten
mathematical rigor and too little development of electrical instincts.

I have seen that in EE graduates too.

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 22:03:46 +0100, Sjouke Burry
<burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> wrote:

On 11.02.22 21:36, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:46:05 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

On 2022-02-11 14:12, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 06:54:29 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

How life came to Earth ?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/02/220210125828.htm
quantum tunneling?

The problem of life isn\'t coming up with small molecular building
blocks, it\'s the astoundingly complex mechanism by which DNA works in
a cell and reproduces itself. It\'s not so much a chemistry problem as
a programming problem.


It\'s astoundingly complex now, yes, but it can\'t have been in the beginning.

It had to be. DNA style reproduction is incredibly recursively
complex. Nobody has explained how that self-defining complexity could
have happened from a puddle of primordial soup. Lots of biologists
have calculated the probability as indistingishable from impossible.

Until someone does show how it could have happened, without
intelligent intervention, robots from outer space, or some master
designer, are as legit a theory as spontaneous generation.

And how did the master designer come about?

By magic?

Spontaneous self-creation?

Spores dropping from space? (and how did they come about?)

As I have noted, non-DNA life could have evolved in a more incremental
way in a different environment. Then it invented us.

Consider possibilities. Or sneer.

Obviously something very impressive happened.

--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

 

[David Brown]

On 14/02/2022 17:10, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 18:28:45 +0100, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 13/02/2022 17:24, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 12:30:34 +0100, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 12/02/2022 18:03, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 17:43:55 +0100, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 12/02/2022 16:45, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 16:21:54 +0100, David Brown

But like most people who misunderstand science in general, and biology
in particular, you mix up evolution and abiogenesis.

Not a bit. But \"The Science\" of both is incomplete. There remains room
for discovery.


Science is /always/ incomplete. That\'s part of the point.

Then Science should be cautious about concensus and certainty,
especially about things that are unexplained and not subject to
repeatable experiment.


It is.


Merely claiming that you understand things does not make it true - your
ignorance shines through in your posts. There is no more evidence to
your understanding than there is evidence to your \"ideas\".

You claim to understand the origin of life.

No, I don\'t - I claim to understand part of the picture, but far from
all of it. (Or rather, I claim /science/ understands part of it - I try
to keep up with information about the field, but I am not a biologist
myself.)

I speculate precisely
because I don\'t understand it. Nobody does.

And therein lies your problem. I agree that no one has the full
picture. But you understand a great deal less than scientists in the
field - indeed, a great deal less than most people discussing in this
thread. You are not qualified to speculate.

That\'s hilarious. \"Not qualified to speculate.\"

Was Einstein qualified to speculate? Newton? Wegener? Mendel?

Yes.

You are not. (At least, not in biology. Perhaps you are qualified to
speculate in electronics, or cooking.)

Where did the program come from that makes DNA function and
sysnthesize the insanely complex systems that support and replicate
it?


What would be the point in my explaining this all /again/ ?


If you believe you have something useful to contribute about electronics
(and I don\'t doubt that), stick to that. Come back to the science or
biology threads when you are willing to learn something.

You snipped my question: why do you post to SED? Is it yet another
venue to insult people?

I don\'t come here to insult people. I sometimes call out stupid posts
for what they are. Most others don\'t see my posts as insulting, as most
other people don\'t post the kind of bizarre and absurd \"ideas\" that you
are so fond of. (There are other posters here who post some far worse
stuff, but they are beyond all hope of redemption. I still hope that
one day you will learn to understand evolution.)

Are you a biologist?

I am an interested amateur, without formal higher education in the
subject. In this group, there are a fair number of amateur biologists,
leading to interesting discussions.

Do you design electronics?

I haven\'t done much electronics design for quite some time - there are
others at my company who do it more efficiently, and I have more than
enough other tasks (mostly software related). I rarely get involved in
electronics discussions here, simply because the kind of electronics I
work with doesn\'t come up much - control systems and digital electronics
is usually quite easy. I don\'t have the education or interest in the
kind of electronics that benefits from discussion, such as more
complicated analogue stuff. I have neither the theoretical background
nor the experience to contribute much. (On some electronics threads, I
read with interest despite not posting.)

Like most people in this group, I come for the chatter.

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 22:51:58 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

On 2022-02-11 21:36, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:46:05 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

On 2022-02-11 14:12, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 06:54:29 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

How life came to Earth ?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/02/220210125828.htm
quantum tunneling?

The problem of life isn\'t coming up with small molecular building
blocks, it\'s the astoundingly complex mechanism by which DNA works in
a cell and reproduces itself. It\'s not so much a chemistry problem as
a programming problem.


It\'s astoundingly complex now, yes, but it can\'t have been in the beginning.

It had to be. DNA style reproduction is incredibly recursively
complex. Nobody has explained how that self-defining complexity could
have happened from a puddle of primordial soup. Lots of biologists
have calculated the probability as indistingishable from impossible.

Until someone does show how it could have happened, without
intelligent intervention, robots from outer space, or some master
designer, are as legit a theory as spontaneous generation.


I see no need for that hypothesis. Peptides have a tendency to chain
in complementary pairs, and those chains will separate and then make
new complements if the conditions are right. It certainly started off
quite inefficiently, but it gradually got better at it. That, and
evolution, was all that was needed.

DNA can\'t evolve until DNA exists, with the recipes to make itself and
all its support and reproductive systems. A little polymerization
won\'t do that.

The initial conditions haven\'t quite been nailed down, is true.

Not quite!

Also, the evolution of intelligent life --as we know it-- isn\'t
very likely. Only one species out of several million on this earth
made it that far, and that only just.

If life is created spontaneously, it must have happened on a trillion
planets across the universe, billions of years ago. That has
possibilities.

Jeroen Belleman
--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 16:57:12 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 12:36:50 -0800, John Larkin
jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:46:05 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

On 2022-02-11 14:12, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 06:54:29 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

How life came to Earth ?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/02/220210125828.htm
quantum tunneling?

The problem of life isn\'t coming up with small molecular building
blocks, it\'s the astoundingly complex mechanism by which DNA works in
a cell and reproduces itself. It\'s not so much a chemistry problem as
a programming problem.


It\'s astoundingly complex now, yes, but it can\'t have been in the beginning.

It had to be. DNA style reproduction is incredibly recursively
complex. Nobody has explained how that self-defining complexity could
have happened from a puddle of primordial soup. Lots of biologists
have calculated the probability as indistingishable from impossible.

Until someone does show how it could have happened, without
intelligent intervention, robots from outer space, or some master
designer, are as legit a theory as spontaneous generation.

It\'s pretty likely that life began with RNA and eventually proteins et
al. DNA came far later, from the RNA world. Much of the ancient RNA
word still exists, as the underlying machinery of modern DNA-based
critters.

Joe Gwinn

Is there any RNA life around now, independent of DNA? Where did it go?

Some lab jock should invent some.

--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:02:31 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 12:37:05 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

DNA style reproduction is incredibly recursively
complex. Nobody has explained how that self-defining complexity could
have happened from a puddle of primordial soup. Lots of biologists
have calculated the probability as indistingishable from impossible.

Biologists aren\'t successful at a calculation? So?

Until someone does show how it could have happened, without
intelligent intervention, robots from outer space, or some master
designer, are as legit a theory as spontaneous generation.

Oh, no; theories are valued for a reason: they\'re applicable, useful, consequential.
A theory can be rich (making predictions), or not; it can be provable (like a mathematical
theorem) or not; it can be broad (connect many events or phenomena together).
It should, in science, at least be testable (rich with consequential predictions).


The value of a hypothesis \'an incident of implantation occurred\' in explaining
observations is nil. We can\'t make that generate a useful or testable result, and
it\'s not generating any predictions, isn\'t provable, and doesn\'t connect to anything
except a disparate bunch of mystics and religions (who claim connection to...
everything anyhow).

You are demonstrating that anti-theology inhibits even speculating
about alternates to spontaneous generation in promordial soup.

I dare you to suggest something else.

--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 20:11:46 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 14/02/2022 16:51, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 18:24:13 +0100, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 13/02/2022 16:50, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 07:19:58 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 12 Feb 2022 15:19:00 -0800 (PST)) it happened Anthony
William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
fb8fcd39-787c-4c26-b366-eb511aa8fabcn@googlegroups.com>:

Why evolution didn\'t come up with error-detecting and -correcting codes as well
(or instead) is an even more interesting question.

Actually it did
https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-replication-and-causes-of-mutation-409/

Cool.

It is. Maybe you should read the article to see how cool.

It follows

No.

that the repair mechanisms distinguish

No.

between uselesss/fatal mutations

No.

and potentially useful ones.

No.

They must

No.

let a calibrated

No.

fraction of potentially useful

No.

ones past the checks.


No.


Perhaps you should read the article to see what is going on. Small
local errors - the most common ones - are usually fixed before they lead
to big errors. That\'s all. It\'s useful, and is part of why life is
stable and can support the kind of reproduction seen in many eukaryotes.
But there is nothing calculating about it, nothing that predicts useful
or dangerous effects.

No is your mantra. Maybe is mine.


I reply \"yes\" to most people in this kind of thread. Your posts stand
out as extraordinarily silly and ignorant, so you pick up a lot of no\'s.

Would you feel better if I wrote \"/Yes/, you failed to read the article.
/Maybe/ you haven\'t a clue what you are writing about\" ?

When you make a comment that is less sensible than \"Maybe the moon is
made of green cheese\", the sane response is \"No.\" If you want a \"yes\",
write something that isn\'t idiotic. (And yes, you sometimes /do/ write
things that aren\'t idiotic, and you sometimes get a \"yes\" in reply. It
doesn\'t happen much in the biology threads.)

Are you a biologist? Do you know one?

I took a biologist to lunch today.

--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 2:56:47 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 11:03:10 +0000, Martin Brown<\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 14/02/2022 16:05, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 14:53:43 +0000, Martin Brown <\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad..co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

The big failing in modern EE courses is too much easily-forgotten
mathematical rigor and too little development of electrical instincts.

I\'m not convinced that at least some of the mathematical rigour isn\'t
necessary if you are going to design things that will work well. I think
much more important is knowing when and how to make approximations that
will be good enough for engineering purposes. I have a small collection
of very cute ones that make otherwise intractable problems into
something you can solve approximately with at most a cubic equation.

I think that the math should be immediately connected to lab
experiments. Kids should solve the differential equations and
immediately see the solutions on oscilloscopes, from circuits that
they build themselves.

Nobody that I know actually solves differential equations or computes Fourier series.

Phil Hobbs would be able to do both if he needed to, but that makes him more competent than you are, and you don\'t like to think about that.

> The interesting de\'s are nonlinear anyhow. We should *feel* the equations.. You can feel the solution to a nonlinear de a lot faster than you can solve it.

That might might be true for you, since your skill set clearly doesn\'t include \"solving \" non-linear differential equations.

It probably isn\'t true for people who paid more attention during their university education, or for people who learned to get educated by reading the literature.

> We actually simulate everything. The design methodology becomes instinct and simulation, and the kids aren\'t getting much instinct these days.

Instincts can\'t be taught. What you actually means is that you don\'t like thinking about what you are doing and leave the processing to your subconscious.

> But then many kids are getting EE degrees these days.

And you haven\'t got a clue what they are being taught, and would resent it if they told you that there was an easier and more reliable way of getting the results that you insist of getting by running lots of simulations (where you don\'t seem to be too picky about specifying all the parameters of the parts you are simulating - as in inductors without parallel capacitance).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 20:27:03 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 14/02/2022 17:05, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 14:53:43 +0000, Martin Brown
\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

..........

Established church tended to be into burning heretics and their books.
New knowledge conflicting with scripture was viewed as very dangerous by
the authorities. US YEC\'s still haven\'t got out of those Dark Ages.


The \"Genesis is a literal description of creation\" is a modern idea -
young earthers, like flat earthers, are not people that never left the
Dark Ages, they are people who have chosen to re-enter it. Until people
started finding geological proof that the earth is old, and Darwin and
others (before and afterwards) began to understand evolution, few people
really thought about the creation of the earth in any kind of real
sense. Theologians of the day knew fine that Genesis was not a literal
record of creation - they could see perfectly well that it contains two
contradictory accounts and thus literalism cannot possibly make sense.

But modern science and technology developed mainly in Christian
countries. The Jesuits have been great scientists and mathematicians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jesuit_scientists

Europe was dragged kicking and screaming out of the dark ages by the
Islamic scholars. India and China were /way/ ahead for a long time.
But in the past few centuries the west took over.

The Islamic and Chinese science was not dissiminated, didn\'t become
beneficial technology, like western science did. Partially because we
printed a lot of books.

However, it was not /because/ of the Christian church, it is mainly
/despite/ it.

For a long time, scientists in the west were all

religious - part of that was that saying anything could get your badly
burned, literally or at least metaphorically. And since education was
in the hands of the church, and education is required for real progress
in science, there was a strong overlap for a while. As long as the
scientists did not contradict the church (this was Martin\'s point), that
was fine.


The real point is that, as the Enlightenment and modern science
advanced, the church stepped aside.


Yes.

Science really took off in the west took off after the enlightenment,
when people started questioning the church teachings a lot more. But
the church still provided the backbone of higher education for a long
time. (Not least was the teaching of Latin, giving educated people a
common language.)

One reason printing flourished was to print a lot of bibles. One
reason literacy advanced was so people could read them.

I would not say the church \"stepped aside\" - it would be more accurate
to say they were pushed aside. It was not a voluntary process on the
part of the church.




Le Sage doesn\'t really work, but there is no point in arguing with you
about this since you don\'t actually understand relativity at all. That
seems to be a big failing in many electrical engineering courses.

I think that all EEs take a couple of physics courses. I took two, but
they didn\'t get to QM and relativity. That\'s not a \"failing\", as
relativity is not used much in electronic design.

The big failing in modern EE courses is too much easily-forgotten
mathematical rigor and too little development of electrical instincts.


I have seen that in EE graduates too.

--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

 

[server]

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in
news:7045ece3-cdfe-4320-a5f9-7e2b4b3bf037n@googlegroups.com:

On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:40:06 AM UTC-8,
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:35:22 -0800,
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

I can\'t build a reasonable board that would absorb energy during
acceleration and return it during deceleration,

Actually, we could. It would be a pain, so I hope my customers
don\'t find that feature appealing.

To absorb energy during acceleration, a flywheel. To return
energy during deceleration... a flywheel.

Not sure why electronics would be involved. Mass would be my
first go-to solution.

That flywheel is the battery. Regenerative braking systems dump
energy into the battery charging it up some. No need to spool up a
flywheel. Trains do it into big resistor banks because they do not
care about getting the juice back.

 

[server]

On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 19:06:14 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 11:59:12 AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 11:32:43 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:40:06 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:35:22 -0800, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

I can\'t build a reasonable board that would absorb energy during
acceleration and return it during deceleration,

Actually, we could. It would be a pain, so I hope my customers don\'t
find that feature appealing.

To absorb energy during acceleration, a flywheel. To return energy during
deceleration... a flywheel.

Not sure why electronics would be involved. Mass would be my first go-to solution.
It wouldn\'t fit on a PC board. And we want all the parameters to be
programmable.

Oh, it\'s a simulator. So, the reaction against which the motive power is exerted
includes the equivilant of m*a, which is d/dt (angular momentum). It\'d be a poor
model for motor startup if it didn\'t have current surges then.

Torque motors act like three-phase steppers.

If there\'s any switchmode
character to the power source,

The drivers are usually three pwm half-bridges, chopping in the 10 to
maybe 30 KHz range.

the reaction is also important in preventing spurious

ultrasound responses to high frequency parts of the drive signal. You\'ll probably
want to have a programmable load subroutine for things like rotor mass, and velocity-squared
drag if there\'s a fan cooling the motor. These are internal \'force\' elements, just as real as
usable external torque.

What\'s cool is that after 238 hen-clucky off-topic posts in this
thread, a single mention of real electronics silences the coop.



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 2:56:14 PM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 19:06:14 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 11:59:12 AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 11:32:43 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:40:06 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:35:22 -0800, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

I can\'t build a reasonable board that would absorb energy during
acceleration and return it during deceleration,

Actually, we could. It would be a pain, so I hope my customers don\'t
find that feature appealing.

To absorb energy during acceleration, a flywheel. To return energy during
deceleration... a flywheel.

Not sure why electronics would be involved. Mass would be my first go-to solution.

It wouldn\'t fit on a PC board. And we want all the parameters to be
programmable.

Oh, it\'s a simulator. So, the reaction against which the motive power is exerted
includes the equivilant of m*a, which is d/dt (angular momentum). It\'d be a poor
model for motor startup if it didn\'t have current surges then.

Torque motors act like three-phase steppers.

Three phase steppers are just one more form of synchronous motor. More coils just let you smooth out the torque as the shaft rotates across the coils.

If there\'s any switchmode character to the power source,

The drivers are usually three pwm half-bridges, chopping in the 10 to maybe 30 KHz range.

The reaction is also important in preventing spurious ultrasound responses to high frequency parts of the drive signal. You\'ll probably want to have a programmable load subroutine for things like rotor mass, and velocity-squared drag if there\'s a fan cooling the motor. These are internal \'force\' elements, just as real as usable external torque.

What\'s cool is that after 238 hen-clucky off-topic posts in this thread, a single mention of real electronics silences the coop.

Since the \"real electronics\" was totally irrelevant to the subject line, this shouldn\'t come as a surprise. The more relevant posts probably did come across as \"hen-clucking\" to you, since you don\'t know enough about the subject to make sense of them, and consequently produced a lot of clucks about DNA which looks as if it was grafted on to what started off as a system where all the program data was held as RNA sequences.

It may look \"cool\" to you, but your point of view is predicated on finding situations where your rather limited comprehension might get admired.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 12/02/22 00:10, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 22:03:46 +0100, Sjouke Burry
burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> wrote:

On 11.02.22 21:36, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:46:05 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

On 2022-02-11 14:12, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 06:54:29 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

How life came to Earth ?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/02/220210125828.htm
quantum tunneling?

The problem of life isn\'t coming up with small molecular building
blocks, it\'s the astoundingly complex mechanism by which DNA works in
a cell and reproduces itself. It\'s not so much a chemistry problem as
a programming problem.


It\'s astoundingly complex now, yes, but it can\'t have been in the beginning.

It had to be. DNA style reproduction is incredibly recursively
complex. Nobody has explained how that self-defining complexity could
have happened from a puddle of primordial soup. Lots of biologists
have calculated the probability as indistingishable from impossible.

Until someone does show how it could have happened, without
intelligent intervention, robots from outer space, or some master
designer, are as legit a theory as spontaneous generation.

And how did the master designer come about?

By magic?

Spontaneous self-creation?

Spores dropping from space? (and how did they come about?)

As I have noted, non-DNA life could have evolved in a more incremental
way in a different environment. Then it invented us.

Consider possibilities. Or sneer.

Obviously something very impressive happened.

Have you seriously considered the flying spaghetti monster?

It is very impressive, and there\'s no evidence it is DNA-based.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 4:02:27 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 16:42:33 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 11/02/22 15:39, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:25:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 11 Feb 2022 05:12:01 -0800) it happened jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in <lonc0h1l5k6a9tbn0...@4ax.com>:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 06:54:29 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

How life came to Earth ?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/02/220210125828.htm
quantum tunneling?

The problem of life isn\'t coming up with small molecular building
blocks, it\'s the astoundingly complex mechanism by which DNA works in
a cell and reproduces itself. It\'s not so much a chemistry problem as
a programming problem.

Our form of life was almost certainly designed and planted on earth.

For John Larkin\'s value of \"almost certain\" which is to say it is the delusion of an ignorant idiot.

> >>>> And yes, it\'s quantum mechanical.

Everything else is. Life is certainly no exception. It\'s not a useful observation.

The article describes how the basic chemicals needed for RNA an DNA could form in space.

If you say \'was designed\' you get into a loop,
start:
\'who or what designed it, and who or what designed that...
goto start

It could have been designed by some intelligence that had a less
complex, more incremental evolutionary path. Something that evolved
billions of years before earth formed.

It is conceivable, but they\'d have to be truly rotten designers if that were true.

> >> If you believe in evolution, you will give that a fair consideration.

We do, and there\'s not a shred of evidence that makes it any kind of useful hypothesis. Name one feature of life as we know it that we might be able to explain if, and only if, the system that we\'ve got had been \"designed\". Note that John Larki has rather odd ideas about what might constitute \"design\".

OK.
0.1s interval
Jan has already addressed that, you\'ve ignored it or not
understood it, viz:
\'who or what designed it, and who or what designed that...\'

If you believe in spontaneous generation and evolution, you might
consider that life should have evolved in billions of places in the
universe, billions of years ago.

Nobody believes in \"spontaneous generation\" any more. Pasteur put paid to that.

We know that life - as we know it - appeared on earth a couple of billion years ago. Life - as we know it - depends on elements far enough up the periodic table that they weren\'t around in the early universe until they\'d been generated in stars that went supernova and spread them around.

The sun is sufficiently \"metal rich\" to have to be at least a second generation star. Astronomers class any element heavier that hydrogen and helium as a \"metal\" which isn\'t how most people use the term.

It may be that the universe had to wait a few billion years before there were metal-rich stars around with planets on which life could evolve, and it got going here relatively early. It certainly took another few billion years before we evolved to start thinking about what might have been going on.

> Give that another 100 milliseconds of thought before you dismiss it.

It doesn\'t take that long in anybody with a functional brain, and access to the relevant information. John Larkin\'s brain more or less works, but he doesn\'t know much.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney