OT: How life came to Earth...

[server]

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:25:29 +1100, Clifford Heath
<no.spam@please.net> wrote:

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.

It would be a numerically remote path from \"very like\" to a DNA based
replicating cell. I\'ve seen calculations like 1 part in 1e150 in the
age of the universe.

It\'s not a chemistry problem, it\'s a programming problem.

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

--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 2:37:37 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

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

On 15/02/2022 14:04, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 09:08:33 +0100, David Brown
david...@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.

Nobody understands exactly how DNA-based life originated, but - looking at the way it works today - it looks very much as if it evolved from RNA-based life, which acquired the capacity to transfer RNA-sequences into the corresponding DNA-sequences, and transfer them back out again.

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

> DNA is encoded in DNA.

<snipped irrelevant video>

I wonder what John thought that might mean. The mechanisms that translate DNA into a RNA are encoded in DNA as part of the genomes of all the cells that do it, but that\'s implicit in the mechanism that allows life as we know it to propagate.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 3:51:35 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 16:25:08 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 15/02/2022 15:07, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 11:38:13 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 15/02/2022 06:02, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 18:00:24 +0000, Tom Gardner

You have had /countless/ explanations and help, with advice,
corrections, references, and facts. But you respond to these by whining
that we don\'t like \"ideas\", or are not \"designers\". You could take the
biology threads in this group over the years and edit it into a book
about evolution - and pretty much all of it has been written to try to
help /you/ understand.

Nobody understands where DNA came from or how it creates people.

Nobody knows exactly where DNA came from, but it;s fairly clear that the DNA-to-RNA process that we have now got added on to a basic RNA system fairly early on it the process of evolving life as we know it.

The DNA that creates people is built into every human egg and sperm, and we know exactly how these two haploid cells combine to form the single cell that developed into each of us. About 30% of those single cells don\'t develop very far at all and become early miss-carriages in the first trimester of pregnancy, which is a bit depressing.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Martin Brown]

On 13/02/2022 16:29, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:25:29 +1100, Clifford Heath
no.spam@please.net> wrote:

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

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.

It would be a numerically remote path from \"very like\" to a DNA based
replicating cell. I\'ve seen calculations like 1 part in 1e150 in the
age of the universe.

It\'s not a chemistry problem, it\'s a programming problem.

It is a lack of imagination problem - yours and the bone heads who did
the daft calculation on the odds of a perfect DNA based cell springing
up from nowhere perfectly formed. If you set out to fail you will!

What you and they are missing is all the scaffold and dead ends explored
between the simplest self replicating molecule that ever formed and the
gradual evolution of ever more complex life over geological timescales.
The Earth sat with single celled not particularly exciting stage for a
long time before more complex cooperative multicellular life evolved.

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


--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 5:01:51 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 13:10:26 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 15/02/22 13:08, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 09:11:02 +0100, David Brown <david...@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>:

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.

There\'s no team effort involved in pointing out that John Larkin has posted ill-informed nonsense. Plenty of people here will point when anybody has posted ill-informed nonsense. John Larkin posts a lot of ill-informed nonsense and seems unwilling to undertake the constructive reaction of getting better informed, and prefers to resent the disrespect which he has earned while staying just as ignorant as he has always been.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[David Brown]

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.

 

[David Brown]

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.

 

[David Brown]

On 13/02/2022 17:51, Martin Brown wrote:

You can haggle about whether or not they are truly alive because they
need to hijack a cell to replicate (at least all the ones I know of do).

There are some viruses that are so simple that they can\'t hijack a
cell\'s replication systems - they hijack another virus\'s hijacking! In
a sense, they are small viruses that infect other large viruses. Fun stuff.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 7:49:15 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 20:12:49 +0100, Jeroen Belleman <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
On 2022-02-15 14:43, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:51:29 +0000, Martin Brown <\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad..co.uk> wrote:
On 13/02/2022 17:31, David Brown wrote:
On 13/02/2022 17:51, Martin Brown wrote:

<snip>

Are you denying evolution???

No, just asking for evidence to support an opinion.

I believe in evolution more than most people.

Sadly, John Larkin doesn\'t understand what evolution is, and what he believes in isn\'t the process that most people describe as evolution.

He seems to have much the same problem with the phrase \"electronic design\".

\"When I use a word,\" Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, \"it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.\"
\"The question is,\" said Alice, \"whether you can make words mean so many different things.\"
\"The question is,\" said Humpty Dumpty, \"which is to be master—that\'s all.\"

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[David Brown]

On 13/02/2022 15:59, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote in news:suarr2$996$1@dont-
email.me:

Bacteria - as we know them today - were not first.

Had you examined the article, you would know that I already knew that.

In the part you skipped, you responded to my point that \"Nobody thinks
the first lifeforms on earth were DNA-based\" by \"Huh? Bacteria were
first.\" Then you mixed things up thoroughly by saying you thought RNA
might have been first.

Given your other posts in this thread, I do think you already knew that
the kind of bacteria we see today were not the first lifeforms, and that
you /do/ understand that RNA-based lifeforms almost certainly preceded
DNA-based lifeforms. But your post looked confusingly like the exact
opposite.

Let\'s chalk this down to miscommunication rather than misunderstanding,
and move on.

 

[server]

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 15:59:41 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 13/02/22 15:36, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:25:29 +1100, Clifford Heath
no.spam@please.net> wrote:

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.


Cartoons of living cells aren\'t life.


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.

What people here are ignoring is the information content of a living,
replicating DNA-based cell. They substitute faith.

AIUI you substitute faith, albeit of a different kind.

Speculation about possibilities, alternates to concensus, is the
opposite of faith. It\'s an admission that we may be wrong.

Try it. Speculate about something. Design. Try to phrase it as
something other than insults, to inspire constructive discussion.
Maybe even on-topic.

One of my daughters is a PhD biologist who has her own DNA consulting
business. She\'s been mentioned in the New York Times. She doesn\'t mock
my ideas, but then she knows I can write her out of my will.



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[server]

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 17:08:24 +0000, Martin Brown
<\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 13/02/2022 16:29, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:25:29 +1100, Clifford Heath
no.spam@please.net> wrote:

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

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.

It would be a numerically remote path from \"very like\" to a DNA based
replicating cell. I\'ve seen calculations like 1 part in 1e150 in the
age of the universe.

It\'s not a chemistry problem, it\'s a programming problem.

It is a lack of imagination problem - yours and the bone heads who did
the daft calculation on the odds of a perfect DNA based cell springing
up from nowhere perfectly formed. If you set out to fail you will!

What you and they are missing is all the scaffold and dead ends explored
between the simplest self replicating molecule that ever formed and the
gradual evolution of ever more complex life over geological timescales.
The Earth sat with single celled not particularly exciting stage for a
long time before more complex cooperative multicellular life evolved.

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

I like the jump from \"water\" to \"earliest known life.\" The rest is
routine.



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sun, 13 Feb 2022 14:53:43 +0000) it happened Martin Brown
<\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote in <sub61n$vcp$1@gioia.aioe.org>:

On 13/02/2022 07:55, Jan Panteltje wrote:
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.

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.

Relativity is very simple.

Too simple as it lacks a mechanism;
Its like electrickety without electrons, and breaks down by definition.
The sad part is the peer reviewed masses parroting it no end without looking for a mechanism.
Mamaticians are the worst, got fixed on divide by zero,
re-normalization, singularities, and the epicycles of course.
There ARE no singularities in nature!
Mamaticians have a lack of understanding of nature, math is just a couple of neurons
in the brain running an incomplete model of nature.
However those mamaticians sell it as the ultimate and only truth.
We neural nets know better,

That
seems to be a big failing in many electrical engineering courses.

Design some electronics and you will see how limited your mamatical theories are in describing reality.

I have seen the first picture of that new telescope, many stars that will become one after the mirrors are aligned.
Nice that it works so far.

Le Sage does not work for particles that are like billiard balls (or snooker balls if you live under Boris),
but it can very well work for a more complicated particle.
In the 5 1/4 floppy days I wrote a simulation that worked.

Einstein had more mind shortcuts, photon was one of those
more a political pawn in the game.

Been coding all day, reached my target, very complex stuff, was not sure I would get it to work,
but already started on phase 2 now, 14 hours at the keyboard.

 

[whit3rd]

On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 10:02:18 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Speculation about possibilities, alternates to concensus, is the
opposite of faith. It\'s an admission that we may be wrong.

Self-centered and misses the point. This isn\'t about speculation, or consensus, or
\'wrong\' (whatever that means), it\'s about the utility of a theory. In the
sciences, a good theory is defined by properties that \'maybe a miracle happened\'
lacks.

If you can\'t see those properties, you cannot appreciate a good theory.
If you don\'t recognize those properties, as is apparently the case,
you generate meaningless badges of validity that you apply to
any random concept. \'John Larkin says it\'s valid\' is thus a tainted brand.

One of my daughters ... doesn\'t mock
my ideas...

But, you imagine that someone here does? No one except you can even
identify the members of the set \'my ideas\'. We make specific statements here
about the IDEAS, that you always ignore. Somehow, though, you
always try to defend the tainted brand.

 

[whit3rd]

On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 12:16:33 PM UTC-8, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Mamaticians are the worst, got fixed on divide by zero,
re-normalization, singularities, and the epicycles of course.
There ARE no singularities in nature!

Black holes.

Trying to claim some mathematics is useless, is missing the point
entirely. You need math because much of it is useful. Singularities
and fractals are messy math, but... that doesn\'t always misfit the world
around us.

There are very important uses of (for instance) eigenvalues, that are not
immediately apparent in nature.

 

[David Brown]

On 13/02/2022 19:01, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

One of my daughters is a PhD biologist who has her own DNA consulting
business. She\'s been mentioned in the New York Times. She doesn\'t mock
my ideas, but then she knows I can write her out of my will.

\"\"\"
Orsino recognised him and smiled. ‘I know who you are,’ he said. ‘How
are you, my good fellow?’

‘To tell you the truth, sir,’ said Feste, ‘all the better for having
enemies and all the worse for having friends.’

Orsino laughed. ‘It’s the opposite.’ he said. ‘The better for your friends.’

‘No, sir, the worse,’ said Feste.

‘How can that be?’

‘Well, sir, they praise me and make an ass of me. Now, my enemies tell
me plainly that I’m an ass, so that, sir, I learn something about myself
from my enemies, while I’m deceived by my friends, so that, comparing
conclusions with kisses, if four negatives make two affirmatives, why
then, I’m worse off having friends and better off having enemies.’
\"\"\"

(From \"Twelfth Night\")



Your daughter is humouring her old da\' and his semi-senile banter.
We\'re more honest in this group.

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 14/2/22 2:36 am, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:25:29 +1100, Clifford Heath
no.spam@please.net> wrote:

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:
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.

Cartoons of living cells aren\'t life.

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.

What people here are ignoring is the information content of a living,
replicating DNA-based cell. They substitute faith.

On the contrary. The discussion here is wrongly fixated on the
information content of DNA, and where that information could have come from.

Before there can be any physical mechanism that self-replicates using
*whatever* coding scheme, the mechanism itself must be enclosed away
from the environment. A \"self/non-self\" distinction must be drawn, and
these bubbles do exactly that. Any chemical environment (such as these
thermal pools) which can spontaneously generate such enclosures allows
the encapsulation of *anything* that aids in the generation of more such
enclosures. The *tiniest* advantage related to the increase in any ionic
or chemical element that enhances the process leads to a proliferation
of that variant.

Such non-coded replication requires no majick injection of encoded
information to start the slow climb up to coded self-replication.

I\'m glad your daughter is polite to you, even though she must be aware
you\'re a lost cause.

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 13/2/22 11:03 pm, Martin Brown wrote:

On 11/02/2022 22:40, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 11/02/22 18:35, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
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).

They will probably be non-thermal radio bright for a century or so
before they blow themselves up with thermonuclear weapons (or worse) if
we are any guide. We have probably been visible to radio telescopes
since over the horizon radar, VHF radio and terrestrial TV. Our signals
will be much harder to decode now we have gone digital - the analogue
ones practically shout their frame rate at anyone who sees it.

Arecibo was pretty good at standing out when it was operating. Anything
in the beam when they were doing TDR imaging off near Earth Asteroids
would know about it if they had similar radio telescopes to us.

Even Arecibo\'s most powerful pulses would be invisible to equipment like
ours beyond about 10,000 light years. That\'s not very far in galactic
terms, and definitely not intergalactic.

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 15/02/22 18:01, John Larkin wrote:

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.

Er, no. That\'s tinfoil hat territory

We don\'t act as a team and correct/argue with each other
when we disagree. It just so happens that we (mostly) agree
on this topic.

 

[server]

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 22:35:20 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 13/02/2022 19:01, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:


One of my daughters is a PhD biologist who has her own DNA consulting
business. She\'s been mentioned in the New York Times. She doesn\'t mock
my ideas, but then she knows I can write her out of my will.




\"\"\"
Orsino recognised him and smiled. ‘I know who you are,’ he said. ‘How
are you, my good fellow?’

‘To tell you the truth, sir,’ said Feste, ‘all the better for having
enemies and all the worse for having friends.’

Orsino laughed. ‘It’s the opposite.’ he said. ‘The better for your friends.’

‘No, sir, the worse,’ said Feste.

‘How can that be?’

‘Well, sir, they praise me and make an ass of me. Now, my enemies tell
me plainly that I’m an ass, so that, sir, I learn something about myself
from my enemies, while I’m deceived by my friends, so that, comparing
conclusions with kisses, if four negatives make two affirmatives, why
then, I’m worse off having friends and better off having enemies.’
\"\"\"

(From \"Twelfth Night\")

The 1997 version, with Imogen Stubbs, HBC, and Ben Kingsley, is one of
my favorite movies.

Your daughter is humouring her old da\' and his semi-senile banter.
We\'re more honest in this group.

No, just more prissy.



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye