OT: How life came to Earth...

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 12:59:42 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 12:01:41 +1100, Clifford Heath <no....@please.net> wrote:
On 17/2/22 3:01 am, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:50:45 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 16/02/22 11:03, Martin Brown wrote:
On 14/02/2022 16:05, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Sloppy slide ruling slinging was great for plotting \"lab\" results with
a nice scatter of experimental error.

We went to afternoon EE lab.

Dr Seto, the lab instructor, left after 5 minutes

We left after 6 minutes

The night before all the lab results were due, we faked them.

I sense a continued pattern here. Playing loose with facts is a lifelong habit of yours.

It\'s normally called lying and cheating.

> Getting stuff done, actually.

It\'s actually creating the impression that you did get stuff done, which isn\'t quite the same thing.

> >> We and only we got all A\'s.

Then your instructors were criminally incompetent.

\"But then how many kids are getting EE degrees these days\"

Well, I dunno.

How many of the kids in your days got EE degrees without earning them?

We earned ours. Faking the data required more understanding of the circuits than taking actual data.

Clearly true. That doesn\'t mean that you earned your degree, and it clearly means that it wasn\'t worth having - not that potential employers would be aware of that.

> The lab equipment was terrible. The shared B+ power supply had 50 volts p-p ripple, which made for the other guys getting some interesting frequency response graphs using their voltmeters.

It does look as if your instructors really were criminally incompetent.

> I noticed the strange, flat amplifier frequency response immediately, so checked it on an oscilloscope.

The correct response is to fix the lab equipment, rather than fake the results. If your instructors really were criminally incompetent this might not have played out well, but it is still the correct response.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 12:29:35 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 10:42:40 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 5:12:17 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

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

False; no reason to find archaea in the depths of the earth if
there had been any modern form of life planted here. Archaea is
clearly well-suited to be ancestral, and hard to explain otherwise.

The giant leap is the first DNA-based reproducing cell. Evolution can
mostly take over from there.

But archaea have left geological traces from 3.8 billion years ago, far earlier than
modern life forms. That makes everything before \'evolution\' basically imponderable
and an hypothesis of \'planted\' at that time is untestable; science can\'t digest such
an hypothesis. Occam\'s razor applies.

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 10:55:12 AM UTC-5, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

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

On 11/02/2022 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.

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.

Lol! Yes, we can invent anything we wish. However, that does not make it remotely a viable theory.

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

No one has mocked the idea of God. Some may not believe in a God and may point out the inherent contractions in such a belief, but where was anyone mocking?

You invoke a \"presence\" that created life and brought it to earth with no evidence of this \"presence\" and no explanation at all of what it might be. That is sufficiently close to a God to be labeled as such.

You also criticize other theories without actually pointing to any of them. You seem to think that research in an area is akin to people believing in a theory as reality.

What research is there into identifying your \"presence\" or showing how it brought life to earth?

--

Rick C.

+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Sjouke Burry]

On 11.02.22 21:36, John Larkin wrote:

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

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

How life came to Earth ?

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

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


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

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

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

And how did the master designer come about?

By magic?

Spontaneous self-creation?

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

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 5:48:35 PM UTC+11, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 13 Feb 2022 13:09:20 -0800 (PST)) it happened whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote in <729c2e8b-5a35-4d86...@googlegroups.com>:
On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 12:16:33 PM UTC-8, Jan Panteltje wrote:

<snip>

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.

All mathematical models are simplifications of reality. Once you\'ve got it more or less right there\'s not a lot of point in re-testing it in the region of interest.

As soon as you move to a different region of operation you do need to rest it against reality to find out of the previously negligible effects you could previously get away with neglecting had become more significant.

> For example \'relativity\' does _not_ provide such a mechanism and its models as such are quite useless,

Don\'t be stupid. The satellites that create the Global Positioning System are moving quite fast enough to require you to correct for relativistic effects.

The switch from cyclotrons to synchrotrons was required because the particles being accelerated in synchrotrons were moving close enough to the speed of light that relativistic effects had to be figured in.

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.

Who cares why, The question is whether it predicts it accurately - and it doesn\'t seem to (from the little that I\'ve read).

<snip more ill-informed nonsense>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 7:06:40 PM UTC+11, David Brown wrote:

On 14/02/2022 05:35, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
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.

While that is true, it is - AFAIK - entirely useless if you merely need
to /use/ magnetism and magnetic effects. No one calculates impedance or
the strength of a motor by the use of special relativity.

Electronics and electrical engineering are applied fields. You don\'t
need to know /why/ things work the way they do, you need to know how to
use them in practice. A little bit of the \"why\" can be interesting, and
it is always useful to have a bit of knowledge beyond your field, but a
course on special relativity in an electrical engineering degree would
be a waste of time.

Absolutely. But it is one of those insights that makes electromagnetism somewhat more coherent.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 3:49:05 AM UTC+11, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 16/02/22 16:21, David Brown wrote:
On 16/02/2022 17:11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 15:20:14 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 15/02/2022 16:58, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 16:08:43 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 15/02/2022 14:40, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:51:40 +0000, Martin Brown <\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

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

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

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

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

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

Shame.

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

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[server]

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

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

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

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

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

Cool.

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

It follows

No.

that the repair mechanisms distinguish

No.

between uselesss/fatal mutations

No.

and potentially useful ones.

No.

They must

No.

let a calibrated

No.

fraction of potentially useful

No.

ones past the checks.


No.


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

No is your mantra. Maybe is mine.



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[server]

Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in
news:su6aa1$1tf$1@gioia.aioe.org:

snip

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).

Jeroen Belleman

Ever see the movie \"Lucy\"?

If not, you should check it out. Fiction... yes.
Very cool flick... hell yes.

 

[server]

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.

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

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

............

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

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

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





--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 17/02/22 07:24, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

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

snip

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shame.

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

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

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

 

[server]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


It is.


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

You claim to understand the origin of life.

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

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

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

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

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

Yes.

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

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


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


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

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

Are you a biologist?

Do you design electronics?



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[Jeroen Belleman]

On 2022-02-11 21:36, John Larkin wrote:

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

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

How life came to Earth ?

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Jeroen Belleman

 

[server]

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

On 13/02/22 15:32, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 09:34:11 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 13/02/22 03:56, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
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 can see how someone skimming it might come to that conclusion.

The repetition is mostly variations on a theme, so repetition
is to be expected.

The handwaving is because it is conveying subtle arguments
to the traditional intelligent man on the street, who is
not an expert in the subject. As such it has no alternative
but to \"tell stories\" that summarise the understanding that
has been gained in the past century.

If you want something with more facts, read his \"The Ancestor\'s
Tale\". That starts at man, and traces the evolutionary steps
back to the archaea. Every chapter has something interesting,
but there\'s no way it could be read sequentially!

The two big leaps are

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

and

How did DNA come about?

Agreed.


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

That\'s unknown.

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

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

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

>Either answer is terrifying, as AC Clarke observed.

Or wonderful.



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[server]

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in
news:2d577fbc-ce0b-4bda-8e77-20e1715009b4n@googlegroups.com:

On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 5:12:17 AM UTC-8,
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

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

False; no reason to find archaea in the depths of the earth if
there had been any modern form of life planted here. Archaea is
clearly well-suited to be ancestral, and hard to explain
otherwise. Our familiar life forms are all part of an ecology with
dizzying complexity, and evolution is the best explanation of
that.

And yes, it\'s quantum mechanical.

Well, sure; all chemistry is quantum mechanical.

Of course. All OM is (ordinary matter). One would suppose that
dark matter is as well, but then there are \"other dimensions\" which
may or may not exist.

Quantum
mechanics, as a requirement for understanding, is nearly as
ubiquitous as mathematics.

It wasn\'t to this guy or any of the folks that looked at his
work... to this very day.

Srinivasa Ramanujan

 

[server]

On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:15:33 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 14/02/2022 00:51, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 22:35:20 +0100, David Brown


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

No, just more prissy.


Enjoy your fantasy world.

I absolutely do! As Phil H says, inventing things is the most fun you
can have standing up.

Do you enjoy your World of No?

Just don\'t let your daughter near s.e.d. - reading your posts would be
too embarrassing for her.

She isn\'t interested in electronics. She is interested in DNA and
motorcycles. She\'s a PhD botanist and a certified BMW motorcycle
mechanic. I didn\'t breed any delicate girls.

Besides, younger people don\'t post to usenet.





--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[Joe Gwinn]

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

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

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

How life came to Earth ?

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

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


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

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

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

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

Joe Gwinn

 

[server]

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

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

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

She has ideas too. Must run in the family.

Ideas are easy and cheap.

Then why do so few people have them?


/Everyone/ has ideas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





If you were

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

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

But some of them really work.

Most of the good ones have already been thought of by someone else.
Occasionally you\'ll have a truly terrible idea and not recognise it
before things go horribly wrong (we all do that sometimes), and
occasionally you\'ll have a really good idea.

Electronic design ideas don\'t go horribly wrong because we review and
test them hard before we develop a product. There is a transition
between generating many wild ideas and applying design and packaging
discipline to one of them. Both functions matter; not many people can
do both.

However, your evaluation filters are broken. You don\'t realise that
most of your ideas are rubbish, so you don\'t filter them out yourself
before opening your mouth and proving yourself a fool.

You would poison a brainstorming session. Imagine if nobody opened
their mouths for fear of being called a fool.

You don\'t

realise that everyone else has ideas just like you, and condemn them for
having better filters than you.

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

It\'s a shame. It makes you look /so/ stupid, so ignorant and
unthinking, and also so nasty and unpleasant. I am pretty sure that is
an unfair image of you, but it is the impression you give.

Only a few people matter here, and I have met and worked with and
drunk beer (or sometimes rum) with most of those.



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[whit3rd]

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

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

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

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

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


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

 

[server]

Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> wrote in news:nnd
$29c813ca$02166fd8@938b15c86ca9cbd3:

And how did the master designer come about?

Different plane of existence? Different dimension(s)?

So big that we are all \"inside\" of it right now.

Humans cannot conceive of anything other than ordinary matter type
\"flesh\".

Though many may have been \"shown\" throughout history.

Newton, Tesla, Einstein, Srinivasa Ramanujan... all claim to have
\"been enlightened\" during meditation and there is a claim that a
universal knowledge exists to tap into that 99.999999999999999999999%
of us will never see, use, or much less grasp.