OT: How life came to Earth...

[server]

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.

It seems likely that in the trillions of reactions somehow
some \'executable\' part was formed that was strong enough to maintain itself.
Polymerase chain reaction only needs some temperature cycling to make
copies of say DNA, and temperature cycling happens due to for example the day night changes on planets.

The big problem is DNA itself, which contains the recipes for the
thousands of incredibly complex mechanisms required to make a cell and
support and reproduce DNA. The problem isn\'t chemicals, it\'s
programming.

If there is an evolutionary, incremental path from thin primordial
soup to a living, reproducting cell, then someone should demonstrate
it how it could happen. Without intelligence.

I do not think we are very special at all.

If a trillion robots or equivalent spread chemical life out throughout
the universe, we\'re not.




--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 1:53:57 AM UTC+11, Martin Brown wrote:

On 13/02/2022 07:55, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sat, 12 Feb 2022 16:16:59 -0800 (PST)) it happened whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote in <69a7cfcf-5b4f-467f...@googlegroups.com

snip>

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.

And a remarkably comical one, since magnetism is just the consequence, of the relativistic interaction of moving charges.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[server]

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 15:55:05 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 11/02/2022 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.

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


Oh dear. Somebody needs to read up a bit on what a load of twaddle the
\"intelligent design\" idea is. It\'s an irrational, inconsistent straw
man argument made by religious fanatics who can\'t or won\'t understand
science, and who think it makes their arguments more powerful if they
pick a fight with reality and invent stuff - instead of just saying \"I
don\'t know\".

The rabid neo-Darwinists are so afraid of being accused of being
Bible-bangers that they won\'t allow themselves to think about anything
but spontaneous generation in primordial soup. That fear has seriously
slowed down evolutionary science.

Waving magic words like \"quantum\" will not convince anyone here, nor
will carefully omitting any direct mention of your pet god. At least
have the decency to be honest and say you think \"God\" made life on earth
but you don\'t know how.

We have no pets, since the cat died. It\'s reasonably probable that a
robot custom-designed the first cells on earth. That\'s about as good
an idea as any other right now.

You keep saying that \' \"God\" made life on earth \' so you can mock
people. I never said that.

(There\'s nothing wrong with being religious /and/ scientific - freedom
of religious beliefs is an important right. But there\'s something very
wrong with denying reality in order to make it \"fit\" a particularly odd
religious conviction.)

Is there anything wrong with instantly mocking ideas because they
could (but don\'t) imply theology?

Mocking means not thinking. Think about that.



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[Martin Brown]

On 16/02/2022 16:05, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 10:04:03 +0000, Martin Brown
\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 15/02/2022 13:43, jlarkin@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:

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.

And little fleas have lesser fleas upon their backs to bite \'em.

Eventually in a quantised world they get too small to be viable.

Viral phages that attack bacteria are also quite interesting and some of
them may yet have therapeutic value. Progress in this field is slow but
steady as the various pieces are found and understood.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01880-6

The viruses that we see today have co-evolved with their hosts for many
billions of years. The earliest ones would have been much much simpler.

Is there evidence for that?

Synthetic RNA in the lab is getting close to understanding what the very
first self replicating RNA systems might have looked like. They have
made working examples that are capable of most of the required steps.

This article in Nature might clear up some of your misconceptions iff
you can be bothered to read it (free access).


All you want to do is insult. Jerk.

I take that means you prefer to wallow in your ignorance.

What a surprise!

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 2:32:47 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 09:34:11 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/02/22 03:56, 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:

The two big leaps are

Where did this universe come from and why is it so perfectly tuned to support DNA-based life?

There first one is a non sequitur - if it didn\'t exist we wouldn\'t be here to ask the question, and the second one is even dumber.

It should be turned around - why is DNA-based life so perfectly tuned to being supported by the universe in our immediate vicinity, and that is the question that Charles Darwin answered some time ago.

and

How did DNA come about?

It\'s one more aspect of organic chemistry.

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

DNA isn\'t difficult - there are lots deoxyribonucleic acids. It doesn\'t get interesting until a living cell uses a particular example of DNA with a well defined length and amino-acid sequence to do a particular job.

It seems likely that early cells used ribonuclieic acids (RNA) to do the same sorts of jobs.

It\'s a badly phrased question that displays a lamentable ignorance of the subject under discussion.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 16/02/22 16:21, David Brown wrote:

On 16/02/2022 17:11, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 15:20:14 +0100, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 15/02/2022 16:58, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
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?

If I write something clearly stupid, I expect others to call it stupid.
If I write something demonstrating ignorance, I expect people to
correct me. If I disagree with them, then it is up to me to justify my
claims. I might do that, or I might accept the correction and thank
people, or I might try to sneak away quietly and hope people forget I
have been stupid.

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.

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

Shame.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Fri, 11 Feb 2022 07:39:34 -0800) it happened
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
<r10d0hduin2cv6mvpcajlq6uco7gjifa48@4ax.com>:

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.


It seems likely that in the trillions of reactions somehow
some \'executable\' part was formed that was strong enough to maintain itself.
Polymerase chain reaction only needs some temperature cycling to make
copies of say DNA, and temperature cycling happens due to for example the day night changes on planets.

The big problem is DNA itself, which contains the recipes for the
thousands of incredibly complex mechanisms required to make a cell and
support and reproduce DNA. The problem isn\'t chemicals, it\'s
programming.

If there is an evolutionary, incremental path from thin primordial
soup to a living, reproducting cell, then someone should demonstrate
it how it could happen. Without intelligence.


I do not think we are very special at all.

If a trillion robots or equivalent spread chemical life out throughout
the universe, we\'re not.

Suppose you had a collection of BASIC statements
how long do you think it would take if you wrote a program that would randomly combine those
before one combination said: Hello World\" ?
Not very long I think.

Small pieces of chemicals would combine into some RNA or DNA
Small pieces of that RNA or DNA in a big soup (oceans?) would be similar.
The one that maintained itself would persist and use other pieces, like we use bacteria in out guts as \'slave\'
to digest food..

And yes, we are already busy contaminating mars and moon with what sticks to our spacecraft and survives the trip.

And there are religious powers denying life is on Mars for example,
while the Viking lander test was positive for life.
I remember that announcement \"Life detected on Mars\'
to be followed half an hour or so later by a denial.
When I worked in broadcasting head control room we had a red phone,
somebody from the government could call; and you followed orders.
Looked to me like a red phone call from some scared religious powers, else no way a change in media in half an hour.
NASA worked years on that experiment.
And now they send landers to where life is most unlikely to be found, better look here:
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/space/mars/index.html

The late Dr Levin was the one from the Mars experiment that tested positive for life:
http://gillevin.com/mars.htm

He deserves credit!!!

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 2:51:02 AM UTC+11, 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/

It doesn\'t - Jan doesn\'t know what he is talking about

> Cool. It follows that the repair mechanisms distinguish between uselesss/fatal mutations and potentially useful ones.

It doesn\'t. The repair mechanisms just make any mistake less likely.

> They must let a calibrated fraction of potentially useful ones past the checks.

The mechanisms have evolved. It they got too good, the species that embodied them wouldn\'t get enough random mutations to be able to adapt to a changing environment, and would have died out.

That might be seen as a form of calibration, bu there\'s nothing careful about it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[server]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 16:44:29 +0000, Martin Brown
<\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 16/02/2022 16:05, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 10:04:03 +0000, Martin Brown
\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 15/02/2022 13:43, jlarkin@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:

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.

And little fleas have lesser fleas upon their backs to bite \'em.

Eventually in a quantised world they get too small to be viable.

Viral phages that attack bacteria are also quite interesting and some of
them may yet have therapeutic value. Progress in this field is slow but
steady as the various pieces are found and understood.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01880-6

The viruses that we see today have co-evolved with their hosts for many
billions of years. The earliest ones would have been much much simpler.

Is there evidence for that?

Synthetic RNA in the lab is getting close to understanding what the very
first self replicating RNA systems might have looked like. They have
made working examples that are capable of most of the required steps.

This article in Nature might clear up some of your misconceptions iff
you can be bothered to read it (free access).


All you want to do is insult. Jerk.

I take that means you prefer to wallow in your ignorance.

What a surprise!

Where did you take your PhD in biology?



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 2:57:11 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 07:55:16 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Sat, 12 Feb 2022 16:16:59 -0800 (PST)) it happened whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote in <69a7cfcf-5b4f-467f...@googlegroups.com>:

<snip>

I did some electronics for a P-P collision experiment at CERN. Wire
chamber detectors and data reduction. I got to sit in on some
conferences. It was shocking and amusing to see how vicious and
jealous and mean-spirited some of the physicists were to their
\"colleagues\", and how normal that seemed to be to the crowd. Beauty
queens aren\'t in it.

Working at CERN is a very high status job for physicists. The people who work there are going to include a relatively high proportion of status seeking creeps who will do anything to get to the top of the pecking order. Every organisation has a few of them. The rest of us work around them.

The ones that get into CERN would have to be particularly good at their work to get tolerated in that kind of kind cooperative project.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[server]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 17:21:53 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 16/02/2022 17:11, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 15:20:14 +0100, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 15/02/2022 16:58, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
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?

If I write something clearly stupid, I expect others to call it stupid.
If I write something demonstrating ignorance, I expect people to
correct me. If I disagree with them, then it is up to me to justify my
claims. I might do that, or I might accept the correction and thank
people, or I might try to sneak away quietly and hope people forget I
have been stupid.

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.

You supress your own ideas, if any, for fear of being shown to be
wrong.

Read again. If you are having difficulty, find a grandkid to help with
the big words.


Great, I can compete with that.


Compete at what? This is a Usenet group, not a competition.

Good point. I design electronics and you don\'t.

All your insults are of course made with the best of intent.



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[Tom Gardner]

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...\'

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 3:03:03 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 14:53:43 +0000, Martin Brown <\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co..uk> wrote:
On 13/02/2022 07:55, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sat, 12 Feb 2022 16:16:59 -0800 (PST)) it happened whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote in <69a7cfcf-5b4f-467f...@googlegroups.com>:

<snip>

but he lacks knowledge on some of the RNA and DNA science (as do I of course).
I\'ve read a bunch of books about the origin of life. The soup theory
has very bad numbers.

It the soup theory was aiming to get to DNA-based life in one hit, it would have very bad numbers.

No competent modern author would make that mistake. if you break up the soup theory into a series of the correct smaller steps you might get better numbers, but there are probably a very large number of plausible smaller steps, and life wasn\'t compelled to progress through the most plausilbe route

He chooses to remain wilfully ignorant.

I only choose to speculate about explanations for things that are now unexplained.

Including quite a few for which there are plausible explanations which he doesn\'t know about

> That provokes hostility. Perfectly normal.

We would be less hostile to speculations base rather less flamboyantly comprehensive ignorance.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 3:24:50 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 12:30:34 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 12/02/2022 18:03, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 17:43:55 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 12/02/2022 16:45, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 16:21:54 +0100, David Brown

<snip>

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?

Clearly Einstein was.

Newton\'s theory of gravity wasn\'t his speculation - Wren and Hooke formally proposed the inverse square law for gravity, but Newton had invented calculus which gave him the tool to go from the law to actual elliptical orbits.

Wegener had looked at a lot of continenal outlines before he came up with the idea of continental drift, and backed it up with matching fossils from forerly adjacent areas.

You aren\'t remotely in that category, and only Trump-level egomania could make you silly enouhg to think that you might be.

Okay, analogy time again. We know a lot about how electronics works -
electromagnetics, quantum mechanics, and the rest. There is also a lot
we /don\'t/ know. Scientists keep learning more, by looking at existing
evidence, doing experiments, making calculations - basically, by doing
science.

Electronics is mostly about connecting parts whose behavior we
understand. The pattern, the information of connections, is what makes
a design work. Analogy time again, the function and replication of DNA
is based on the encoded base pairs, the programming.

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

It evolved. If you know just a little bit more about biology you have heard of the hox gene (actually hox genes)

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

\"Comparing homeodomain sequences between Hox proteins often reveals greater similarity between species than within a species; this observation led to the conclusion that Hox gene clusters evolved early in animal evolution from a single Hox gene via tandem duplication and subsequent divergence, and that a prototypic Hox gene cluster containing at least seven different Hox genes was present in the common ancestor of all bilaterian animals.\"

<snip>

> Well, this is sci.electronic.design. Why are you posting here? To insult people who can actually design electronics?

John Larkin likes to think that he designs his electronics. Nothing he posts here suggests that he does.

> What is your motivation for that?

The fact that your posted \"speculations\" insult the intelligence of pretty much everybody who gets to read them?

> I have found that the few people here who are actually competent designers are friendly, tolerant, interested, funny.

Which is to say that they are willing to flatter John Larkin as fulsomely as he seems to think that he deserves.

> The other tend to be foul and intolerant, and drive away the good ones.

They aren\'t sycophantic enough to keep John Larkin happy.

> Electronic design is mostly about finding new circuit topologies. That requires mental flexibility and tolerance of quirky ideas, because quirky ideas are often in the evolutionary path to great ideas. You wouldn\'t approve.

Electronic design is mostly about putting together circuits that work in particular situations, and anticipating all the subset of those situations that might stop them working and working out how to deal with them. It\'s very rare to need a new topology. Some people know about a lot about the range of topologies used in different applications. Others get excited about re-inventing the wheel

> One difference between circuit evolution and biological evolution is that the intermediate electronic designs need not be viable.

Sure. We can do saltation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltation_(biology)

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[server]

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 16:25:20 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 11 Feb 2022 07:39:34 -0800) it happened
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
r10d0hduin2cv6mvpcajlq6uco7gjifa48@4ax.com>:

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.


It seems likely that in the trillions of reactions somehow
some \'executable\' part was formed that was strong enough to maintain itself.
Polymerase chain reaction only needs some temperature cycling to make
copies of say DNA, and temperature cycling happens due to for example the day night changes on planets.

The big problem is DNA itself, which contains the recipes for the
thousands of incredibly complex mechanisms required to make a cell and
support and reproduce DNA. The problem isn\'t chemicals, it\'s
programming.

If there is an evolutionary, incremental path from thin primordial
soup to a living, reproducting cell, then someone should demonstrate
it how it could happen. Without intelligence.


I do not think we are very special at all.

If a trillion robots or equivalent spread chemical life out throughout
the universe, we\'re not.

Suppose you had a collection of BASIC statements
how long do you think it would take if you wrote a program that would randomly combine those
before one combination said: Hello World\" ?
Not very long I think.

Where did that program come from?

How long would it take, combining random statements, until you had a
Basic compiler? And the design of a computer to run it on?

Small pieces of chemicals would combine into some RNA or DNA
Small pieces of that RNA or DNA in a big soup (oceans?) would be similar.
The one that maintained itself would persist and use other pieces, like we use bacteria in out guts as \'slave\'
to digest food..

That\'s the theory. People who have done the math tend to run out of
zeroes for how long that might take.

And yes, we are already busy contaminating mars and moon with what sticks to our spacecraft and survives the trip.

And there are religious powers denying life is on Mars for example,
while the Viking lander test was positive for life.

Got a link for that?

I remember that announcement \"Life detected on Mars\'
to be followed half an hour or so later by a denial.

Skepticism is reasonable there.

When I worked in broadcasting head control room we had a red phone,
somebody from the government could call; and you followed orders.
Looked to me like a red phone call from some scared religious powers, else no way a change in media in half an hour.
NASA worked years on that experiment.
And now they send landers to where life is most unlikely to be found, better look here:
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/space/mars/index.html

The late Dr Levin was the one from the Mars experiment that tested positive for life:
http://gillevin.com/mars.htm

He deserves credit!!!

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



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 10:54:21 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:18:25 +1100, Clifford Heath <no....@please.net> wrote:
On 14/2/22 2:36 am, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:25:29 +1100, Clifford Heath <no....@please.net> wrote:
On 13/2/22 2:54 pm, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 01:29:38 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:

<snip>

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.

Wrongly? The information is precisely what makes a cell work.

It\'s what makes modern cells work. The subject of this thread is \"How life came to Earth\"
and if it started up here, the first life is unlikely to be either all that complicated or DNA-based.

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.

She has ideas too. Must run in the family.

Everybody has ideas. The trick is to pick out the good ones and discard the rest.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 11:24:55 AM UTC+11, 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

<snip>

Ideas are easy and cheap.

Then why do so few people have them?

They\'ve probably learned not to express them within earshot of you.

People who are proud of their ingenuity are particularly susceptible to \"not-invented here\" and the even nastier \"not-invented-by-me\".

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[server]

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.



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sun, 13 Feb 2022 13:09:20 -0800 (PST)) it happened whit3rd
<whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in
<729c2e8b-5a35-4d86-bc9f-d60fc1576a0dn@googlegroups.com>:

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.

OK, I have no problem with that, using math all day long in programming for example,

But having a mathematical model does _not_ mean you can just declare it as the final truth,
It needs verifying against experiments again and again.
For example \'relativity\' does _not_ provide such a mechanism
and its models as such are quite useless,

I give you an example (aliens told me, is good for a \'nobble price\' on your planet though):

You probably have read that clocks run slower in a gravity well (Einsteinian speak).

Now I will show you why a Le Sage model predicts that.
In free space Le Sage type particles hit matter from all sides including your \'pendulum\';
and it gets \'compressed\' in a way.

Close to say a big mass, like for example a planet, some of the Le Sage particles are intercepted,
the flux so to speak is less, compression of your pendulum is less, it gets longer
and the swinging period slows.

1) there is a limit to this: mass so big, all particles intercepted.
2) all matter, atoms, elementary particles exhibit this effect, should even red-shift their spectrum.

So here the mechanism its very simple.

There is an experiment that can be done on earth, the careful observer will notice a directional vector
sitting on the planet surface, and maybe electron orbits in the horizontal plane
will be faster than those in the vertical plane.
And then there are super-conductors and . OK I am not allowed to give you more alien science
as you are a humming bean, but take it from ;-

Having the Le Sage mechanism, is like knowing about electrons when designing circuits.
Without that and math only, its a dead end - and endlessly repeat a few equation that Einstein derived
from some experiments is a dead end road.
I have spoken,

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Fri, 11 Feb 2022 08:58:08 -0800) it happened
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
<5v4d0h9ms2s6c19vqb8h6i317l2cmke9sa@4ax.com>:

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 16:25:20 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

Suppose you had a collection of BASIC statements
how long do you think it would take if you wrote a program that would randomly combine those
before one combination said: Hello World\" ?
Not very long I think.

Where did that program come from?

The small chemical \'strands\' are in this example the BASIC statements.
The \'machine\' is the energy that mixes things.
In the mixed environmet some things stick together, laws of chemistry, laws of physics if you will.
It really will _not_ take very long before combinations of those strands can do things.

How long would it take, combining random statements, until you had a
Basic compiler? And the design of a computer to run it on?

You do not want to admit the simplicity of it all

But why start at life? Have you wondered why them electrons find those atomic cores and start buzzing around those?
So many times over, everywhere you look, and all those we call \'elementary particles\' have turned
out to be not so \'elementary\' at all but rather complex, and all are interacting together,
All is connected, is an atom alive? Sure!

We talk about consciousness as something mysterious
Even a sunshade moved by a light sensitive sensor is \'conscious\' of light.
It takes one beeper added to let you know it is going to close or open.
;-)

I do see well you can guess it ;-)