OT: How life came to Earth...

[server]

Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
news:su9k35$ugc$2@dont-email.me:

On 12/02/22 22:56, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 4:04:08 AM UTC+11,
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Design something, post it, and we can discuss it.

John Larkin plays what he imagines to be his \"get out of jail for
free\" card.

The key word there is \"imagines\".

His statement doesn\'t fool the rest of us.

When I was living in Virginia, I was doing work for various three
letter agencies in a $500k research lab in my Boss\' basement.

Larkin is a dork because he has no grasp of what the main courses
of discourse in these groups are, despite the group\'s name. Many
Usenet news groups are the same.

When cornered, he likes to act as if he is \"The scheme police\",
presumeably as a diversion. Similar to how certain politicians
behave.

We pass time here. There are on topic discussions and posts but we
do not get in their way and they do not get in ours unless one is a
pedantic antisocial twerp.

It is a quantum thing. Upon observation he breaks down. Upon our
observation of him we break down. It\'s all one big fat crappy
breakdown.

He probably ate too much Jimson weed too many times at his frat
house.

 

[server]

On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 15:24:56 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 15/02/2022 14:04, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 09:08:33 +0100, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 14/02/2022 22:43, John Larkin wrote:

I took a biologist to lunch today.


And you think that means you know biology?

You\'re not a biologist, and furthermore you weren\'t there.

We talked about DNA and Thai food and stuff.

I have no idea how much or how little you know about Thai food. You
could be an excellent Thai cook or food critic for all I know (or care).

Everyone here realises that you have many major gaps and faults in your
understanding of evolution and DNA.

Major gaps! Good grief, nobody understands how DNA life originated. Or
how cells or brains work. But it\'s all encoded in DNA.

DNA is encoded in DNA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9ArIJWYZHI



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[server]

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 01:29:38 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 11/02/2022 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.


This is all just the \"watchmaker argument\", wrapped up in
pseudo-scientific nonsense about alien robots and quantum mechanics.

Nobody thinks the first lifeforms on earth were DNA-based.

Than someone should find or make a non-DNA life form.

Most likely, they were RNA-based - or something similar. It could have
been a somewhat simpler nucleic acid, and it was not necessarily exactly
the same nucleobases that we have now. And yes, many bits and pieces of
the chemicals involved have been found in space, or produced chemically
in simulated early earth conditions. It is entirely reasonable to
suppose that they came about chemically.

All you need is faith.



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[server]

On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 15:42:11 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 15/02/2022 14:30, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 09:35:13 +0100, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 14/02/2022 22:52, John Larkin wrote:
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.


The Chinese were printing books in large quantities many hundreds of
years before it was even imagined in Europe. Their books were in
Chinese, for use in China - they did not spread.

Islamic scholarship and science formed the foundation of Western science
and technology. As well as their own developments, the Islamic scholars
collected, preserved and translated writings from the ancient Greeks and
Romans, Jews, Indian scientists and mathematicians, and others.

European scholarship, outside of insane theological debates, started
when European scholars visited the Islamic world to learn.

But you are right that the Gutenberg press meant that the new learning
could be spread faster in Europe. And Europeans were much better and
more enthusiastic at turning the science into practical technology for
killing and oppressing other people that they viewed as inferior.



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.


Literacy rates were much lower in Europe than the Islamic empire. It
took a long time after the Gutenberg press before literacy became common
in Europe - in particular, when Bibles became available in common
languages rather than Latin, the Protestant Church (unlike the Catholic
Church) encouraged people to read it themselves. Meanwhile, back in the
Islamic world, literacy was extremely common - as it had been in Roman
times prior to the dark ages.

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


That does not include historical rates, which would be the interesting
figures.

(not that those numbers are entirely believable. 100% is impossible.)


You can come very close. But often it depends on how the counting is
done, and countries vary in that respect (despite UN attempts at
standardising). A certain proportion of the population will be unable
to learn to read and write competently, due to handicaps, very low
intelligence, or extreme dyslexia. You will get closer to 100% if you
only count people who should be able to read and write, omitting these
groups - or if you are a country like North Korea where such people just
\"disappear\" and the state denies they ever existed.


The collapse of the Western Roman Empire ended of the supply of paper
from North Africa into Europe, leading to a massive decline in European
literacy. It turns out that having cheap stuff to write on was vastly
more important for literacy than any old book or religion.

There\'s no dispute that things were bad once everywhere. The
remarkable point is that western culture basically invented progress.


Pure and utter nonsense.

There\'s no doubt that Western culture has lead science and technology
for the past few hundred years, and that the pace has increased during
that time. Equally, there is no doubt that \"progress\" has been made
ever since the first person thought it would be a good idea to help food
plants grow in one place rather than moving around all the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnVAq9k85gI

(I haven\'t looked at that - perhaps I will later.)


Google Street View is cool. Towns and cities all over the world look
like Dallas and its burbs, paved streets with SUVs and power poles and
boring houses and all. Lots of signs in English.

The biggest change in human history was electrification.


The turning point for the west was /steam/, not electricity.

Steam didn\'t power washing machines or lights or anything in common
residences. Electricity distributes energy to the population, whether
it comes from steam or hydro or solar cells.

Big factories abandoned steam as soon as they could get electricity.
Steam doesn\'t distribute well.

Electric washing machines made an enormous difference to women. It
freed them from hours of nasty labor per day.

The giant factor that brings people out of extreme poverty is
electrification.



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[server]

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 00:44:26 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 13/02/22 00:29, David Brown wrote:
On 11/02/2022 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.


This is all just the \"watchmaker argument\", wrapped up in
pseudo-scientific nonsense about alien robots and quantum mechanics.

Just so.

I\'ve previously pointed John to \"The Blind Watchmaker\", and
he indicated he would read it.

There is no indication that he has read it - or if he has,
then he hasn\'t understood it.

I read some of it. It\'s a lot of repetition. And a lot of hand waving.





--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[whit3rd]

On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 7:54:26 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 01:29:38 +0100, David Brown
david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:

Nobody thinks the first lifeforms on earth were DNA-based.

Than someone should find or make a non-DNA life form.

Finding modern life forms is easy. Finding ancient ones, which have survived
to modern times, is like looking for last year\'s Xmas cookies.

Usually, someone has eaten those already.

 

[server]

On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 16:08:43 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 15/02/2022 14:40, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:51:40 +0000, Martin Brown
\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:





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

Yes. It didn\'t go away. Plenty of common viruses are RNA based.

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

No. RNA viruses are manufactured by DNA.

Retroviruses insert their genes into the cell\'s DNA, and thus use DNA as
an intermediary. Other RNA viruses do not - the RNA is copied directly
using RNA enzymes supplied by the virus itself. The animo acids,
lipids, RNA bases, etc., that are used as raw material are created by
the DNA-based host, but that doesn\'t matter. The virus doesn\'t care if
they were made by a DNA-based host, an RNA-based host, or an alien robot.

We have not found any organisms alive today that are not DNA-based. RNA
viruses are the nearest we have (and there are lots of them), but
viruses have no metabolism. (Some biologists classify viruses as
\"living organisms\", but most do not - it\'s a matter of your choice of
definition.)

It is reasonable to hypothesise that RNA-based lifeforms existed in the
past.

I don\'t call your unproven and unlikely conjectures stupid or
ignorant. So why do you call mine stupid and ignorant?

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

That not much crazier than the primordial soup thing.



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[server]

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in
news:930d85f7-5249-442a-abf2-eba4847aba6an@googlegroups.com:

On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 7:54:26 PM UTC-8,
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 01:29:38 +0100, David Brown
david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:

Nobody thinks the first lifeforms on earth were DNA-based.

Than someone should find or make a non-DNA life form.

Finding modern life forms is easy. Finding ancient ones, which
have survived to modern times, is like looking for last year\'s
Xmas cookies.

Usually, someone has eaten those already.

Tardigrade... over 500 million years old and counting... that we know
of.

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 13/2/22 2:54 pm, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 01:29:38 +0100, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 11/02/2022 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.


This is all just the \"watchmaker argument\", wrapped up in
pseudo-scientific nonsense about alien robots and quantum mechanics.

Nobody thinks the first lifeforms on earth were DNA-based.


Than someone should find or make a non-DNA life form.

I posted here just a couple of months ago about complex self-replicating
molecules (that self-align to form something very like *cell walls*)
recently found in the edges of geothermal springs. Once a bubble like
this can form a boundary between inside and outside, it can isolate
other processes from the outside world, providing a framework that could
(conceptually) easily evolve into a self-reproducing organism. That
seems to be the most likely way that life got started, to my mind.

But it didn\'t fit your mindset so you ignored it, just as you ignore all
the other science that discredits your fantasies. Just as you\'ll
probably ignore it again now, or scoff at it. I\'m not even going to
repost the URL, because you don\'t care. You can find it in my recent
post anyhow.

CH

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 15/02/22 15:48, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 15:42:11 +0100, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 15/02/2022 14:30, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 09:35:13 +0100, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 14/02/2022 22:52, John Larkin wrote:
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.


The Chinese were printing books in large quantities many hundreds of
years before it was even imagined in Europe. Their books were in
Chinese, for use in China - they did not spread.

Islamic scholarship and science formed the foundation of Western science
and technology. As well as their own developments, the Islamic scholars
collected, preserved and translated writings from the ancient Greeks and
Romans, Jews, Indian scientists and mathematicians, and others.

European scholarship, outside of insane theological debates, started
when European scholars visited the Islamic world to learn.

But you are right that the Gutenberg press meant that the new learning
could be spread faster in Europe. And Europeans were much better and
more enthusiastic at turning the science into practical technology for
killing and oppressing other people that they viewed as inferior.



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.


Literacy rates were much lower in Europe than the Islamic empire. It
took a long time after the Gutenberg press before literacy became common
in Europe - in particular, when Bibles became available in common
languages rather than Latin, the Protestant Church (unlike the Catholic
Church) encouraged people to read it themselves. Meanwhile, back in the
Islamic world, literacy was extremely common - as it had been in Roman
times prior to the dark ages.

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


That does not include historical rates, which would be the interesting
figures.

(not that those numbers are entirely believable. 100% is impossible.)


You can come very close. But often it depends on how the counting is
done, and countries vary in that respect (despite UN attempts at
standardising). A certain proportion of the population will be unable
to learn to read and write competently, due to handicaps, very low
intelligence, or extreme dyslexia. You will get closer to 100% if you
only count people who should be able to read and write, omitting these
groups - or if you are a country like North Korea where such people just
\"disappear\" and the state denies they ever existed.


The collapse of the Western Roman Empire ended of the supply of paper
from North Africa into Europe, leading to a massive decline in European
literacy. It turns out that having cheap stuff to write on was vastly
more important for literacy than any old book or religion.

There\'s no dispute that things were bad once everywhere. The
remarkable point is that western culture basically invented progress.


Pure and utter nonsense.

There\'s no doubt that Western culture has lead science and technology
for the past few hundred years, and that the pace has increased during
that time. Equally, there is no doubt that \"progress\" has been made
ever since the first person thought it would be a good idea to help food
plants grow in one place rather than moving around all the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnVAq9k85gI

(I haven\'t looked at that - perhaps I will later.)


Google Street View is cool. Towns and cities all over the world look
like Dallas and its burbs, paved streets with SUVs and power poles and
boring houses and all. Lots of signs in English.

The biggest change in human history was electrification.


The turning point for the west was /steam/, not electricity.

Steam didn\'t power washing machines or lights or anything in common
residences. Electricity distributes energy to the population, whether
it comes from steam or hydro or solar cells.

Ah. The \"No true Scotsman\" argument.

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 13:10:26 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 15/02/22 13:08, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 09:11:02 +0100, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 15/02/2022 02:59, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 2:52:14 AM UTC+11,
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
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

It didn\'t.

snip

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.

David Brown wasn\'t using \"no\" as a mantra. He might have explained
how you got it wrong in more detail - I did - but since you don\'t
read that kind of reaction it would have been a waste of time.


I could indeed have gone into detail. I was impressed on the density of
errors in John\'s claim - mistakes and misunderstandings are common, but
it\'s rare to see it taken to such a high level in such a compact statement.

Sloman and Brown. Soul mates.

Of maybe \"great minds think alike\"?

The \"no\" team.

--

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]

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote in
news:sufn22$avo$1@dont-email.me:

On 14/02/2022 22:43, John Larkin wrote:

I took a biologist to lunch today.


And you think that means you know biology? The many years of
education, experience, understanding and interest leapt out of
your lunch companion\'s head and into yours while waiting for your
order to arrive?

That reminds me of someone who claimed to have a \"natural ability\"
for science because his uncle is a \"super genius professor\". Any
guesses who that might have been?

Had he only stayed at a Holiday Inn Express the night before...

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 2:56:45 PM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 00:44:26 +0000, Tom Gardner
spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 13/02/22 00:29, David Brown wrote:
On 11/02/2022 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:

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.


This is all just the \"watchmaker argument\", wrapped up in
pseudo-scientific nonsense about alien robots and quantum mechanics.

Just so.

I\'ve previously pointed John to \"The Blind Watchmaker\", and
he indicated he would read it.

There is no indication that he has read it - or if he has,
then he hasn\'t understood it.

I read some of it. It\'s a lot of repetition. And a lot of hand waving.

That\'s a rather rude way of saying that he couldn\'t understand it.

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

https://www.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp/0393351491?ref_=nav_custrec_signin&

Both sources suggest that a lot of people have a rather higher opinion of it than John Larkin has expressed. It was first published in 1986 and is still in print.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[server]

Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in news:sufnt6$edi$1
@dont-email.me:

On 14/02/22 21:43, John Larkin wrote:
Are you a biologist? Do you know one?

I took a biologist to lunch today.

My daughter took an electronic engineer to lunch last week.

This week I hear she is changing profession to electronics design.

I have a friend who has employed me several times over the years.

BOTH of his daughters are renowned PhDs. One here in the US, and
one over at Oxford. Both of their husbands as well.

Both are extremely hot (or were before the babies started)

The US girl got her PhD in electrical Engineering at MIT and was
one of the prinary inventors of the FinFET. They would not guve her
husband tenure there, so she went to Perdue, where they immediately
gave her tenure and after only about half a decade, she is now the
deputy dean there.

They are way smart, and that is a feat, because their dad is (was)
one of the top RF engineerins in the world. It is truly an amazing
family.
His wife worked for IBM for decades and retired and they still begged
work out of her for another five years.

The MIT PhD started out wanting to do Cosmology, then switched to
Dad\'s field. She excelled!

 

[server]

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
news:719n0h1neb4luq2lrifescc1fdsk6bgu1f@4ax.com:

On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 09:08:33 +0100, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 14/02/2022 22:43, John Larkin wrote:

I took a biologist to lunch today.


And you think that means you know biology?

You\'re not a biologist, and furthermore you weren\'t there.

We talked about DNA and Thai food and stuff.

You\'re not an electronic designer either. Your profession seems to be
\"nasty.\"

Wow... tapped in to the all knowing judge and jury mind, eh, child?

You have a TrumpTainted PhD in ignorance.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

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/

 

[server]

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
news:hc9n0hl5cgfbp7v7vj0g5e01nfu2i03etr@4ax.com:

Sloman and Brown. Soul mates.

Larkin is on an insult rant this year, eh?

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 6:20:41 PM UTC+11, Jan Panteltje 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/

It came up with correction mechanisms, but they aren\'t the error-detecting and correcting codes you find every last hard drive.

They depends adding an extra string of bits to the data string you are storing and retrieving, and can absolutely correct small numbers of errors anywhere in the string data read back, and detect larger numbers of errors so you at least know that you need to discard what you have read back.

The math is neat.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[server]

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
news:up9n0ht43732eccf8v3mfhc02p2l83b4rj@4ax.com:

The biggest change in human history was electrification.

I would say \"fire\" was and is to this day bigger.

Just ask those frozen Texans... oh wait... you can\'t becasue

Cruz and Abbott let them die.

Because fire led to the bronze age and the iron age and the
industrial age and is even essential to the electrical and electronics
age.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sat, 12 Feb 2022 16:16:59 -0800 (PST)) it happened whit3rd
<whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in
<69a7cfcf-5b4f-467f-8535-4fe21c49bc0bn@googlegroups.com>:

Yeah, THAT\'s why we know science isn\'t social; the social pressure
to conform effectively doesn\'t exist in the sciences.

That is - and has been - probably not always the case.

Depends what you call \'science\'
The sun orbiting the earth had a lot of mathematicians create \'epicycles\'
to describe the motion of the planets [grin a bit like string theory these days I\'d think]
until that dogma (earth at center was no longer believed - how many died on fires set by the church
being accused of witchcraft etc..]
It is ALL about social pressure and religious fanaticism.

I can very well understand J Larkin\'s arguments,
but he lacks knowledge on some of the RNA and DNA science (as do I of course).

In todays \'science\' we see strong devotion to ideas from for example Einstein (OneStone in English)
while if you ask \'what is a field other than a mathematical concept?\' things get fishy.

This shows how much more complicated it all is
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/02/220208113945.htm

I like that article very much, my own theories about a Le Sage type particle that is both
carrier of EM radiation and gravity (and does away with Einstein\'s problems) says something similar.
Different state of same thing more fundamental than we have \'shown\' yet.

But I am not going to push that on you poor humans
as you humming beans were brought into the world by storks and I obviously was put here by a flying cup and saucer
oh and so much for life and oh I use lifepo4 batteries...

>How do these errors continue

eeeh
Sunday morning, lots of coding ToDo
Have not even had breakfast yet..