Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:46:05 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
On 2022-02-11 14:12, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
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.
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.
On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 22:03:46 +0100, Sjouke Burry <burrynu...@ppllaanneett.nnll> wrote:
On 11.02.22 21:36, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:46:05 +0100, Jeroen Belleman <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
On 2022-02-11 14:12, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 06:54:29 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
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.
On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 22:51:58 +0100, Jeroen Belleman <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
On 2022-02-11 21:36, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:46:05 +0100, Jeroen Belleman <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
On 2022-02-11 14:12, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 06:54:29 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
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.
On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 01:54:08 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 12/02/22 00:10, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 22:03:46 +0100, Sjouke Burry <burrynu...@ppllaanneett.nnll> wrote:
On 11.02.22 21:36, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:46:05 +0100, Jeroen Belleman <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
On 2022-02-11 14:12, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 06:54:29 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
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.
OK, your skill set centers on sneering.
But you\'re not very good at that.
On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:02:31 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 12:37:05 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
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.
On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 18:24:13 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 13/02/2022 16:50, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 07:19:58 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Sat, 12 Feb 2022 15:19:00 -0800 (PST)) it happened Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote in <fb8fcd39-787c-4c26...@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
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.
On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:15:33 +0100, David Brown
david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 14/02/2022 00:51, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 22:35:20 +0100, David Brown
Your daughter is humouring her old da\' and his semi-senile banter.
We\'re more honest in this group.
No, just more prissy.
Enjoy your fantasy world.
I absolutely do! As Phil H says, inventing things is the most fun you
can have standing up.
Just don\'t let your daughter near s.e.d. - reading your posts would be
too embarrassing for her.
She isn\'t interested in electronics. She is interested in DNA and
motorcycles. She\'s a PhD botanist and a certified BMW motorcycle
mechanic. I didn\'t breed any delicate girls.
On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:45:07 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 14/02/2022 01:24, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 00:17:54 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co..uk> wrote:
On 13/02/22 23:54, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:18:25 +1100, Clifford Heath
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 own.
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.
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.
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.
Most of the good ones have already been thought of by someone else.
Occasionally you\'ll have a truly terrible idea and not recognise it
before things go horribly wrong (we all do that sometimes), and
occasionally you\'ll have a really good idea.
Electronic design ideas don\'t go horribly wrong because we review and
test them hard before we develop a product. There is a transition
between generating many wild ideas and applying design and packaging
discipline to one of them. Both functions matter; not many people can
do both.
However, your evaluation filters are broken. You don\'t realise that
most of your ideas are rubbish, so you don\'t filter them out yourself
before opening your mouth and proving yourself a fool.
You would poison a brainstorming session. Imagine if nobody opened their mouths for fear of being called a fool.
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.
It\'s a shame. It makes you look /so/ stupid, so ignorant and unthinking, and also so nasty and unpleasant. I am pretty sure that is an unfair image of you, but it is the impression you give.
Only a few people matter here, and I have met and worked with and drunk beer (or sometimes rum) with most of those.
On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 20:27:03 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 14/02/2022 17:05, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 14:53:43 +0000, Martin Brown <\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad..co.uk> wrote:
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.
On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 20:27:03 +0100, David Brown
david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
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.
What\'s cool is that after 238 hen-clucky off-topic posts in this
thread, a single mention of real electronics silences the coop.