Self replicating and evolving RNA molecule created...

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 3:30:45 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 16:02:14 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 23/03/22 14:43, 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>

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?

Probably something more like AI, prototyping more complex things than
random base-pair damage.

This is actually system design nonsense. \"Prototyping\" depends on you knowing that your current prototype is different from your other prototypes, and no cell has any information about where it differs from it\'s ancestors.

If some programmers can claim they have AI after a few years of
coding, imagine what a planet full of cells can invent in a few
billion years.

Nothing. AI has a database of failed attempts. Cells can only say \"I am what I am\".

> A folded, squirming protein sounds like a pretty good cross-correlation machine.

Cross-correlation is correlating one data sequence with another. The cell has only got one data sequence, it\'s own.

> Looking for viable protein sequences could be done by some better way than seeing if random mistakes help offspring survive.

If each cell came with a library of previous trial versions, there would be a possibility of comparing new options with choices that had been made in the past. There\'s no such lbrary.

> In other words, evolution evolves, even if neo-Darwinists don\'t want it to.

John Larkin can\'t do system design, so doesn\'t realise that there isn\'t any design documentation in the cellular data base. Modifications aren\'t documented - they just happen and the survivors are the only record of the revision.

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.

But not demonstrated. And other suggestions are mocked.

Your \"other suggestions\" are mocked because they are hopelessly inept.

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?

Because a minimal DNA reproduction mechanism needs complex-programmed DNA surrounded by complex support mechanisms. None of that is useful until it all works.

But the original minimal reproduction mechanism does seem to have been RNA based, and some of the complex support mechanism is still RNA based.
Wittering on about DNA is clear evidence of a very superficial insight into the subject.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[server]

On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 20:35:52 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 23/03/2022 18:46, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 23/03/22 17:24, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 16:39:50 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 23/03/22 16:30, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 16:02:14 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

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?

Probably something more like AI, prototyping more complex things than
random base-pair damage.

If some programmers can claim they have AI after a few years of
coding, imagine what a planet full of cells can invent in a few
billion years.

A folded, squirming protein sounds like a pretty good
cross-correlation machine. Looking for viable protein sequences could
be done by some better way than seeing if random mistakes help
offspring survive.

In other words, evolution evolves, even if neo-Darwinists don\'t want
it to.

That might be a form of evolution, but it isn\'t Darwinian evolution.

Darwinian evolution /is/ random mutation plus natural selection.

Darwin himself didn\'t know the source of variation.

Correct - as illustrated by the sentence \"Darwinian evolution
is random mutation plus natural selection\".

Darwin didn\'t know how inherited traits were passed on, or how mutations
occurred. All he knew - and all he needed to know - was that traits
/were/ inherited, and random mutations /do/ occur.



The neo-Darwinists
have insisted that it must be random mutations to genes.

We have subsequently discovered genes (and more) as the
mechanism of heredity. Random changes are a /sufficient/
mechanism for Darwinian evolution, even though \"intelligent
designer\" fraternity can\'t get their heads around it.


They are also
hostile to any Lamarckian effects, which could surely be useful thus
encouraged by evolution.

No mechanism has been discovered, and it is not /necessary/
for Darwinian evolution.


That first part is not entirely true. (The second is - Lamarckian
evolution is not necessary.) In organisms such as humans, where early
development is within the environment of a parent, epigenetic effects
occur as do other environmental factors - the lifestyle of the mother
can affect the expression of genes in the child, and this can be passed
down. But it is a minor effect, in that it is usually only for the one
generation (such as the child of a smoking mother often being of poorer
health than average).


Part of the hostility to alternate ideas is the need to not be accused
of even slightly trending in the direction of causation or even
complexity. That\'s a barbed-wire fence against unpermitted thinking.

The hostility is against alternate ideas that have already
been considered in detail, and found wanting.


Exactly. Some ideas get rejected on the first pass, others get kept for
further consideration. If you don\'t sort your ideas, you get bogged
down in nonsense that leads nowhere. The hostility here is not towards
ideas in general, it is towards repeated and pointless obsession with
worthless ideas that do not match reality.

Alternate ideas - when they make predict and explain new
effects - are sought after, since they can lead to reward
and recognition.

Having said that, they may take a generation to become
established wisdom, and that\'s no bad thing.


Being in the design business, I am fascinated by how common is
hostility to playing with ideas.

Irrelevant.

And given the quality of Larkin\'s ideas here, unsurprising.



Non-Darwinian evolution, jumping genes, epigenetics were not much
welcomed.

Eh? Jumping genes and epigenetics are part of Darwinian evolution.
They are just additional complications to the mechanisms of biological
evolution as we have it in life on earth - they fit within standard
Darwinian evolution. They don\'t fit neatly within the simple model of
getting your traits via genes from your parents - but biologists are
used to things being more complicated when examined more closely.

Viruses use reverse transcription to insert their genome into a host\'s
DNA, who then builds move viruses. RT is used to make cells produce
useful products like insulin.

Why would we allow RT to work if all it does is enable viruses?

Is viral evolution smarter than our own evolution? Why wouldn\'t we use
RT to beneficial effect?

We probably do. Evolution demands it. If you want to call such effects
non-Lamarckian, well that\'s just your definition.



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 2:52:27 PM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 20:35:52 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 23/03/2022 18:46, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 23/03/22 17:24, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 16:39:50 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 23/03/22 16:30, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 16:02:14 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 23/03/22 14:43, 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>:

Viruses use reverse transcription to insert their genome into a host\'s DNA, who then builds moRe viruses. RT is used to make cells produce useful products like insulin.

Insulin is a protein, DNA isn\'t.

> Why would we allow RT to work if all it does is enable viruses?

You\'ve just said that reverse transcription is used to build insulin (which is probably wrong) which would be a useful activity.

This is a Flyguy level inanity.

> Is viral evolution smarter than our own evolution? Why wouldn\'t we use RT to beneficial effect?

Evolutiojn isn\'t smart - it is merely persistent. If reverse transcription hasn\'t been selected out - which is to say disabled by a random mutation - it probably is doing something useful, and viruses have chanced on the capacity to exploit it.

> We probably do. Evolution demands it. If you want to call such effects non-Lamarckian, well that\'s just your definition.

Evolution doesn\'t \"demand\" anything. It just happens. Lamark\'s fault was to suggest that evolutionary changes were goal-directed, which falls down on the fact that nothing that evolves has any idea of where it came from or where it is going. It can either survive and reproduce, or die before it can reproduce.

That\'s enough to produce a long series of changes that can look goal-directed after the event, but each change is merely a random difference that has survived.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Mar 2022 21:58:31 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Anthony
William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
<7dc744a0-d018-4ecb-8dbe-efe6d1d9817fn@googlegroups.com>:

Evolution doesn\'t \"demand\" anything. It just happens. Lamark\'s fault was to
suggest that evolutionary changes were goal-directed, which falls down on the
fact that nothing that evolves has any idea of where it came from or where
it is going. It can either survive and reproduce, or die before it can
reproduce.

That\'s enough to produce a long series of changes that can look goal-directed
after the event, but each change is merely a random difference that has survived.

It is probably not \'random\' at all
I mentioned how atoms formed and molecules, all obey some laws of nature,
electrons and positrons and neutrons do not \'randomly\' combine
but always form specific constellation.

All are \'conscious\' as to have preferences and \'feel\' the interaction with other particles
and from that form a \'societies\' of particles... ever more complex ... to fabrics, metals .. etc
life is not a \'random\' (so you can do the math and give a \'probability number\') thing
but a natural combining process that will keep combining things
including us and what will be next,

And from that POV all is simple and logical.
We take too much credit for what we do / did invent
Its all in the game.

Look at the link I gave to the fruit flies changes in genome over many generation
adapting to circumstances ... passing changes on genetically..

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 5:53:37 PM UTC+11, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Mar 2022 21:58:31 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Anthony
William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote in
7dc744a0-d018-4ecb...@googlegroups.com

Evolution doesn\'t \"demand\" anything. It just happens. Lamark\'s fault was to
suggest that evolutionary changes were goal-directed, which falls down on the
fact that nothing that evolves has any idea of where it came from or where
it is going. It can either survive and reproduce, or die before it can
reproduce.

That\'s enough to produce a long series of changes that can look goal-directed
after the event, but each change is merely a random difference that has survived.

It is probably not \'random\' at all.

And why would you think that?

I mentioned how atoms formed and molecules, all obey some laws of nature, electrons and positrons and neutrons do not \'randomly\' combine
but always form specific constellation.

Of course they do. Random mutations in the DNA sequence aren\'t \"random\" at that level, but when it comes to their effect on the behavior of the organism they are entirely random.

All are \'conscious\' as to have preferences and \'feel\' the interaction with other particles
and from that form a \'societies\' of particles... ever more complex ... to fabrics, metals .. etc
life is not a \'random\' (so you can do the math and give a \'probability number\') thing
but a natural combining process that will keep combining things
including us and what will be next.

The \"felt\" interactions are strictly local in space and time. There\'s no mechanism that would let them \"feel\" the future consequences of their interactions.

> And from that POV all is simple and logical.

The point of view does happen to be totally demented, but it is handy if you want to start a religion.

> We take too much credit for what we do / did invent Its all in the game.

Simultaneous inventions are well known. but they do reflect the fact that inventors tend to react the same way on learning of some new trick.

> Look at the link I gave to the fruit flies changes in genome over many generation adapting to circumstances ... passing changes on genetically..

But the changes that created fruit flies that couldn\'t survive didn\'t get passed on. That\'s all it take to create the appearance of active adaption.

That was Darwin\'s great insight, and it seems you haven\'t got it yet.

--
Bil Sloman, Sydney

 

[David Brown]

On 23/03/2022 20:32, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 17:46:28 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

The Blind Watchmaker

I read that, and The Selfish Gene. They were qualitative, repetitious,
and boring. A few pages could have made all his points. Hardly subtle.

And yet you missed all his points.


> Dawkins is a self-admitted agressive atheist.

You make that sound like a bad thing.

That corrals all his
thinking.

It means he /thinks/. People following religious dogma avoid thinking
by getting their unquestionable answers presented to them. They are
encouraged /not/ to think too deeply, because then they\'d see all the
inconsistencies and how the answers they\'ve been given don\'t actually
match the questions. Atheists, on the other hand, /do/ get to think,
learn and discover things, because they accept that we don\'t have all
the answers.

 

[David Brown]

On 24/03/2022 04:52, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 20:35:52 +0100, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 23/03/2022 18:46, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 23/03/22 17:24, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:



Non-Darwinian evolution, jumping genes, epigenetics were not much
welcomed.

Eh? Jumping genes and epigenetics are part of Darwinian evolution.
They are just additional complications to the mechanisms of biological
evolution as we have it in life on earth - they fit within standard
Darwinian evolution. They don\'t fit neatly within the simple model of
getting your traits via genes from your parents - but biologists are
used to things being more complicated when examined more closely.


Viruses use reverse transcription to insert their genome into a host\'s
DNA, who then builds move viruses.

Some viruses do that, but most do not. Retroviruses are only a small
proportion of virus families. (The family includes some big names, like
HIV and hepatitis, but it is only one of many different types of virus.)

RT is used to make cells produce
useful products like insulin.

It is useful in all kinds of artificial genetic modification, as it
provides a pathway for altering the DNA of a cell.

Why would we allow RT to work if all it does is enable viruses?

Are you really suggesting that the cells of eukaryotes evolved (or were
\"designed\") specifically to enable reverse transcription to work,
putting up with some 450 million years of virus infections, just so that
one day humans would evolve and advance enough to be able to use RT to
make insulin?

Is viral evolution smarter than our own evolution? Why wouldn\'t we use
RT to beneficial effect?

Why doesn\'t the colour blue taste like forgetfulness?

Your words follow the grammatical syntax of English, but are completely
void of meaning.

We probably do. Evolution demands it. If you want to call such effects
non-Lamarckian, well that\'s just your definition.

I\'m sorry, you don\'t seem to be using words in the same way other people do.

You\'ve read some books on evolution and genetics, probably mostly by
slightly jumbled authors who have particular and peculiar goals - such
as trying to sow doubt in conventional understanding so that they can
squeeze in their own personal variation of \"God did it\". From that,
you\'ve got some vague understanding of some terms and concepts, you take
them out of context, jumble them, add in your weird mental ramblings,
subtract everything that sounds mainstream because you feel that limits
your ideas, and then you regurgitate the mess on your keyboard.

You read like a Dilbert cartoon where the PHB has read something and
then tries to impress people by using big words and technical phrases.
Are you /sure/ you are an engineer? I suspect you are really a
management consultant or marketing manager.

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 24/03/22 09:23, David Brown wrote:

<snipped Larkin\'s gurgling>

I\'m sorry, you don\'t seem to be using words in the same way other people do.

You\'ve read some books on evolution and genetics, probably mostly by
slightly jumbled authors who have particular and peculiar goals - such
as trying to sow doubt in conventional understanding so that they can
squeeze in their own personal variation of \"God did it\". From that,
you\'ve got some vague understanding of some terms and concepts, you take
them out of context, jumble them, add in your weird mental ramblings,
subtract everything that sounds mainstream because you feel that limits
your ideas, and then you regurgitate the mess on your keyboard.

You read like a Dilbert cartoon where the PHB has read something and
then tries to impress people by using big words and technical phrases.
Are you /sure/ you are an engineer? I suspect you are really a
management consultant or marketing manager.

Nicely put.

The Dilbert/PHB comparison is as valid and amusing
as Slowman\'s better quips

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 8:00:35 PM UTC+11, David Brown wrote:

On 23/03/2022 20:32, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 17:46:28 +0000, Tom Gardner
spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

The Blind Watchmaker

I read that, and The Selfish Gene. They were qualitative, repetitious,
and boring. A few pages could have made all his points. Hardly subtle.

And yet you missed all his points.

Dawkins is a self-admitted aggressive atheist.

You make that sound like a bad thing.

That corrals all his thinking.

How?

It means he /thinks/. People following religious dogma avoid thinking
by getting their unquestionable answers presented to them.

John Larkin has this problem with climate change. Anything posted by Anthony Watts strikes John Larkin as unquestionably correct, even though he\'s part of the climate change denIal propaganda machine.

They are encouraged /not/ to think too deeply, because then they\'d see all the
inconsistencies and how the answers they\'ve been given don\'t actually
match the questions. Atheists, on the other hand, /do/ get to think,
learn and discover things, because they accept that we don\'t have all
the answers.

Agnostics have much the same set of virtues.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Thu, 24 Mar 2022 00:44:44 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Anthony
William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
<8a9aa393-fac3-47bc-9acc-e443f6c5e810n@googlegroups.com>:

On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 5:53:37 PM UTC+11, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Mar 2022 21:58:31 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Anthony
William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote in
7dc744a0-d018-4ecb...@googlegroups.com

Evolution doesn\'t \"demand\" anything. It just happens. Lamark\'s fault was to
suggest that evolutionary changes were goal-directed, which falls down on the
fact that nothing that evolves has any idea of where it came from or where
it is going. It can either survive and reproduce, or die before it can
reproduce.

That\'s enough to produce a long series of changes that can look goal-directed
after the event, but each change is merely a random difference that has survived.

It is probably not \'random\' at all.

And why would you think that?

I mentioned how atoms formed and molecules, all obey some laws of nature, electrons and positrons and neutrons do not
\'randomly\' combine
but always form specific constellation.

Of course they do. Random mutations in the DNA sequence aren\'t \"random\" at that level, but when it comes to their effect on the
behavior of the organism they are entirely random.

No,
<mutations in DNA are caused by things we experience and are \'consciously\' made to increase survival skills>
You could call it \'subconscious\' in a human case as you are not normally aware of it.
Just like changes in electronics are made by us to try to improve or achieve what we want.
All is conscious.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 10:42:34 PM UTC+11, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Thu, 24 Mar 2022 00:44:44 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Anthony
William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote in
8a9aa393-fac3-47bc...@googlegroups.com>:
On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 5:53:37 PM UTC+11, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Mar 2022 21:58:31 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Anthony
William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote in
7dc744a0-d018-4ecb...@googlegroups.com

I mentioned how atoms formed and molecules, all obey some laws of nature, electrons and positrons and neutrons do not
\'randomly\' combine
but always form specific constellation.

Of course they do. Random mutations in the DNA sequence aren\'t \"random\" at that level, but when it comes to their effect on the
behavior of the organism they are entirely random.

No, <mutations in DNA are caused by things we experience and are \'consciously\' made to increase survival skills

What a load of utter nonsense. Mutations are frequently caused by subatomic particles shooting through the cell and breaking up the DNA helix. It puts itself back together, but not quite the way it was before. There\'s nothing \"conscious\" about that.

> You could call it \'subconscious\' in a human case as you are not normally aware of it.

You couldn\'t possibly be aware of it. Your cellular machinery doesn\'t include a DNA sequencing machine.

> Just like changes in electronics are made by us to try to improve or achieve what we want.

And frequently don\'t. Of course we can see the components we are changing, and have some idea what they do. Your cells aren\'t equipped to monitor their internal components and don\'t have the kind of processing capacity required to model them.

> All is conscious.

Really? You seem to be as daft as John Larkin.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Thu, 24 Mar 2022 05:07:06 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Anthony
William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
<f654141c-df3e-412d-ac70-38f675287dfan@googlegroups.com>:

On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 10:42:34 PM UTC+11, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Thu, 24 Mar 2022 00:44:44 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Anthony
William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote in
8a9aa393-fac3-47bc...@googlegroups.com>:
On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 5:53:37 PM UTC+11, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Mar 2022 21:58:31 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Anthony
William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote in
7dc744a0-d018-4ecb...@googlegroups.com

I mentioned how atoms formed and molecules, all obey some laws of nature, electrons and positrons and neutrons do not
\'randomly\' combine
but always form specific constellation.

Of course they do. Random mutations in the DNA sequence aren\'t \"random\" at that level, but when it comes to their effect on
the
behavior of the organism they are entirely random.

No, <mutations in DNA are caused by things we experience and are \'consciously\' made to increase survival skills

What a load of utter nonsense. Mutations are frequently caused by subatomic particles shooting through the cell and breaking up
the DNA helix. It puts itself back together, but not quite the way it was before. There\'s nothing \"conscious\" about that.

You could call it \'subconscious\' in a human case as you are not normally aware of it.

You couldn\'t possibly be aware of it. Your cellular machinery doesn\'t include a DNA sequencing machine.

Just like changes in electronics are made by us to try to improve or achieve what we want.

And frequently don\'t. Of course we can see the components we are changing, and have some idea what they do. Your cells aren\'t
equipped to monitor their internal components and don\'t have the kind of processing capacity required to model them.

All is conscious.

Really? You seem to be as daft as John Larkin.

When you run out of arguments or you fail to read the relevant links or just have lack of understanding of a subject you
constantly switch to insults.

You _could_ learn something.
J. Larkin is for sure right on some points and actually _designs_ electronics.

So again, we, our DNA, adapts to changed circumstances not in a \'random\' way cells experience what they need, are short of, etc
that is how people living in in high altitudes adapt fast over a few generations, not by randomly dying.
I have things in my DNA that come from things ancestors had to live through and am well aware what those are.

You criticize anything that goes against what you learned to parrot ..
When I mention Le Sage you scream like a squeezed cat.
That is exactly also what J Larkin meant by how new ideas are received.

Parrots have little added value for us humans..
I have argued (boast boast) against so many ideas dumped on me and so far have been proven right every time.
But then again it is clear I was dropped here by flying cup and saucers and you only were dropped by random? birds . (one mutated into a stork)
That explains the difference.

So the deeper message is: look what really happens.

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 24/03/22 11:41, Jan Panteltje wrote:

No,
mutations in DNA are caused by things we experience and are \'consciously\' made to increase survival skills
You could call it \'subconscious\' in a human case as you are not normally aware of it.
Just like changes in electronics are made by us to try to improve or achieve what we want.
All is conscious.

If you had children, what conscious changes did you make to
the sperm/egg? And how?

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 11:30:04 PM UTC+11, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Thu, 24 Mar 2022 05:07:06 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Anthony
William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote in
f654141c-df3e-412d...@googlegroups.com>:
On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 10:42:34 PM UTC+11, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Thu, 24 Mar 2022 00:44:44 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Anthony
William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote in
8a9aa393-fac3-47bc...@googlegroups.com>:
On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 5:53:37 PM UTC+11, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Mar 2022 21:58:31 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Anthony
William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote in
7dc744a0-d018-4ecb...@googlegroups.com

I mentioned how atoms formed and molecules, all obey some laws of nature, electrons and positrons and neutrons do not
\'randomly\' combine but always form specific constellation.

Of course they do. Random mutations in the DNA sequence aren\'t \"random\" at that level, but when it comes to their effect on
the behavior of the organism they are entirely random.

No, <mutations in DNA are caused by things we experience and are \'consciously\' made to increase survival skills

What a load of utter nonsense. Mutations are frequently caused by subatomic particles shooting through the cell and breaking up
the DNA helix. It puts itself back together, but not quite the way it was before. There\'s nothing \"conscious\" about that.

You could call it \'subconscious\' in a human case as you are not normally aware of it.

You couldn\'t possibly be aware of it. Your cellular machinery doesn\'t include a DNA sequencing machine.

Just like changes in electronics are made by us to try to improve or achieve what we want.

And frequently don\'t. Of course we can see the components we are changing, and have some idea what they do. Your cells aren\'t
equipped to monitor their internal components and don\'t have the kind of processing capacity required to model them.

All is conscious.

Really? You seem to be as daft as John Larkin.

When you run out of arguments or you fail to read the relevant links or just have lack of understanding of a subject you
constantly switch to insults.

Not exactly. When you have failed to read or understand the relevant literature and make fatuous assertions, you do get told you are wrong.

You may experience this as being insulted, but it isn\'t a useful reaction. What would be useful if your learned enough to stop making fatuous assertions, but that does seem to be beyond you.

You _could_ learn something.

But not from you.

> J. Larkin is for sure right on some points and actually _designs_ electronics.

He produces a range of electronic products, and to the extent they are different, they are different designs. Nothing he posts suggest that he designs his new products. it all sounds like a process of trial and error

So again, we, our DNA, adapts to changed circumstances not in a \'random\' way cells experience what they need, are short of, etc
that is how people living in in high altitudes adapt fast over a few generations, not by randomly dying.

Some of the people who weren\'t lucky enough to be carriers of useful mutations do die young. More of them will retreat to lower altitudes.

The population who survives and thrives at the higher altitudes do turn out to carry the useful mutations. Experience - beyond not dying nor suffering from altitude sickness doesn\'t come into it.

> I have things in my DNA that come from things ancestors had to live through and am well aware what those are.

But how did you find out about them?

You criticize anything that goes against what you learned to parrot ..
When I mention Le Sage you scream like a squeezed cat.

Because - as a theory - it doesn\'t work.

> That is exactly also what J Larkin meant by how new ideas are received.

Precisely. People who don\'t know very much get attached to their silly ideas and resent it when it is pointed out how silly they are.

> Parrots have little added value for us humans..

Sadly, you are the parrot here.

> I have argued (boast boast) against so many ideas dumped on me and so far have been proven right every time.

To your own complete satisfaction. Flyguy has a similar confidence in his own silly ideas.

But then again it is clear I was dropped here by flying cup and saucers and you only were dropped by random? birds . (one mutated into a stork)
That explains the difference.

It is an explanation. Not one of the ore realistic ones around, but no doubt you find it perfectly satisfactory.

> So the deeper message is: look what really happens.

As if you could.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Martin Brown]

On 23/03/2022 16:02, Tom Gardner wrote:

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?

To be fair there are two main routes:

Pure asexual reproduction where the only options are random errors in
copying the genome (most of which are either neutral or detrimental) and
splicing in of some chunk of useful or harmful DNA by a retrovirus.

In sexual reproduction you have a lot more options.

The default is split each gene and take a one from each parent but
sometimes it can go wrong resulting in higher order combinations some of
which are incredibly useful (although not necessarily to the organism).

Commercial triploid banana crops and strawberries include high
multiplicities of genes coding for the bulk proteins and storage organs
in fruit. The price some of them pay for this is no fertile or even no
seeds at all so they have to be vegetatively propagated by humans to
survive.

https://www.le.ac.uk/bl/phh4/openpubs/bananacytogenetics.htm

Greenfly is a concrete example that can switch between these modes when
they need to. If the living is easy then asexual reproduction is much
more efficient with an all female population born already pregnant. But
if the going gets tough they will have more males and then sexual
reproduction to create a spread of genetic traits some of which are
better at surviving droughts and consuming sap of more toxic plants.

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.

His argument is about as plausible as claiming that the ancients could
not possibly have built the pyramids or stone henge so therefore aliens
must have done it. Von Daniken made a fortune selling such tosh to the
credulous and gullible anti-science nutters in the 70\'s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariots_of_the_Gods%3F

Even figuring out how they built medieval cathedrals with the technology
available to them at the time is somewhat tricky but there are a few
surviving contemporaneous illustrations of their methods.

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

It is impressive that the model RNA system they created behaved so well
first time.

It tends to suggest that once the first autocatalytic actor that forms
in the primordial soup then its progeny gets to inherit the Earth.

ISTR there is a conjecture that the presence of the moon and so lunar
month influence on daily tidal range may have played a part in the
initial phase of abiogenesis. Isolated rock pools warmed in the sun and
concentrated are apparently just right for one of the combination steps.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/moon-life-tides/

That couldn\'t have been an incremental process.

Why not?

Because he doesn\'t understand what incremental means.


--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Jeroen Belleman]

Martin Brown wrote:
[...]

ISTR there is a conjecture that the presence of the moon and so lunar
month influence on daily tidal range may have played a part in the
initial phase of abiogenesis. Isolated rock pools warmed in the sun and
concentrated are apparently just right for one of the combination steps.

Daily hot/cold cycles are just what was needed to multiply loose
bits of DNA or RNA. It still works that way today in PCR setups.
No cells needed, although the medium has to be just right.

Jeroen Belleman

 

[server]

On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 10:00:26 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 23/03/2022 20:32, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 17:46:28 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

The Blind Watchmaker

I read that, and The Selfish Gene. They were qualitative, repetitious,
and boring. A few pages could have made all his points. Hardly subtle.


And yet you missed all his points.

He only had a couple, none original. Maybe you can summarize his many
original ideas for us.

Dawkins is a self-admitted agressive atheist.

You make that sound like a bad thing.

Yes. Strong emotions constrain logical thinking.

That corrals all his
thinking.


It means he /thinks/. People following religious dogma avoid thinking
by getting their unquestionable answers presented to them. They are
encouraged /not/ to think too deeply, because then they\'d see all the
inconsistencies and how the answers they\'ve been given don\'t actually
match the questions. Atheists, on the other hand, /do/ get to think,
learn and discover things, because they accept that we don\'t have all
the answers.

Why is anti-religious dogma any better than religious? Both put some
ideas off-limits.





--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[server]

On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 15:37:59 +0000, Martin Brown
<\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 23/03/2022 16:02, Tom Gardner wrote:
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?

To be fair there are two main routes:

Pure asexual reproduction where the only options are random errors in
copying the genome (most of which are either neutral or detrimental) and
splicing in of some chunk of useful or harmful DNA by a retrovirus.

In sexual reproduction you have a lot more options.

The default is split each gene and take a one from each parent but
sometimes it can go wrong resulting in higher order combinations some of
which are incredibly useful (although not necessarily to the organism).

Commercial triploid banana crops and strawberries include high
multiplicities of genes coding for the bulk proteins and storage organs
in fruit. The price some of them pay for this is no fertile or even no
seeds at all so they have to be vegetatively propagated by humans to
survive.

https://www.le.ac.uk/bl/phh4/openpubs/bananacytogenetics.htm

Greenfly is a concrete example that can switch between these modes when
they need to. If the living is easy then asexual reproduction is much
more efficient with an all female population born already pregnant. But
if the going gets tough they will have more males and then sexual
reproduction to create a spread of genetic traits some of which are
better at surviving droughts and consuming sap of more toxic plants.

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.

His argument is about as plausible as claiming that the ancients could
not possibly have built the pyramids or stone henge so therefore aliens
must have done it. Von Daniken made a fortune selling such tosh to the
credulous and gullible anti-science nutters in the 70\'s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariots_of_the_Gods%3F

Even figuring out how they built medieval cathedrals with the technology
available to them at the time is somewhat tricky but there are a few
surviving contemporaneous illustrations of their methods.

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

It is impressive that the model RNA system they created behaved so well
first time.

It tends to suggest that once the first autocatalytic actor that forms
in the primordial soup then its progeny gets to inherit the Earth.

ISTR there is a conjecture that the presence of the moon and so lunar
month influence on daily tidal range may have played a part in the
initial phase of abiogenesis. Isolated rock pools warmed in the sun and
concentrated are apparently just right for one of the combination steps.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/moon-life-tides/

That couldn\'t have been an incremental process.

Why not?

Because he doesn\'t understand what incremental means.

Because a non-functional complex system is not improved by random
mutation and selection.




--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[Martin Brown]

On 24/03/2022 16:20, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 15:37:59 +0000, Martin Brown
\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 23/03/2022 16:02, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 23/03/22 14:43, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

That couldn\'t have been an incremental process.

Why not?

Because he doesn\'t understand what incremental means.

Because a non-functional complex system is not improved by random
mutation and selection.

You start with the simplest systems of all and slowly build ever more
complicated systems up from them. Diffusion limited chemical reactions
can do quite astonishing things even in purely inorganic chemistry.

You demand that a complex eukaryote springs out of nowhere and insist
that the probability of that happening is essentially zero. Fair enough
because that is almost certainly *not* how it happened.

The way it happened is that a simple replicator got ever more diverse
and complicated. Eventually isolated itself from its environment with a
semipermeable lipid membrane so that there was the very first cell.

It was a hell of a long time between the evolution of the most basic
archeae and bacteria and the much more complicated eukaryotes. We don\'t
know for sure but the evidence from the way that mitochondrial DNA is
entirely inherited along the maternal egg line is that a very long time
ago what are now mitochondria (and possibly chloroplasts too) were
engulfed by another cell but were not digested and continued to live
inside the cell in a symbiotic way to the benefit of both.

This isn\'t a bad introduction to what is known so far about the early
history of life on Earth and the emergence of the first basic prokaryote
and then later the more complex cells with a distinct nucleus.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9841/

I know I am wasting my time with you. The reference is for any lurkers
here who might be taken in by your spurious specious claims.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 10:23:14 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 24/03/2022 04:52, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 20:35:52 +0100, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 23/03/2022 18:46, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 23/03/22 17:24, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:



Non-Darwinian evolution, jumping genes, epigenetics were not much
welcomed.

Eh? Jumping genes and epigenetics are part of Darwinian evolution.
They are just additional complications to the mechanisms of biological
evolution as we have it in life on earth - they fit within standard
Darwinian evolution. They don\'t fit neatly within the simple model of
getting your traits via genes from your parents - but biologists are
used to things being more complicated when examined more closely.


Viruses use reverse transcription to insert their genome into a host\'s
DNA, who then builds move viruses.

Some viruses do that, but most do not. Retroviruses are only a small
proportion of virus families. (The family includes some big names, like
HIV and hepatitis, but it is only one of many different types of virus.)

RT is used to make cells produce
useful products like insulin.

It is useful in all kinds of artificial genetic modification, as it
provides a pathway for altering the DNA of a cell.


Why would we allow RT to work if all it does is enable viruses?


Are you really suggesting that the cells of eukaryotes evolved (or were
\"designed\") specifically to enable reverse transcription to work,
putting up with some 450 million years of virus infections, just so that
one day humans would evolve and advance enough to be able to use RT to
make insulin?

I am suggesting that reverse transcription may be useful, so was not
eliminated by evolution. It has been suggested that viruses assist
horizontal evolution, for one. I can imagine other uses for RT.

People didn\'t invent Reverse Transcriptase and we don\'t have
antibodies that destroy it.

Don\'t discuss, start the mocking. That\'s what you do to unauthorized
ideas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_transcriptase#History

\"Valerian Dolja of Oregon State argues that viruses, due to their
diversity, have played an evolutionary role in the development of
cellular life, with reverse transcriptase playing a central role.\"

Killing off the occasional individual is a small price to pay for
accelerating species evolution. In that sense, viruses are our
friends.

Oops, another idea. Sorrrry.

--

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