Self replicating and evolving RNA molecule created...

[David Brown]

On 21/03/2022 15:22, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 06:09:32 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:



Some serious biologists have done the math and got essentially zero.

Proof of 100% is that you are here.

Somehow. But RNA World requires at least as much faith as \"God did
it.\"

Only for those that don\'t understand the \"RNA World\" hypothesis,
theology, or science.


Those that /do/ appreciate the difference know that \"God did it\" is
completely without any evidence or proof - and always will be (if there
were evidence, it would be science). It is unfalsifiable, untestable,
and is merely presented as an \"unquestionable answer\".

But believe it if you like - religious freedom is a great idea.

The \"RNA World\" hypothesis, on the other hand, is based on factual
demonstrations of plausibility and consistency with established science.
It is not a \"scientific theory\", since we have no evidence for the
details of abiogenesis - there can be no fossil record of the earliest
lifeforms. What we can do is try to establish how realistic it is as
one plausible explanation for abiogenesis. It is doing our best to
handle an unanswerable question, and it\'s great science.

It is not the only abiogenesis hypothesis, and there are others worth
pursuing - such as \"protein first\" concepts.

The only concepts /not/ worth pursuing are those that cannot ever be
proven, cannot be replicated, cannot teach us anything or provide
insights to other science or technology, or are purely recursive. Thus
\"God did it\", \"Aliens did it\", and the like are all pointless wastes of
time (outside of religions and/or science fiction novels).

 

[server]

On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:42:08 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 21/03/2022 15:22, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 06:09:32 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:



Some serious biologists have done the math and got essentially zero.

Proof of 100% is that you are here.

Somehow. But RNA World requires at least as much faith as \"God did
it.\"


Only for those that don\'t understand the \"RNA World\" hypothesis,
theology, or science.

Nobody understands it. Much less how a self-defining DNA system could
have evolved.

Darwinism is hand-waving. It\'s just another anti-faith faith.

Youtube has some astounding animations of cell division. DNA programs
thousands of insanely complex, wildly unlikely machines that support
and copy DNA.

Those that /do/ appreciate the difference know that \"God did it\" is
completely without any evidence or proof - and always will be (if there
were evidence, it would be science). It is unfalsifiable, untestable,
and is merely presented as an \"unquestionable answer\".

That last sentence describes RNA World.

There is no theory, much less proof, about how DNA-based cellular life
could have evolved. \"Random mutation and selection\" liberates people
from thinking.

But believe it if you like - religious freedom is a great idea.

The \"RNA World\" hypothesis, on the other hand, is based on factual
demonstrations of plausibility and consistency with established science.

With absurdly low calculated probabilities. RNA World has become an
ironclad defense against even considering anything else. Biochemical
cancel culture.

People who already know everything don\'t need to be bothered with
ideas.



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 21/03/22 16:01, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:42:08 +0100, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 21/03/2022 15:22, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 06:09:32 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:



Some serious biologists have done the math and got essentially zero.

Proof of 100% is that you are here.

Somehow. But RNA World requires at least as much faith as \"God did
it.\"


Only for those that don\'t understand the \"RNA World\" hypothesis,
theology, or science.

Nobody understands it. Much less how a self-defining DNA system could
have evolved.

You need to have more faith in people and science.

Once upon a time nobody could predict comets\' appearances.

People who already know everything don\'t need to be bothered with
ideas.

You are, we presume, thinking of creationists and
young-earthers, and their equivalent in other cultures.

 

[server]

On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:06:27 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 21/03/22 16:01, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:42:08 +0100, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 21/03/2022 15:22, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 06:09:32 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:



Some serious biologists have done the math and got essentially zero.

Proof of 100% is that you are here.

Somehow. But RNA World requires at least as much faith as \"God did
it.\"


Only for those that don\'t understand the \"RNA World\" hypothesis,
theology, or science.

Nobody understands it. Much less how a self-defining DNA system could
have evolved.

You need to have more faith in people and science.

It\'s hard to do both simultaneously.

Once upon a time nobody could predict comets\' appearances.



People who already know everything don\'t need to be bothered with
ideas.

You are, we presume, thinking of creationists and
young-earthers, and their equivalent in other cultures.

And Darwinists.



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[David Brown]

On 21/03/2022 17:01, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:42:08 +0100, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 21/03/2022 15:22, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 06:09:32 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:



Some serious biologists have done the math and got essentially zero.

Proof of 100% is that you are here.

Somehow. But RNA World requires at least as much faith as \"God did
it.\"


Only for those that don\'t understand the \"RNA World\" hypothesis,
theology, or science.

Nobody understands it. Much less how a self-defining DNA system could
have evolved.

You seem to be viewing this all as a binary all-or-nothing thing. It is
not.

We have some good ideas of how an RNA World might have come about, how
it might have progressed, and how it might have led to the biological
processes and organisms that we know exist. There\'s lots we don\'t know
- that\'s the nature of science, and why we keep doing scientific
research. In this particular case, there\'s plenty that we don\'t know yet.

But that should not stop you being able to understand what the
hypothesis is about.

Darwinism is hand-waving. It\'s just another anti-faith faith.

Darwinism is solid scientific theory. It\'s as much \"faith\" as gravity.

Youtube has some astounding animations of cell division. DNA programs
thousands of insanely complex, wildly unlikely machines that support
and copy DNA.

Yes, it is wonderful. But only an arrogant fool would look at that all
and declare that it could /not/ have arisen naturally from pre-biotic
chemicals and processes. Only an ignorant fool would declare that it
must have been \"designed\" in some way, by some being. Only a coward
would throw his hands in the air and say \"I can\'t understand it. It
must have been made by God\". Or by robots or aliens, if you won\'t admit
to your anti-science religion.

Have you ever looked at animations of the Mandelbrot set? It has
amazing intricacies and patterns - details that change and repeat
indefinitely. And yet it all comes from one very simple equation. Have
you ever played the game \"Go\"? It has very simple pieces, a very simple
board, very simple rules - and yet Go masters regularly learn tens of
thousands of opening sequences before the real game even begins. Have
you looked at a snowflake? Complex things develop by patterns and
combinations of simple things - that is the nature of nature.

Those that /do/ appreciate the difference know that \"God did it\" is
completely without any evidence or proof - and always will be (if there
were evidence, it would be science). It is unfalsifiable, untestable,
and is merely presented as an \"unquestionable answer\".

That last sentence describes RNA World.

The hypothesis is falsifiable - if evidence is discovered that shows RNA
is not a sufficient basis for abiogenesis, we know the hypothesis is
false. It is testable - we can do experiments with various combinations
of starting chemicals and environments, and see if it produces active
replicating RNA. (That\'s what the linked article was about.) It is
questionable - that\'s what the scientists are doing all the time,
questioning.

There is no theory, much less proof, about how DNA-based cellular life
could have evolved. \"Random mutation and selection\" liberates people
from thinking.

As I said, you have no understanding of what this is all about. None.
Not a glimmer. It\'s not just a matter of failing to see the big picture
- you have your eyes tightly closed, fingers in your ears, and you are
shouting \"la, la, la, I\'m not listening\".

Perhaps I\'m crazy - apparently Einstein said madness was doing the same
thing repeatedly and expecting different results. But let me correct
you /again/.

The \"RNA World\" /hypothesis/ is a /hypothesis/ - it is not a scientific
theory. It is not trying to find out how life on earth started. It is
trying to determine if complex RNA can develop from pre-biotic chemicals
known to be found on the early earth, using environmental conditions
that are realistic, and thus demonstrate that RNA is a plausible path
for abiogenesis.

The \"RNA World\" hypothesis does not cover the step to DNA, though I
think any biochemist will agree that when you have first achieved
cellular metabolising, replicating RNA-based lifeforms then the path to
DNA is relatively reasonable.

Evolution is how life has moved from its earliest beginnings to what we
have now. It is a well-established scientific theory based on vast
quantities of evidence, theoretical work, study, experiments,
predictions, attempts at falsification, and all the rest of the usual
scientific process. There are plenty of details to study in the
mechanisms found in practice, but evolution is as much \"fact\" as
anything else in science - like the electromagnetic theories that
underlie your work.

Claiming \"it liberates people from thing\" merely demonstrates your
extraordinary wilful ignorance in the face of countless attempts to
educate you.

But believe it if you like - religious freedom is a great idea.

The \"RNA World\" hypothesis, on the other hand, is based on factual
demonstrations of plausibility and consistency with established science.

With absurdly low calculated probabilities. RNA World has become an
ironclad defense against even considering anything else. Biochemical
cancel culture.

People who already know everything don\'t need to be bothered with
ideas.

Ah, there we have it. The broken record again. You really are
pathetically predictable.

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 19:45:04 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 21/03/2022 17:01, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:42:08 +0100, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 21/03/2022 15:22, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 06:09:32 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:



Some serious biologists have done the math and got essentially zero.

Proof of 100% is that you are here.

Somehow. But RNA World requires at least as much faith as \"God did
it.\"


Only for those that don\'t understand the \"RNA World\" hypothesis,
theology, or science.

Nobody understands it. Much less how a self-defining DNA system could
have evolved.

You seem to be viewing this all as a binary all-or-nothing thing. It is
not.

We have some good ideas of how an RNA World might have come about, how
it might have progressed, and how it might have led to the biological
processes and organisms that we know exist. There\'s lots we don\'t know
- that\'s the nature of science, and why we keep doing scientific
research. In this particular case, there\'s plenty that we don\'t know yet.

But that should not stop you being able to understand what the
hypothesis is about.


Darwinism is hand-waving. It\'s just another anti-faith faith.

Darwinism is solid scientific theory. It\'s as much \"faith\" as gravity.


Youtube has some astounding animations of cell division. DNA programs
thousands of insanely complex, wildly unlikely machines that support
and copy DNA.


Yes, it is wonderful. But only an arrogant fool would look at that all
and declare that it could /not/ have arisen naturally from pre-biotic
chemicals and processes. Only an ignorant fool would declare that it
must have been \"designed\" in some way, by some being. Only a coward
would throw his hands in the air and say \"I can\'t understand it. It
must have been made by God\". Or by robots or aliens, if you won\'t admit
to your anti-science religion.

I never said it couldn\'t happen by Darwinian mechanisms, or that life
must have been designed. You invent fake quotes because your real
motivation is to fling insults, and to show how much smarter you are
than me.

What I have conjectured is that our life form might have evolved by
something other than RNA World followed by random mutation and
linear-descent selection.

I guess any other ideas, even speculations, are forbidden in your
world.

Have you ever looked at animations of the Mandelbrot set? It has
amazing intricacies and patterns - details that change and repeat
indefinitely. And yet it all comes from one very simple equation. Have
you ever played the game \"Go\"? It has very simple pieces, a very simple
board, very simple rules - and yet Go masters regularly learn tens of
thousands of opening sequences before the real game even begins. Have
you looked at a snowflake? Complex things develop by patterns and
combinations of simple things - that is the nature of nature.



Those that /do/ appreciate the difference know that \"God did it\" is
completely without any evidence or proof - and always will be (if there
were evidence, it would be science). It is unfalsifiable, untestable,
and is merely presented as an \"unquestionable answer\".

That last sentence describes RNA World.

The hypothesis is falsifiable - if evidence is discovered that shows RNA
is not a sufficient basis for abiogenesis, we know the hypothesis is
false. It is testable - we can do experiments with various combinations
of starting chemicals and environments, and see if it produces active
replicating RNA. (That\'s what the linked article was about.) It is
questionable - that\'s what the scientists are doing all the time,
questioning.

So why won\'t you?

--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

 

[David Brown]

On 21/03/2022 20:47, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 19:45:04 +0100, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 21/03/2022 17:01, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:42:08 +0100, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 21/03/2022 15:22, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 06:09:32 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:



Some serious biologists have done the math and got essentially zero.

Proof of 100% is that you are here.

Somehow. But RNA World requires at least as much faith as \"God did
it.\"


Only for those that don\'t understand the \"RNA World\" hypothesis,
theology, or science.

Nobody understands it. Much less how a self-defining DNA system could
have evolved.

You seem to be viewing this all as a binary all-or-nothing thing. It is
not.

We have some good ideas of how an RNA World might have come about, how
it might have progressed, and how it might have led to the biological
processes and organisms that we know exist. There\'s lots we don\'t know
- that\'s the nature of science, and why we keep doing scientific
research. In this particular case, there\'s plenty that we don\'t know yet.

But that should not stop you being able to understand what the
hypothesis is about.


Darwinism is hand-waving. It\'s just another anti-faith faith.

Darwinism is solid scientific theory. It\'s as much \"faith\" as gravity.


Youtube has some astounding animations of cell division. DNA programs
thousands of insanely complex, wildly unlikely machines that support
and copy DNA.


Yes, it is wonderful. But only an arrogant fool would look at that all
and declare that it could /not/ have arisen naturally from pre-biotic
chemicals and processes. Only an ignorant fool would declare that it
must have been \"designed\" in some way, by some being. Only a coward
would throw his hands in the air and say \"I can\'t understand it. It
must have been made by God\". Or by robots or aliens, if you won\'t admit
to your anti-science religion.

I never said it couldn\'t happen by Darwinian mechanisms, or that life
must have been designed. You invent fake quotes because your real
motivation is to fling insults, and to show how much smarter you are
than me.

Right - so when you say \"Darwinism is hand-waving. It\'s just another
anti-faith faith\", you weren\'t actually dismissing it?

I wish you would have the guts to stop pissing around, and admit that
you have no regard for science or evidence, but find the world so
confusing and beyond your personal comprehension that you think it was
all made by some supernatural being just for you. After all, if the
great genius John Larkin can\'t understand it, clearly nobody can - so
all these scientists are making stuff up, or just acting on faith.

(Yes, I know I am paraphrasing.)

What I have conjectured is that our life form might have evolved by
something other than RNA World followed by random mutation and
linear-descent selection.

And again - every time you open your mouth you demonstrate how little
you comprehend, and how little you even bother trying to read. If you
had the faintest clue about the RNA World hypothesis, or had made even a
rudimentary attempt at reading my posts, you\'d know the RNA World
hypothesis is not saying that it explains how life on earth came about.
And you\'d know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution.

I guess any other ideas, even speculations, are forbidden in your
world.

Informed, thoughtful and rational ideas are welcome - as speculative as
you like. Pointless idiocy that has been corrected countless times
already is not so interesting.

Have you ever looked at animations of the Mandelbrot set? It has
amazing intricacies and patterns - details that change and repeat
indefinitely. And yet it all comes from one very simple equation. Have
you ever played the game \"Go\"? It has very simple pieces, a very simple
board, very simple rules - and yet Go masters regularly learn tens of
thousands of opening sequences before the real game even begins. Have
you looked at a snowflake? Complex things develop by patterns and
combinations of simple things - that is the nature of nature.



Those that /do/ appreciate the difference know that \"God did it\" is
completely without any evidence or proof - and always will be (if there
were evidence, it would be science). It is unfalsifiable, untestable,
and is merely presented as an \"unquestionable answer\".

That last sentence describes RNA World.

The hypothesis is falsifiable - if evidence is discovered that shows RNA
is not a sufficient basis for abiogenesis, we know the hypothesis is
false. It is testable - we can do experiments with various combinations
of starting chemicals and environments, and see if it produces active
replicating RNA. (That\'s what the linked article was about.) It is
questionable - that\'s what the scientists are doing all the time,
questioning.

So why won\'t you?

Why don\'t I do what? Question the hypothesis? Of course I do. I want
to know what chemical soups they are starting with, and how they justify
their choices. I want to know the environment and the basis for that.
I want to know the results. I want to know if their experiments have
been repeated, by the same group and others, and how the results vary.
I want to know about alternative hypotheses - from the same group, and
others. I want to know how well it all fits with the known evidence
from the early earth.

You are trying to create a straw man that the RNA World hypothesis is
\"science\'s unquestioned answer to how life on earth started\", combined
with completely unjustified claims of \"the maths is against it\". You
think that means you can fill the gap with your \"God did it\"
explanation. But actually it merely shows how little you know, and how
little you care about how little you know.

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 21:18:31 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 21/03/2022 20:47, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 19:45:04 +0100, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 21/03/2022 17:01, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:42:08 +0100, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 21/03/2022 15:22, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 06:09:32 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:



Some serious biologists have done the math and got essentially zero.

Proof of 100% is that you are here.

Somehow. But RNA World requires at least as much faith as \"God did
it.\"


Only for those that don\'t understand the \"RNA World\" hypothesis,
theology, or science.

Nobody understands it. Much less how a self-defining DNA system could
have evolved.

You seem to be viewing this all as a binary all-or-nothing thing. It is
not.

We have some good ideas of how an RNA World might have come about, how
it might have progressed, and how it might have led to the biological
processes and organisms that we know exist. There\'s lots we don\'t know
- that\'s the nature of science, and why we keep doing scientific
research. In this particular case, there\'s plenty that we don\'t know yet.

But that should not stop you being able to understand what the
hypothesis is about.


Darwinism is hand-waving. It\'s just another anti-faith faith.

Darwinism is solid scientific theory. It\'s as much \"faith\" as gravity.


Youtube has some astounding animations of cell division. DNA programs
thousands of insanely complex, wildly unlikely machines that support
and copy DNA.


Yes, it is wonderful. But only an arrogant fool would look at that all
and declare that it could /not/ have arisen naturally from pre-biotic
chemicals and processes. Only an ignorant fool would declare that it
must have been \"designed\" in some way, by some being. Only a coward
would throw his hands in the air and say \"I can\'t understand it. It
must have been made by God\". Or by robots or aliens, if you won\'t admit
to your anti-science religion.

I never said it couldn\'t happen by Darwinian mechanisms, or that life
must have been designed. You invent fake quotes because your real
motivation is to fling insults, and to show how much smarter you are
than me.


Right - so when you say \"Darwinism is hand-waving. It\'s just another
anti-faith faith\", you weren\'t actually dismissing it?

It\'s possible but unlikely that our DNA life evolved that way. People
have done the math and it\'s intimidating. But without evidence, it is
hand-waving. So is Divine creation and panspermia and quantum
intelligence.

Our cells are \"irreducibly complex.\" Everything has to work before
anything can work. There could be alternate explanations for life.

I wish you would have the guts to stop pissing around, and admit that
you have no regard for science or evidence, but find the world so
confusing and beyond your personal comprehension that you think it was
all made by some supernatural being just for you.

I design world-class electronics. I couldn\'t do that if I didn\'t use
science, evidence, experiment, and thinking.

You\'re a coder, right? That involves no science, no math, no evidence.
Certainly no expertise in biochemistry.


After all, if the

great genius John Larkin can\'t understand it, clearly nobody can - so
all these scientists are making stuff up, or just acting on faith.

(Yes, I know I am paraphrasing.)

More like lying. Suggesting that things are possible denies nothing.

Design is the \"possible\" business.

What I have conjectured is that our life form might have evolved by
something other than RNA World followed by random mutation and
linear-descent selection.

And again - every time you open your mouth you demonstrate how little
you comprehend, and how little you even bother trying to read. If you
had the faintest clue about the RNA World hypothesis, or had made even a
rudimentary attempt at reading my posts, you\'d know the RNA World
hypothesis is not saying that it explains how life on earth came about.

OK, how did it come about?

And you\'d know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution.


I guess any other ideas, even speculations, are forbidden in your
world.


Informed, thoughtful and rational ideas are welcome - as speculative as
you like. Pointless idiocy that has been corrected countless times
already is not so interesting.



Have you ever looked at animations of the Mandelbrot set? It has
amazing intricacies and patterns - details that change and repeat
indefinitely. And yet it all comes from one very simple equation. Have
you ever played the game \"Go\"? It has very simple pieces, a very simple
board, very simple rules - and yet Go masters regularly learn tens of
thousands of opening sequences before the real game even begins. Have
you looked at a snowflake? Complex things develop by patterns and
combinations of simple things - that is the nature of nature.



Those that /do/ appreciate the difference know that \"God did it\" is
completely without any evidence or proof - and always will be (if there
were evidence, it would be science). It is unfalsifiable, untestable,
and is merely presented as an \"unquestionable answer\".

That last sentence describes RNA World.

The hypothesis is falsifiable - if evidence is discovered that shows RNA
is not a sufficient basis for abiogenesis, we know the hypothesis is
false. It is testable - we can do experiments with various combinations
of starting chemicals and environments, and see if it produces active
replicating RNA. (That\'s what the linked article was about.) It is
questionable - that\'s what the scientists are doing all the time,
questioning.

So why won\'t you?


Why don\'t I do what? Question the hypothesis? Of course I do. I want
to know what chemical soups they are starting with, and how they justify
their choices. I want to know the environment and the basis for that.
I want to know the results. I want to know if their experiments have
been repeated, by the same group and others, and how the results vary.
I want to know about alternative hypotheses - from the same group, and
others. I want to know how well it all fits with the known evidence
from the early earth.

You are trying to create a straw man that the RNA World hypothesis is
\"science\'s unquestioned answer to how life on earth started\", combined
with completely unjustified claims of \"the maths is against it\". You
think that means you can fill the gap with your \"God did it\"
explanation. But actually it merely shows how little you know, and how
little you care about how little you know.

I never said that God did anything, although it is a possibility.

It\'s reasonably probable that this world and even this universe were
designed. We might be a high school science project.

--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 21/03/22 23:01, John Larkin wrote:
> We might be a high school science project.

We are a simulation, as revealed in The Matrix, which
was inspired[1] by Hofstadter\'s \"Godel Escher Bach\".

[1] whether or not they know it

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Tuesday, March 22, 2022 at 6:47:45 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 19:45:04 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 21/03/2022 17:01, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:42:08 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 21/03/2022 15:22, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 06:09:32 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:



Some serious biologists have done the math and got essentially zero.

Proof of 100% is that you are here.

Somehow. But RNA World requires at least as much faith as \"God did it.\"

Only for those that don\'t understand the \"RNA World\" hypothesis, theology, or science.

Nobody understands it. Much less how a self-defining DNA system could have evolved.

You seem to be viewing this all as a binary all-or-nothing thing. It is not.

We have some good ideas of how an RNA World might have come about, how
it might have progressed, and how it might have led to the biological
processes and organisms that we know exist. There\'s lots we don\'t know
- that\'s the nature of science, and why we keep doing scientific
research. In this particular case, there\'s plenty that we don\'t know yet.

But that should not stop you being able to understand what the
hypothesis is about.

Darwinism is hand-waving. It\'s just another anti-faith faith.

Darwinism is solid scientific theory. It\'s as much \"faith\" as gravity.

Youtube has some astounding animations of cell division. DNA programs
thousands of insanely complex, wildly unlikely machines that support
and copy DNA.

Yes, it is wonderful. But only an arrogant fool would look at that all
and declare that it could /not/ have arisen naturally from pre-biotic
chemicals and processes. Only an ignorant fool would declare that it
must have been \"designed\" in some way, by some being. Only a coward
would throw his hands in the air and say \"I can\'t understand it. It
must have been made by God\". Or by robots or aliens, if you won\'t admit
to your anti-science religion.

I never said it couldn\'t happen by Darwinian mechanisms, or that life must have been designed.

You\'ve certainly asserted that life as we know it couldn\'t have evolved in in the time available.

> You invent fake quotes because your real motivation is to fling insults, and to show how much smarter you are than me.

He didn\'t invent a fake quote. He just took what you had posted at face value

> What I have conjectured is that our life form might have evolved by something other than RNA World followed by random mutation and linear-descent selection.

You seemed to be wanting to postulate some other life-form, based on a non-RNA/DNA chemistry that intelligently designed ours.

> I guess any other ideas, even speculations, are forbidden in your world.

They aren\'t forbidden, but truly stupid and ill-informed speculations do get jeered at.

Have you ever looked at animations of the Mandelbrot set? It has
amazing intricacies and patterns - details that change and repeat
indefinitely. And yet it all comes from one very simple equation. Have
you ever played the game \"Go\"? It has very simple pieces, a very simple
board, very simple rules - and yet Go masters regularly learn tens of
thousands of opening sequences before the real game even begins. Have
you looked at a snowflake? Complex things develop by patterns and
combinations of simple things - that is the nature of nature.

Those that /do/ appreciate the difference know that \"God did it\" is
completely without any evidence or proof - and always will be (if there
were evidence, it would be science). It is unfalsifiable, untestable,
and is merely presented as an \"unquestionable answer\".

That last sentence describes RNA World.

The hypothesis is falsifiable - if evidence is discovered that shows RNA
is not a sufficient basis for abiogenesis, we know the hypothesis is
false. It is testable - we can do experiments with various combinations
of starting chemicals and environments, and see if it produces active
replicating RNA. (That\'s what the linked article was about.) It is
questionable - that\'s what the scientists are doing all the time,
questioning.

So why won\'t you?

Probably because he doesn\'t know enough to ask any kind of useful question, and knows it. You are at least equally ignorant - almost certainly as lot more ignorant - and waste our time by posting thoroughly useless speculations.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Tuesday, March 22, 2022 at 10:01:45 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 21:18:31 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 21/03/2022 20:47, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 19:45:04 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 21/03/2022 17:01, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:42:08 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett..no> wrote:
On 21/03/2022 15:22, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 06:09:32 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo..com> wrote:

<snip>

Right - so when you say \"Darwinism is hand-waving. It\'s just another anti-faith faith\", you weren\'t actually dismissing it?

It\'s possible but unlikely that our DNA life evolved that way.
People have done the math and it\'s intimidating. But without evidence, it is
hand-waving. So is Divine creation and panspermia and quantum
intelligence.

People haven\'t \"done the math\". For a start, the first step is to an RNA world, not a DNA one, and you wouldn\'t be talking about \"DNA life\" if you were aware of that.

> Our cells are \"irreducibly complex.\" Everything has to work before anything can work.

They are now. Whatever was around at the start of the process would have been different.

> There could be alternate explanations for life.

Yours seem to come down to \"intelligent design\", which can be paraphrased as \"God did it\".

I wish you would have the guts to stop pissing around, and admit that
you have no regard for science or evidence, but find the world so
confusing and beyond your personal comprehension that you think it was
all made by some supernatural being just for you.

I design world-class electronics.

John Larkin imagines he designs world-class electronics, which is \"insanely good\". The evidence supporting these claims isn\'t all that convincing

> I couldn\'t do that if I didn\'t use science, evidence, experiment, and thinking.

The quality of the \"thinking\" John Larkin exposes here isn\'t impressive .

You\'re a coder, right? That involves no science, no math, no evidence.
Certainly no expertise in biochemistry.

The routes to becoming a coder are diverse. John Larkin skipped a lot of hos science lectures when he was an undergraduate, and doesn\'t seem ed to have learned anything about anything outside of electronics since. His ideas about what might compromise \"expertise\" in biochemisty don\'t seem to be wellfounded

After all, if the great genius John Larkin can\'t understand it, clearly nobody can - so all these scientists are making stuff up, or just acting on faith.

(Yes, I know I am paraphrasing.)

More like lying. Suggesting that things are possible denies nothing.

In your case it ignores - effectively denies - a whole lot of stuff that you ought to know and clearly don\'t.

> Design is the \"possible\" business.

And John Larkin thinks that what he does constitutes design

What I have conjectured is that our life form might have evolved by
something other than RNA World followed by random mutation and
linear-descent selection.

And again - every time you open your mouth you demonstrate how little
you comprehend, and how little you even bother trying to read. If you
had the faintest clue about the RNA World hypothesis, or had made even a
rudimentary attempt at reading my posts, you\'d know the RNA World
hypothesis is not saying that it explains how life on earth came about.

OK, how did it come about?

Darwin\'s little warm pool hypothesis is about all that you are equipped to understand.
There have been more technically advanced reformulations from time to time, but none that you know enough to follow.

And you\'d know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution.

I guess any other ideas, even speculations, are forbidden in your
world.

Informed, thoughtful and rational ideas are welcome - as speculative as
you like. Pointless idiocy that has been corrected countless times
already is not so interesting.
snip

You are trying to create a straw man that the RNA World hypothesis is
\"science\'s unquestioned answer to how life on earth started\", combined
with completely unjustified claims of \"the maths is against it\". You
think that means you can fill the gap with your \"God did it\"
explanation. But actually it merely shows how little you know, and how
little you care about how little you know.

I never said that God did anything, although it is a possibility.

But not a possibility worth spending time thinking about

It\'s reasonably probable that this world and even this universe were
designed. We might be a high school science project.

There\'s nothing reasonable about the hypothesis. It might be true, but there\'s no way that we could find evidence to support it.
It\'s a straw man hypothesis designed to divert attention for the fact that you don\'t know what you are talking about.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:01:32 -0700) it happened John Larkin
<jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
<p30i3h1ssj659elh1nmkmesr6joh0q10eb@4ax.com>:

I never said that God did anything, although it is a possibility.

It\'s reasonably probable that this world and even this universe were
designed. We might be a high school science project.

Apart from all the fights,
It is an interesting science.
Sure, maybe A.Lien designed us in his Walmart \"Make Your Own Dino kit\" somewhere in this universe
or an other one.
But it has been pointed out that that leads to the question: \"Who designed \'A.Lien?\" (circular loop),
Darwinism makes sense - DNA is modified very fast over short lifespans
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/03/evolution-can-occur-really-really-rapidly/

we learn from our parents...
Things get REALLY complicated, and often theories need to be revised, for example about the DNA repair mechanism:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/03/220321132210.htm
This asks 30 USD, but scroll down for the pictures for free:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41594-022-00741-7

Its all very beautiful, is not my field, but could have gotten into it if I did not come from a family with watchmakers in it....??

Bit like you tinkering with cooling fans etc .. little pieces of matter linking up..
all matter is conscious.

Definition of \'God\' in \'God did it?\' \"All we do not know was done by God?\"
That is a LOT

 

[David Brown]

On 22/03/2022 00:01, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 21:18:31 +0100, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 21/03/2022 20:47, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 19:45:04 +0100, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 21/03/2022 17:01, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Right - so when you say \"Darwinism is hand-waving. It\'s just another
anti-faith faith\", you weren\'t actually dismissing it?

It\'s possible but unlikely that our DNA life evolved that way.

You have no basis for determining the probabilities here. And you also
fail to appreciate that unlikely things happen. Sometimes people /do/
win the lottery.

People
have done the math and it\'s intimidating.

People have done all sorts of calculations. Many of these are people
with specific agendas, and many have no qualifications or justifications
for their numbers. The people who do fair calculations based on
evidence and established theory end up with huge margins because there
is so much we don\'t know about what /actually/ happened in the early
stage of life on earth. The best we can do is investigate what might
have been possible.

But without evidence, it is
hand-waving.

The RNA World hypothesis /does/ have evidence. But you don\'t understand
what the hypothesis is saying, so you don\'t understand its evidence.
The experiments being done by researchers in the field are evidence that
emergent complexity from RNA looks plausible. They are not evidence
that the RNA World is what happened - we have no clear evidence for
that, and and are unlikely to ever get much.

So is Divine creation and panspermia and quantum
intelligence.

These have no evidence at all. They answer no questions, give no new
information, cannot be investigated, and lead nowhere. So these really
are hand-waving.

Our cells are \"irreducibly complex.\"

That is a meaningless phrase invented by \"Young Earth\" creationists in
their attempts to disguise their superstitions as some kind of
\"alternative science\". It is used by offensive religious people (and I
use the word \"offensive\" in two meanings) to fool people who don\'t
understand what science is and how it works.

Everything has to work before
anything can work.

No. You are just peddling the standard \"intelligent design\" drivel.

If you want to believe some kind of God made the world, the universe,
and life, that\'s fine. But stop wrapping it in pseudo-scientific
mumbo-jumbo and pretending that makes it a valid alternative to actual
reality.

There could be alternate explanations for life.

Of course there could be alternatives to the RNA World hypothesis.
There are hypotheses based on proteins, on molecular structures related
to RNA, and on combinations. There are likely to be others, both now
and in the future. But the alternatives of interest to the
non-religious are scientific ideas, not mere waffle with no substance
(\"God did it\", \"Aliens did it\", etc.)

If you want to consider life having started on a different planet and
later moved to earth, either in whole or in part, then you have just
moved abiogenesis to a different startup planet. That lets you consider
different starting environments - hotter, colder, different solar
radiation characteristics, etc. You can certainly consider them in your
abiogenesis experiments and theories.

But you also have to consider the additional complications of getting
some or all of early cellular life to the early earth. And it has to
fit with what we know from evidence, such as that there was life here
from a few hundred million years (at most) after liquid water was stable
on the earth\'s surface, and that there is nothing to suggest all current
life did not evolve from that. Any helpful molecules or pre-earth life
that came here from elsewhere would have to survive space travel - that
allows chemicals such as amino acids or RNA precursors knocked from Mars
by meteors, but rules out complete lifeforms from around other stars
without the help of advanced intelligent species. And proposing that
just brings you full-circle back to abiogenesis, but with the added
challenge of explaining /why/ an intelligent species would bring a small
amount of very simple lifeforms all this way, dump it in a muddy puddle,
and then disappear.

I wish you would have the guts to stop pissing around, and admit that
you have no regard for science or evidence, but find the world so
confusing and beyond your personal comprehension that you think it was
all made by some supernatural being just for you.

I design world-class electronics. I couldn\'t do that if I didn\'t use
science, evidence, experiment, and thinking.

You\'re a coder, right?

You love to use that term as though it were an insult. I bet you are
itchy to put the word \"just\" in there. But of course you know nothing
about what I do other than what I have told you (and true to form, most
of that you never read, and most of what you read you didn\'t understand,
and most of what you understood you forgot).

That involves no science, no math, no evidence.
Certainly no expertise in biochemistry.

Science is a way of thinking and working. I am a mathematician by
education. And software design involves mathematics, experimentation,
evidence, and scientific principles. (Good electronics design does too.
It is surprising to find someone so scientifically ignorant, indeed so
determined to reject science, and working as an engineer.) Although I
have been involved in some electronics projects for biochemical
applications, the biochemistry is a hobby and interest.

After all, if the
great genius John Larkin can\'t understand it, clearly nobody can - so
all these scientists are making stuff up, or just acting on faith.

(Yes, I know I am paraphrasing.)

More like lying. Suggesting that things are possible denies nothing.

Call it a summary of the message you present here.

Design is the \"possible\" business.

No, it is not. Design is about making things that /work/ - not things
that might conceivably be plausible if you ignore reality and the
knowledge and experience of everyone else, which is how you seem to
approach topics like abiogenesis and evolution. Presumably that is not
how you do your electronics.

What I have conjectured is that our life form might have evolved by
something other than RNA World followed by random mutation and
linear-descent selection.

And again - every time you open your mouth you demonstrate how little
you comprehend, and how little you even bother trying to read. If you
had the faintest clue about the RNA World hypothesis, or had made even a
rudimentary attempt at reading my posts, you\'d know the RNA World
hypothesis is not saying that it explains how life on earth came about.

OK, how did it come about?

We don\'t know. We will probably never know for sure - finding plausible
paths is the best we can do.

Filling in the gaps in human knowledge with \"God did it\" (or \"alien
robots did it\", if you prefer) is not an alternative.

You are trying to create a straw man that the RNA World hypothesis is
\"science\'s unquestioned answer to how life on earth started\", combined
with completely unjustified claims of \"the maths is against it\". You
think that means you can fill the gap with your \"God did it\"
explanation. But actually it merely shows how little you know, and how
little you care about how little you know.

I never said that God did anything, although it is a possibility.

It\'s reasonably probable that this world and even this universe were
designed. We might be a high school science project.

No, it is not \"reasonably probable\". We can\'t /prove/ that it is not
the case - that\'s the \"beauty\" of your \"God did it\" suggestion (by
whatever name you want to call it). You can\'t call something \"probable\"
unless you have evidence and justification to get at least a rough idea
of quantification - some real numbers. But for your fairy tales, you
have /nothing/. It is indistinguishable from the Flying Spaghetti
Monster, or Last Thursdayism, or The Matrix. And you can\'t call
something \"reasonably\" without having applied reason.

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 21/03/22 23:01, John Larkin wrote:
> Our cells are \"irreducibly complex.\"

That\'s a meaningless phrase and concept.

It is as vacuous as the concept we saw as kid, that
the key living part of the cell is \"protoplasm\".

You should have more faith in mankind\'s intellect.

 

[server]

On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 16:54:27 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 22/03/2022 00:01, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 21:18:31 +0100, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 21/03/2022 20:47, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 19:45:04 +0100, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 21/03/2022 17:01, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:



Right - so when you say \"Darwinism is hand-waving. It\'s just another
anti-faith faith\", you weren\'t actually dismissing it?

It\'s possible but unlikely that our DNA life evolved that way.

You have no basis for determining the probabilities here.

I read books authored by biochemists. Their numbers look reasonable.

A protein is a string of amino acids, typically a chain of 30 or more.
There are 20 available amino acids used to build proteins.

A cell needs thousands of proteins to work and reproduce. Many have no
conceivable incremental evolutionary path to work; subsections are
useless.

Do the math.




And you also

fail to appreciate that unlikely things happen. Sometimes people /do/
win the lottery.

When probabilities get down to 1e-150, one might be willing to
consider alternatives.

People
have done the math and it\'s intimidating.

People have done all sorts of calculations. Many of these are people
with specific agendas, and many have no qualifications or justifications
for their numbers. The people who do fair calculations based on
evidence and established theory end up with huge margins because there
is so much we don\'t know about what /actually/ happened in the early
stage of life on earth. The best we can do is investigate what might
have been possible.

But without evidence, it is
hand-waving.

The RNA World hypothesis /does/ have evidence. But you don\'t understand
what the hypothesis is saying,

You are all personality, all combat, all insult.

That is a good defense against thinking and considering possibilities.

An excellent defense against designing.



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 16:13:27 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 21/03/22 23:01, John Larkin wrote:
Our cells are \"irreducibly complex.\"

That\'s a meaningless phrase and concept.

It says and means exactly that a mechanism is complex and simpler
subsets don\'t work. It\'s a common concept.

If you know of a cell replication mechanism that is simpler than the
one we have, please tell us about it. I especially like that 10,000
RPM DNA unwinder thing, and the bit that copies one strand in segmemts
in reverse. And the funny things that walk around carrying things.

It is as vacuous as the concept we saw as kid, that
the key living part of the cell is \"protoplasm\".

You should have more faith in mankind\'s intellect.

You should be more polite.

--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

 

[whit3rd]

On Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 8:33:31 AM UTC-7, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 20 Mar 2022 08:19:46 -0700) it happened
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
v5he3h98mg0gd9j1r...@4ax.com>:
The big question around things like this is, what\'s the probability
that a system like this - which is hardly cellular life yet - could
happen accidentally in an inorganic world?

100%

We\'ve had landers on Luna, Mars, Venus, so it
could also be called 25%.

And, there\'s amino acids produced in sparks-and-gasses mixtures,
which is definitely organic chemistry, so we could also deny the
\'inorganic world\' status for any and all known examples.

The question would be more interesting, if it were less ambiguous.

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 22/03/22 19:02, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 16:13:27 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 21/03/22 23:01, John Larkin wrote:
Our cells are \"irreducibly complex.\"

That\'s a meaningless phrase and concept.

It says and means exactly that a mechanism is complex and simpler
subsets don\'t work. It\'s a common concept.

If you know of a cell replication mechanism that is simpler than the
one we have, please tell us about it. I especially like that 10,000
RPM DNA unwinder thing, and the bit that copies one strand in segmemts
in reverse. And the funny things that walk around carrying things.

Ah. You mean the cellular reproduction mechanism is
irreducibly complex.

It is as vacuous as the concept we saw as kid, that
the key living part of the cell is \"protoplasm\".

You should have more faith in mankind\'s intellect.

You should be more polite.

You should have more faith in mankind\'s intellect.
It exceeds yours (and mine).

 

[whit3rd]

On Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 12:56:45 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 15:33:10 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

The big question around things like this is, what\'s the probability
that a system like this - which is hardly cellular life yet - could
happen accidentally in an inorganic world?

100%


Some serious biologists have done the math and got essentially zero.

Zero probability for WHAT, exactly? Can you give a citation?

If it\'s zero probability for the particular random mix of lifeforms extant today,
and/or for the slightly different random mix of lifeforms of a century ago (or
a century in the future), then... it\'s a meaningless calculation.

Thermodynamics of an ideal gas tells us that the not-quite-infinite possibilities
of a liter of air are such that any ACTUAL breath you take is....
of zero probability. That doesn\'t mean you don\'t breathe.
Those astronomical statistical numerations don\'t limit possibilities, like breathing
your next breath, and getting some oxygen in, CO2 out...

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 22:13:21 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 22/03/22 19:02, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 16:13:27 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 21/03/22 23:01, John Larkin wrote:
Our cells are \"irreducibly complex.\"

That\'s a meaningless phrase and concept.

It says and means exactly that a mechanism is complex and simpler
subsets don\'t work. It\'s a common concept.

If you know of a cell replication mechanism that is simpler than the
one we have, please tell us about it. I especially like that 10,000
RPM DNA unwinder thing, and the bit that copies one strand in segmemts
in reverse. And the funny things that walk around carrying things.

Ah. You mean the cellular reproduction mechanism is
irreducibly complex.

That too.

It is as vacuous as the concept we saw as kid, that
the key living part of the cell is \"protoplasm\".

You should have more faith in mankind\'s intellect.

You should be more polite.

You should have more faith in mankind\'s intellect.
It exceeds yours (and mine).

There may be things that we will never understand. The origin of the
universe. The origin of life. Where consciousness comes from.

Certainly nobody understands them now, so reasonable open-mindedness
is not a failing to be mocked.



--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon