Self replicating and evolving RNA molecule created...

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 6:02:54 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 16:13:27 +0000, Tom Gardner
spam...@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.

But does ignore the fact that more complex mechanisms have been known to evolve from simpler ones.
Looking at what we have now doesn\'t give us direct access to what it might have evolved from.

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 seems unlikely that these refinements are strictly necessary to the process of self-replication in the simplest possible cell that can self-replicate.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/mar/24/landmark-lab-creates-synthetic-cell-with-minimum-genes-needed-for-life-craig-ventner

Craig Venter and his team put together a self-replicating cell that had just 473 genes. Sadly, they didn\'t know what 149 of the genes actually did.
The work got published in Science on the 25th March 2016. Presumably we know a little bit more now.

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.

Probably not. People who pontificate about stuff the don\'t actually understand need to recognise that they need to learn more. My experience is that you do have to be pretty direct to get them to recognise that they do need to learn more - polite formulations don\'t get their attention.

John Larkin does seem to be remarkably resistant to any suggestion that he doesn\'t know as much as he ought to - he does interpret them as threats to his vanity and self-esteem.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 22/03/22 22:48, John Larkin wrote:

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.

Saying \"God created it\", or anything equivalent, is
not understanding. It is avoiding understanding.

> Where consciousness comes from.

Consciousness is probably an emergent property.

Nowhere in the specification/description of a grain
of sand is there anything that hints that a pile of
sand will be a cone with a half-angle of ~35 degrees.

I expect consciousness will be similar.

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

True.

But it /is/ reasonable and valid to mock:
- /repeatedly/ failing to do research and understand
current knowledge
- presuming that if I don\'t understand something
then nobody else /can/ understand it

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 9:48:41 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 22:13:21 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 22/03/22 19:02, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 16:13:27 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 21/03/22 23:01, John Larkin wrote:

<snip>

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.

But vacuous gullibility is definitely a failing, as is claiming that people who put forward half-baked ideas out of ignorance should be treated politely.

They do need to be motivated to learn more and think harder. This is a bit hard on people who aren\'t all that bright to start with, but listening to them waffling on is hard on people who can do better.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 00:19:51 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 22/03/22 22:48, John Larkin wrote:
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.

Saying \"God created it\", or anything equivalent, is
not understanding. It is avoiding understanding.

I never said that.

Where consciousness comes from.

Consciousness is probably an emergent property.

Nowhere in the specification/description of a grain
of sand is there anything that hints that a pile of
sand will be a cone with a half-angle of ~35 degrees.

I expect consciousness will be similar.


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

True.

But it /is/ reasonable and valid to mock:
- /repeatedly/ failing to do research and understand
current knowledge

I\'ve read a lot of books about biological origins of life.

If nobody understands these things, what is \"current knowledge\" ?

Concensus? Hearsay? Faith?

- presuming that if I don\'t understand something
then nobody else /can/ understand it

I never said anything like that. I said that that some things might
never be understood.

You keep misquoting me so you can, as you say, mock. That\'s not
\"reasonable and valid\".

Go type some javascript or whatever you do.

--

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 Tuesday, March 22, 2022 at 3:48:41 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

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

Oh, is \"the origin\" always an identifiable item, with a possible \"comes from\" answer?

The question \'where does current come from\' often has an answer,
because charge is a conserved quantity, and it flows, if at all, FROM a
source, TO a sink... Hearing \'where does voltage come from\' , though,
I want to write down Poisson\'s equation and try to explain
that \'voltage\' comes from a theoretical model for a vector field\'s
nature as a conservative force field.

So, lots of those questions we will never understand are less than
meaningful. Godel, famously, has proved that there are mathematical
truths that we cannot prove. He did it mathematically...

That wouldn\'t be so poignant, if it weren\'t for the fact that Godel also
proved that our mathematics is not (and can never be) proven to be consistent.

 

[bitrex]

On 3/22/2022 2:28 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:

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

It is extremely interesting science! Though philosophically it probably
doesn\'t change very much. Even the Pope at this point is on record as
saying \"God is not a magician\" and didn\'t manufacture life literally out
of nothing as in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

<https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/10/28/359564982/pope-says-god-not-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand>

Though this may have offended a few Catholics it probably didn\'t offend
anyone with a brain.

 

[whit3rd]

On Tuesday, March 22, 2022 at 5:50:45 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

I\'ve read a lot of books about biological origins of life.

If nobody understands these things, what is \"current knowledge\" ?

The \'nobody understands\' means we need more research? That\'s a given,
in LOTS of fields. It doesn\'t mean we don\'t have an ongoing body of knowledge.

> Concensus?

Sometimes; it usually is the case that experts agree.

> Hearsay?

.... remember the game of gossip; there\'s EVERYTHING under the
\"Hearsay\" label: knowledge, fantasy, garbled syllables, rumors, lies, distortions...

> Faith?

Science (formal knowledge and understanding) has no need of that
because another observation, tomorrow, is allowed to change it all.
That\'s the contingency that defines an open mind, also, and denies
implcitly any absolute human authority.

- presuming that if I don\'t understand something
then nobody else /can/ understand it

I never said anything like that. I said that that some things might
never be understood.

Trickster! No one, and never, both mean the matter is beyond human
capacity. But, we don\'t know everything about human capacity.

I\'m willing to say that division by zero IS beyond human capacity, though.
In mathematics, we aren\'t making observations of nature every day... so
math things are not contingent on events, observation, experiment.

The attempt to put \'current knowledge\' of any significant branch of science into
the pigeonholes \"concensus\", or \"faith\" or \"hearsay\" is doomed. None of those fit.

 

[bitrex]

On 3/22/2022 11:54 AM, David Brown wrote:

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.

The possibility that we live in some sort of say ancestor-simulation is
plausibly testable, at least indirectly, making some assumptions about
how the creators of an ancestor-simulation would operate it.

Unlikely to provide absolute answers of course, but the outcomes could
provide bigger or smaller weights to ontological propositions regarding
stuff like the lifetime of intelligent civilizations, whether
intelligent civilizations find value in running ancestor simulations,
whether it\'s theoretically possible to run ancestor simulations on
computers that can plausibly exist in our Universe, etc.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Tue, 22 Mar 2022 23:17:45 -0400) it happened bitrex
<user@example.net> wrote in <ujw_J.188552$iK66.69199@fx46.iad>:

On 3/22/2022 2:28 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
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



It is extremely interesting science! Though philosophically it probably
doesn\'t change very much. Even the Pope at this point is on record as
saying \"God is not a magician\" and didn\'t manufacture life literally out
of nothing as in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/10/28/359564982/pope-says-god-not-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand

Though this may have offended a few Catholics it probably didn\'t offend
anyone with a brain.

I do not follow the Pope\'s utterings, those have no value for me,
Considering all the harm that club has done to people and science over the ages.
War criminals
Neither have Biden\'s utterings any value for me, Military Industrial Complex making war and selling weapons is their business
a defective brain puppet is their perfect tool.
War criminals

 

[bitrex]

On 3/23/2022 2:00 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Tue, 22 Mar 2022 23:17:45 -0400) it happened bitrex
user@example.net> wrote in <ujw_J.188552$iK66.69199@fx46.iad>:

On 3/22/2022 2:28 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
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



It is extremely interesting science! Though philosophically it probably
doesn\'t change very much. Even the Pope at this point is on record as
saying \"God is not a magician\" and didn\'t manufacture life literally out
of nothing as in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/10/28/359564982/pope-says-god-not-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand

Though this may have offended a few Catholics it probably didn\'t offend
anyone with a brain.

I do not follow the Pope\'s utterings, those have no value for me,
Considering all the harm that club has done to people and science over the ages.
War criminals

I\'m an Episcopalian - we left the Church of England behind quite a while
ago, and the Pope\'s authority quite a while before that.

Neither have Biden\'s utterings any value for me, Military Industrial Complex making war and selling weapons is their business
a defective brain puppet is their perfect tool.
War criminals

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Tue, 22 Mar 2022 15:48:30 -0700) it happened John Larkin
<jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
<h7kk3hht887bu7jotdp2a7q4punnbounve@4ax.com>:

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.

As to evolution, would you ever expect that an ape-like colony as we are
would self evolve to produce microchips? Communicate via radio?
It is the same mechanism at work!

In your view that probability (apes making nano nano micro chips) would be zero...

In reality things come together, form new things together, use things found by other things, sustain each other,
pick up methods, get more and more complex.
what works persists.
And a hundred zillion times all over again in this universe at any moment.

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 23/03/22 00:50, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 00:19:51 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 22/03/22 22:48, John Larkin wrote:
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.

Saying \"God created it\", or anything equivalent, is
not understanding. It is avoiding understanding.

I never said that.

Several people have pointed out that you have repeatedly
said thing that /are/ *equivalent*. They have given
reasons for the equivalence.

You have only asserted, without justification, that
they aren\'t equivalent.

Where consciousness comes from.

Consciousness is probably an emergent property.

Nowhere in the specification/description of a grain
of sand is there anything that hints that a pile of
sand will be a cone with a half-angle of ~35 degrees.

I expect consciousness will be similar.


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

True.

But it /is/ reasonable and valid to mock:
- /repeatedly/ failing to do research and understand
current knowledge

I\'ve read a lot of books about biological origins of life.

If nobody understands these things, what is \"current knowledge\" ?

Concensus? Hearsay? Faith?

whit3rd\'s response to that is to the point.

- presuming that if I don\'t understand something
then nobody else /can/ understand it

I never said anything like that.

You didn\'t say it. That doesn\'t mean it isn\'t the case.

If you don\'t understand that then you couldn\'t be
trusted to produce correct javascript.

I said that that some things might
never be understood.

You keep misquoting me so you can, as you say, mock. That\'s not
\"reasonable and valid\".

Go type some javascript or whatever you do.

Cheap insults don\'t help.

 

[server]

On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 07:34:20 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 23/03/22 00:50, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 00:19:51 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 22/03/22 22:48, John Larkin wrote:
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.

Saying \"God created it\", or anything equivalent, is
not understanding. It is avoiding understanding.

I never said that.

Several people have pointed out that you have repeatedly
said thing that /are/ *equivalent*. They have given
reasons for the equivalence.

Cite a statement where I said that God created life on earth.

And \"several people\" ? That\'s your call to authority? Several people
on usenet!

What is the origin of DNA-based life on earth?

You have only asserted, without justification, that
they aren\'t equivalent.

Do you actually ever do anything useful? Or original?

Tell us.





--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[server]

On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 06:13:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Tue, 22 Mar 2022 15:48:30 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
h7kk3hht887bu7jotdp2a7q4punnbounve@4ax.com>:

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.

As to evolution, would you ever expect that an ape-like colony as we are
would self evolve to produce microchips? Communicate via radio?
It is the same mechanism at work!

Darwinian incremental evolution happens in plain sight, although it is
surely more efficient than random mutation and natural selection.

The big unknown is how the first, incredibly complex, reproducing
DNA-based cells came to be, and survived. That couldn\'t have been an
incremental process.

In your view that probability (apes making nano nano micro chips) would be zero...

No, we are involved in EUV lithography so of course it works.



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Mar 2022 07:43:37 -0700) it happened
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
<s8cm3hh2mu6tlc5sc643n1907u9v79cp5k@4ax.com>:

On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 06:13:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Tue, 22 Mar 2022 15:48:30 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
h7kk3hht887bu7jotdp2a7q4punnbounve@4ax.com>:

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.

As to evolution, would you ever expect that an ape-like colony as we are
would self evolve to produce microchips? Communicate via radio?
It is the same mechanism at work!

Darwinian incremental evolution happens in plain sight, although it is
surely more efficient than random mutation and natural selection.

The big unknown is how the first, incredibly complex, reproducing
DNA-based cells came to be, and survived. That couldn\'t have been an
incremental process.

Depends what you mean by \'incremental\'
All nature is incremental, strange basic particles - like what CERN is looking for - combined to form quarks combining into atoms
that then formed elements (neatly described in the periodic system) that then combined into all sorts of things
RNA, DNA, that then combined into .. apes .. humans making microchips, whatever is next...

In your view that probability (apes making nano nano micro chips) would be zero...

No, we are involved in EUV lithography so of course it works.

sigh

I will leave it a this.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 1:43:48 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 06:13:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 22 Mar 2022 15:48:30 -0700) it happened John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in <h7kk3hht887bu7jot...@4ax.com>:

<snip>

As to evolution, would you ever expect that an ape-like colony as we are
would self evolve to produce microchips? Communicate via radio?
It is the same mechanism at work!

Darwinian incremental evolution happens in plain sight, although it is surely more efficient than random mutation and natural selection.

Darwinian incremental evolution is random mutation and selection. There\'s nothing efficient about it.

> The big unknown is how the first, incredibly complex, reproducing DNA-based cells came to be, and survived.

The RNA-world hypothesis says that RNA-based cells came first, and DNA got grafted on later. The silicon that replaced to the RNA-germanium, or the DNA hard disk that replaced the RNA floppy.

The first cells won\'t have been incredibly complex.

https://www.wired.com/2016/03/mystery-minimal-cell-craig-venters-new-synthetic-life-form/

Craig Venter got his \"minimal\" cells down to 473 genes (we\'ve got about 20,000), but we don\'t know what 149 of them do. Seventy of them sort of make sense, but the last 79 are a mystery, at least at the moment.

> That couldn\'t have been an incremental process.

Why not?

In your view that probability (apes making nano nano micro chips) would be zero...

No, we are involved in EUV lithography so of course it works.

It worked before you were involved, when the minimum feature size was rather larger.

We had useful (if crude) electronics before we had integrated circuits. or even transistors, but you\'d have fun deducing the previous existence of valve/tube circuits by looking at a modern integrated circuit.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[David Brown]

On 22/03/2022 17:18, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

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.

What the *bleep* are you talking about? Only the \"God did it\" lot think
scientific abiogenesis hypothesis suggest that a modern day cell turned
up fully functional, by chance in a slime pool. I keep telling you that
you have /no/ idea what the RNA World hypothesis is, or any other aspect
of abiogenesis research, or how basic science works. You think it\'s an
insult - it\'s simple fact, and you prove it again and again.

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 23/03/22 14:43, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 06:13:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Tue, 22 Mar 2022 15:48:30 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
h7kk3hht887bu7jotdp2a7q4punnbounve@4ax.com>:

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.

As to evolution, would you ever expect that an ape-like colony as we are
would self evolve to produce microchips? Communicate via radio?
It is the same mechanism at work!

Darwinian incremental evolution happens in plain sight, although it is
surely more efficient than random mutation and natural selection.

What do you think Darwinian evolution is, if not random mutation
plus natural selection?

The big unknown is how the first, incredibly complex, reproducing
DNA-based cells came to be, and survived.

That key question is currently not well answered, but several
plausible natural mechanisms have been suggested.

I have faith that mankind will continue to refine both
understanding and questions about that topic.


> That couldn\'t have been an incremental process.

Why not?

 

[David Brown]

On 23/03/2022 15:39, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 07:34:20 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 23/03/22 00:50, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 00:19:51 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 22/03/22 22:48, John Larkin wrote:

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

Saying \"God created it\", or anything equivalent, is
not understanding. It is avoiding understanding.

I never said that.

Several people have pointed out that you have repeatedly
said thing that /are/ *equivalent*. They have given
reasons for the equivalence.

Cite a statement where I said that God created life on earth.

<https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Didit_fallacy>

Saying aliens might have created life on earth, or robots from space, or
some kind of god, \"intelligent design\", or that DNA designed itself -
it\'s all the same pointless non-argument. As Tom says, its trying to
avoid understanding - avoiding thought, learning, experimentation. And
despite your obsessive claims, your \"God did it\" piddle is avoiding
having ideas. It\'s giving up.

Yes, we all know you used different names and expressions for the \"god\"
of your \"argument\". It doesn\'t matter - it is the same thing.

Your response to the big questions is \"Scientists don\'t have all the
answers. I don\'t understand anything they are trying to say or do, so
clearly it is incomprehensible and we know nothing. I\'ve an idea -
let\'s say God did it. Then we don\'t have to think any more\".

Scientists\' response is \"Scientists don\'t have all the answers. Let\'s
see what we can do to get more answers - or at least more useful
questions!\".

What is the origin of DNA-based life on earth?

What has that got to do with anything? You don\'t need to keep
demonstrating that you don\'t know what \"abiogenesis\" is, or what the RNA
World hypothesis is. We already know.

You keep claiming to have read \"books by biochemists\". I don\'t really
believe you here - at least, I don\'t believe you have read and
understood modern books written by serious respected biochemists that
cover topics such as abiogenesis or evolution, dealing with the current
approximate consensus amongst scientists of that field, and with current
research in the field. Perhaps you\'ve cherry-picked books by the tiny
fraction of a percent of biochemists who believe \"God did it\" (usually
wrapped as \"intelligent design\", or \"look at these numbers I pulled from
my ass - they prove evolution is wrong and therefore God made us\").
Perhaps you\'ve read good books, but in the eyes-wide-shut manner you use
in this group - nothing actually goes in. I don\'t know what you\'ve been
doing, but you\'ve been doing it wrong.

I would recommend that you start by trying to read and understand what
people post here, before going on to books that are beyond your level -
or that are actively dragging you down.

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 23/03/22 14:39, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 07:34:20 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 23/03/22 00:50, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 00:19:51 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 22/03/22 22:48, John Larkin wrote:
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.

Saying \"God created it\", or anything equivalent, is
not understanding. It is avoiding understanding.

I never said that.

Several people have pointed out that you have repeatedly
said thing that /are/ *equivalent*. They have given
reasons for the equivalence.

Cite a statement where I said that God created life on earth.

And \"several people\" ? That\'s your call to authority? Several people
on usenet!

No \"authority\" is required, merely reading your posts
is sufficient.

\"Several people\" merely serves to show that my reading
of your posts isn\'t completely wrong, no more.