• OT: How life came to Earth

    From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to All on Fri Feb 11 06:54:29 2022
    How life came to Earth ?

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to Jan Panteltje on Thu Feb 10 23:53:16 2022
    On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 1:54:57 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    How life came to Earth ?

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

    Not really "life" as such, but the most important and fundamental building blocks of life. People think life is all about DNA or RNA, but the reality is they are pointless without proteins. Peptides are short proteins, or it is more common to consider
    proteins to be made of multiple peptides, hence the term polypeptide. Proteins are the functioning units of life. Virtually everything that happens in living organisms involves proteins in some way. It is conceivable that life started with proteins,
    without any nucleic acids. It is not conceivable that life started with nucleic acids without proteins. In fact, the purpose of nucleic acids is as a blueprint to allow proteins to make other proteins.

    So they are suggesting that the basic units of life, may have come from space rather than for them to have been created on earth initially. They are at least, leaving the door open for these units to have been created in space.

    --

    Rick C.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com on Fri Feb 11 05:12:01 2022
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 06:54:29 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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

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



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to Rick C on Fri Feb 11 15:29:44 2022
    On 11/02/2022 08:53, Rick C wrote:
    On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 1:54:57 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje
    wrote:
    How life came to Earth ?

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

    Not really "life" as such, but the most important and fundamental
    building blocks of life. People think life is all about DNA or RNA,
    but the reality is they are pointless without proteins. Peptides are
    short proteins, or it is more common to consider proteins to be made
    of multiple peptides, hence the term polypeptide. Proteins are the functioning units of life. Virtually everything that happens in
    living organisms involves proteins in some way. It is conceivable
    that life started with proteins, without any nucleic acids. It is
    not conceivable that life started with nucleic acids without
    proteins. In fact, the purpose of nucleic acids is as a blueprint to
    allow proteins to make other proteins.

    That last bit is not accurate. While acting as a blueprint for proteins
    is a major purpose of DNA, it is not the only purpose. For humans, only
    about 1.5% of our DNA codes directly for proteins as "blueprints".
    Other purposes include epigenetic control and structural support, but
    there's a lot we simply do not yet understand. RNA also comes in many
    types, with many purposes. In particular, several key jobs done by
    proteins as enzymes and catalysts can be done by RNA molecules.

    Thus there is the hypothesis called "RNA world" which supposes that RNA
    was central to the earliest lifeforms, and came before the biological
    use of proteins. It's a hypothesis - nothing is proven. But there's
    enough justification and support for it that it is a serious research
    topic. Certainly there is not enough supporting evidence to claim that
    it is inconceivable that life started with nucleic acids without
    proteins - abiogenesis researchers very actively conceive that idea.
    (Equally, of course, they also consider proteins first, or combinations
    of nucleic acids and proteins at a similar time, or other possibilities
    - it's an open area of science.)


    So they are suggesting that the basic units of life, may have come
    from space rather than for them to have been created on earth
    initially. They are at least, leaving the door open for these units
    to have been created in space.


    Whether such "basic units of life" (including amino acids, peptides,
    fatty acids, nucleic acids, organic molecules, complex carbohydrates,
    etc.) first arrived from space or first came together on earth, is
    unlikely ever to be fully established. However, the fact that we have
    found many of them in space makes it clear that they can be produced by relatively simple natural forces, breaking the chicken-and-egg cycle of requiring lifeforms to make the building blocks of life.

    It can also help to answer some of the /why/ questions - such as why all
    known lifeforms use mostly the same chemical parts. Those are the parts
    that were found lying around when the lifeforms first formed.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Fri Feb 11 15:55:05 2022
    On 11/02/2022 14:12, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 06:54:29 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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

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


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

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

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Fri Feb 11 14:25:07 2022
    On a sunny day (Fri, 11 Feb 2022 05:12:01 -0800) it happened jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in <lonc0h1l5k6a9tbn00ib4u9fle8gd7nbvj@4ax.com>:

    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 06:54:29 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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

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

    The article describes how the basic chemicals needed for RNA an DNA could form in space.

    If you say 'was designed' you get into a loop,
    start:
    'who or what designed it, and who or what designed that...
    goto start

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

    I do not think we are very special at all.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com on Fri Feb 11 07:39:34 2022
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:25:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On a sunny day (Fri, 11 Feb 2022 05:12:01 -0800) it happened >jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in ><lonc0h1l5k6a9tbn00ib4u9fle8gd7nbvj@4ax.com>:

    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 06:54:29 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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

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

    The article describes how the basic chemicals needed for RNA an DNA could form in space.

    If you say 'was designed' you get into a loop,
    start:
    'who or what designed it, and who or what designed that...
    goto start

    It could have been designed by some intelligence that had a less
    complex, more incremental evolutionary path. Something that evolved
    billions of years before earth formed.

    If you believe in evolution, you will give that a fair consideration.


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

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

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


    I do not think we are very special at all.

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




    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to david.brown@hesbynett.no on Fri Feb 11 07:54:57 2022
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 15:55:05 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

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

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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


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

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

    Mocking means not thinking. Think about that.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Fri Feb 11 16:25:20 2022
    On a sunny day (Fri, 11 Feb 2022 07:39:34 -0800) it happened jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in <r10d0hduin2cv6mvpcajlq6uco7gjifa48@4ax.com>:

    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:25:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On a sunny day (Fri, 11 Feb 2022 05:12:01 -0800) it happened >>jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in >><lonc0h1l5k6a9tbn00ib4u9fle8gd7nbvj@4ax.com>:

    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 06:54:29 GMT, Jan Panteltje >>><pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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

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

    The article describes how the basic chemicals needed for RNA an DNA could form in space.

    If you say 'was designed' you get into a loop,
    start:
    'who or what designed it, and who or what designed that...
    goto start

    It could have been designed by some intelligence that had a less
    complex, more incremental evolutionary path. Something that evolved
    billions of years before earth formed.

    If you believe in evolution, you will give that a fair consideration.


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

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

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


    I do not think we are very special at all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    He deserves credit!!!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Fri Feb 11 16:42:33 2022
    On 11/02/22 15:39, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:25:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On a sunny day (Fri, 11 Feb 2022 05:12:01 -0800) it happened
    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
    <lonc0h1l5k6a9tbn00ib4u9fle8gd7nbvj@4ax.com>:

    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 06:54:29 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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

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

    The article describes how the basic chemicals needed for RNA an DNA could form in space.

    If you say 'was designed' you get into a loop,
    start:
    'who or what designed it, and who or what designed that...
    goto start

    It could have been designed by some intelligence that had a less
    complex, more incremental evolutionary path. Something that evolved
    billions of years before earth formed.

    If you believe in evolution, you will give that a fair consideration.

    OK.
    <0.1s interval>
    Jan has already addressed that, you've ignored it or not
    understood it, viz:
    'who or what designed it, and who or what designed that...'

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com on Fri Feb 11 08:58:08 2022
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 16:25:20 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

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

    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:25:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On a sunny day (Fri, 11 Feb 2022 05:12:01 -0800) it happened >>>jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in >>><lonc0h1l5k6a9tbn00ib4u9fle8gd7nbvj@4ax.com>:

    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 06:54:29 GMT, Jan Panteltje >>>><pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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

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

    The article describes how the basic chemicals needed for RNA an DNA could form in space.

    If you say 'was designed' you get into a loop,
    start:
    'who or what designed it, and who or what designed that...
    goto start

    It could have been designed by some intelligence that had a less
    complex, more incremental evolutionary path. Something that evolved >>billions of years before earth formed.

    If you believe in evolution, you will give that a fair consideration.


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

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

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


    I do not think we are very special at all.

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

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

    Where did that program come from?

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





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

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


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

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

    Got a link for that?

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

    Skepticism is reasonable there.

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

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

    He deserves credit!!!

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



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk on Fri Feb 11 09:02:13 2022
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 16:42:33 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 11/02/22 15:39, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:25:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On a sunny day (Fri, 11 Feb 2022 05:12:01 -0800) it happened
    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
    <lonc0h1l5k6a9tbn00ib4u9fle8gd7nbvj@4ax.com>:

    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 06:54:29 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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

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

    The article describes how the basic chemicals needed for RNA an DNA could form in space.

    If you say 'was designed' you get into a loop,
    start:
    'who or what designed it, and who or what designed that...
    goto start

    It could have been designed by some intelligence that had a less
    complex, more incremental evolutionary path. Something that evolved
    billions of years before earth formed.

    If you believe in evolution, you will give that a fair consideration.

    OK.
    <0.1s interval>
    Jan has already addressed that, you've ignored it or not
    understood it, viz:
    'who or what designed it, and who or what designed that...'

    If you believe in spontaneous generation and evolution, you might
    consider that life should have evolved in billions of places in the
    universe, billions of years ago.

    Give that another 100 milliseconds of thought before you dismiss it.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Fri Feb 11 17:32:11 2022
    On a sunny day (Fri, 11 Feb 2022 08:58:08 -0800) it happened jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in <5v4d0h9ms2s6c19vqb8h6i317l2cmke9sa@4ax.com>:

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

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

    Where did that program come from?

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

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

    You do not want to admit the simplicity of it all :-)

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

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

    I do see well you can guess it ;-)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Fri Feb 11 18:12:33 2022
    On 11/02/22 17:02, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 16:42:33 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 11/02/22 15:39, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:25:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On a sunny day (Fri, 11 Feb 2022 05:12:01 -0800) it happened
    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
    <lonc0h1l5k6a9tbn00ib4u9fle8gd7nbvj@4ax.com>:

    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 06:54:29 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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

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

    The article describes how the basic chemicals needed for RNA an DNA could form in space.

    If you say 'was designed' you get into a loop,
    start:
    'who or what designed it, and who or what designed that...
    goto start

    It could have been designed by some intelligence that had a less
    complex, more incremental evolutionary path. Something that evolved
    billions of years before earth formed.

    If you believe in evolution, you will give that a fair consideration.

    OK.
    <0.1s interval>
    Jan has already addressed that, you've ignored it or not
    understood it, viz:
    'who or what designed it, and who or what designed that...'

    If you believe in spontaneous generation and evolution, you might
    consider that life should have evolved in billions of places in the
    universe, billions of years ago.

    Give that another 100 milliseconds of thought before you dismiss it.

    “Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe
    or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.” ― Arthur C. Clarke

    My personal belief is that intelligent life has evolved many
    times, but we haven't yet communicated with other examples.

    Many people have indeed given that serious consideration,
    famously Enrico Fermi's name and fellow physicists Edward Teller,
    Herbert York and Emil Konopinski - back in 1950. FFI, see the
    inconclusive musings about "The Fermi Paradox".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Fri Feb 11 10:42:40 2022
    On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 5:12:17 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

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

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

    And yes, it's quantum mechanical.

    Well, sure; all chemistry is quantum mechanical. Quantum mechanics, as
    a requirement for understanding, is nearly as ubiquitous as mathematics.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to Tom Gardner on Fri Feb 11 19:35:44 2022
    On 2022-02-11 19:12, Tom Gardner wrote:
    On 11/02/22 17:02, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 16:42:33 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 11/02/22 15:39, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:25:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On a sunny day (Fri, 11 Feb 2022 05:12:01 -0800) it happened
    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
    <lonc0h1l5k6a9tbn00ib4u9fle8gd7nbvj@4ax.com>:

    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 06:54:29 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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

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

    The article describes how the basic chemicals needed for RNA an DNA could form in space.

    If you say 'was designed' you get into a loop,
    start:
    'who or what designed it, and who or what designed that...
    goto start

    It could have been designed by some intelligence that had a less
    complex, more incremental evolutionary path. Something that evolved
    billions of years before earth formed.

    If you believe in evolution, you will give that a fair consideration.

    OK.
    <0.1s interval>
    Jan has already addressed that, you've ignored it or not
    understood it, viz:
    'who or what designed it, and who or what designed that...'

    If you believe in spontaneous generation and evolution, you might
    consider that life should have evolved in billions of places in the
    universe, billions of years ago.

    Give that another 100 milliseconds of thought before you dismiss it.

    “Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe
    or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.” ― Arthur C. Clarke

    My personal belief is that intelligent life has evolved many
    times, but we haven't yet communicated with other examples.

    Many people have indeed given that serious consideration,
    famously Enrico Fermi's name and fellow physicists Edward Teller,
    Herbert York and Emil Konopinski - back in 1950. FFI, see the
    inconclusive musings about "The Fermi Paradox".

    I think intelligent life is unstable. By the time it has become
    sufficiently powerful to communicate or travel over cosmic distances,
    it also has become powerful enough to blow itself into oblivion,
    and will, after a short while (on cosmic timescales).

    Jeroen Belleman

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Fri Feb 11 19:46:05 2022
    On 2022-02-11 14:12, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 06:54:29 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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


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

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

    Non sequitur.

    Jeroen Belleman

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Fri Feb 11 12:00:51 2022
    On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 8:12:17 AM UTC-5, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 06:54:29 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

    How life came to Earth ?

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/02/220210125828.htm
    quantum tunneling?
    The problem of life isn't coming up with small molecular building
    blocks, it's the astoundingly complex mechanism by which DNA works in
    a cell and reproduces itself. It's not so much a chemistry problem as
    a programming problem.

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

    That opinion shows a limited imagination. The chemistry of DNA reproduction does not have to start all at once. Just as the watchmaker would not have been starting with a fully functional Swiss watch on day one. In this case there are theories of
    proteins reproducing with no nucleic acid blueprint to form basic encapsulated organisms with very few of the features of life as we know it.

    But someone who can't envision the process of evolution is not likely to appreciate the many, many tiny steps that would be taken before a single eukaryotic cell was produced or even the first DNA molecule. Someone who can only see a creator, perhaps
    modeled after himself.

    --

    Rick C.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to David Brown on Fri Feb 11 12:10:34 2022
    On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 9:29:54 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
    On 11/02/2022 08:53, Rick C wrote:
    On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 1:54:57 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje
    wrote:
    How life came to Earth ?

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

    Not really "life" as such, but the most important and fundamental
    building blocks of life. People think life is all about DNA or RNA,
    but the reality is they are pointless without proteins. Peptides are
    short proteins, or it is more common to consider proteins to be made
    of multiple peptides, hence the term polypeptide. Proteins are the functioning units of life. Virtually everything that happens in
    living organisms involves proteins in some way. It is conceivable
    that life started with proteins, without any nucleic acids. It is
    not conceivable that life started with nucleic acids without
    proteins. In fact, the purpose of nucleic acids is as a blueprint to
    allow proteins to make other proteins.
    That last bit is not accurate. While acting as a blueprint for proteins
    is a major purpose of DNA, it is not the only purpose. For humans, only about 1.5% of our DNA codes directly for proteins as "blueprints".
    Other purposes include epigenetic control and structural support, but there's a lot we simply do not yet understand. RNA also comes in many
    types, with many purposes. In particular, several key jobs done by
    proteins as enzymes and catalysts can be done by RNA molecules.

    I think you have gone off the deep end here. None of this is relevant to the origins of life. You are describing interactions that have happened long after life began. I like that you even describe "a lot we simply do not yet understand" as something
    that is outside the basic processing of DNA being the blueprint for proteins.


    Thus there is the hypothesis called "RNA world" which supposes that RNA
    was central to the earliest lifeforms, and came before the biological
    use of proteins. It's a hypothesis - nothing is proven. But there's
    enough justification and support for it that it is a serious research
    topic. Certainly there is not enough supporting evidence to claim that
    it is inconceivable that life started with nucleic acids without
    proteins - abiogenesis researchers very actively conceive that idea. (Equally, of course, they also consider proteins first, or combinations
    of nucleic acids and proteins at a similar time, or other possibilities
    - it's an open area of science.)

    Once you start talking about things needing to happen coincidentally, you get into an increasingly improbable region. But we don't know. However, since proteins can function in a life-like process without nucleic acid blueprints, there is no reason to
    think they must have been involved in the beginning.


    So they are suggesting that the basic units of life, may have come
    from space rather than for them to have been created on earth
    initially. They are at least, leaving the door open for these units
    to have been created in space.

    Whether such "basic units of life" (including amino acids, peptides,
    fatty acids, nucleic acids, organic molecules, complex carbohydrates,
    etc.) first arrived from space or first came together on earth, is
    unlikely ever to be fully established. However, the fact that we have
    found many of them in space makes it clear that they can be produced by relatively simple natural forces, breaking the chicken-and-egg cycle of requiring lifeforms to make the building blocks of life.

    It can also help to answer some of the /why/ questions - such as why all known lifeforms use mostly the same chemical parts. Those are the parts
    that were found lying around when the lifeforms first formed.

    Or that these are the "parts" that are possible given the raw materials available due to the basics of physics and chemistry.

    --

    Rick C.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to All on Fri Feb 11 12:29:20 2022
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 10:42:40 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
    wrote:

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

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

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

    And yes, it's quantum mechanical.

    Well, sure; all chemistry is quantum mechanical. Quantum mechanics, as
    a requirement for understanding, is nearly as ubiquitous as mathematics.

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

    --

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Fri Feb 11 12:17:48 2022
    On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 10:39:48 AM UTC-5, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:25:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On a sunny day (Fri, 11 Feb 2022 05:12:01 -0800) it happened >jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
    <lonc0h1l5k6a9tbn0...@4ax.com>:

    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 06:54:29 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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

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

    The article describes how the basic chemicals needed for RNA an DNA could form in space.

    If you say 'was designed' you get into a loop,
    start:
    'who or what designed it, and who or what designed that...
    goto start
    It could have been designed by some intelligence that had a less
    complex, more incremental evolutionary path. Something that evolved
    billions of years before earth formed.

    If you believe in evolution, you will give that a fair consideration.

    Yes, consider that if you examine the idea of preexisting life of a different form creating the life we know today, why is there no sign of such preexisting life? Why would there not be a signature deep inside a glacier in ancient Norway?


    It seems likely that in the trillions of reactions somehow
    some 'executable' part was formed that was strong enough to maintain itself.
    Polymerase chain reaction only needs some temperature cycling to make >copies of say DNA, and temperature cycling happens due to for example the day night changes on planets.
    The big problem is DNA itself, which contains the recipes for the
    thousands of incredibly complex mechanisms required to make a cell and support and reproduce DNA. The problem isn't chemicals, it's
    programming.

    So did Windows start as the massively complex organism that runs on our PCs today? No, it started in the simplest of machines, in a print statement, "Hello, world" or even blinking lights on a front panel somewhere. The programming initially only
    needed to reproduce itself using a process that could be much simpler that what happens today.


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

    That is what people are working on. It's hard to find evidence of chemical reactions from billions of years ago.

    --

    Rick C.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk on Fri Feb 11 12:25:06 2022
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 18:12:33 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 11/02/22 17:02, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 16:42:33 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 11/02/22 15:39, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:25:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On a sunny day (Fri, 11 Feb 2022 05:12:01 -0800) it happened
    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
    <lonc0h1l5k6a9tbn00ib4u9fle8gd7nbvj@4ax.com>:

    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 06:54:29 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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

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

    The article describes how the basic chemicals needed for RNA an DNA could form in space.

    If you say 'was designed' you get into a loop,
    start:
    'who or what designed it, and who or what designed that...
    goto start

    It could have been designed by some intelligence that had a less
    complex, more incremental evolutionary path. Something that evolved
    billions of years before earth formed.

    If you believe in evolution, you will give that a fair consideration.

    OK.
    <0.1s interval>
    Jan has already addressed that, you've ignored it or not
    understood it, viz:
    'who or what designed it, and who or what designed that...'

    If you believe in spontaneous generation and evolution, you might
    consider that life should have evolved in billions of places in the
    universe, billions of years ago.

    Give that another 100 milliseconds of thought before you dismiss it.

    Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe
    or we are not. Both are equally terrifying. ? Arthur C. Clarke

    My personal belief is that intelligent life has evolved many
    times, but we haven't yet communicated with other examples.

    Many people have indeed given that serious consideration,
    famously Enrico Fermi's name and fellow physicists Edward Teller,
    Herbert York and Emil Konopinski - back in 1950. FFI, see the
    inconclusive musings about "The Fermi Paradox".

    F=MA was discovered a few hundred years ago. Electronics, about a
    century ago. Imagine what a civilization could do in a few million
    years.

    Got another tenth of a second to spare?

    --

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to jeroen@nospam.please on Fri Feb 11 12:36:50 2022
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:46:05 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

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

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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


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

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

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

    --

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Fri Feb 11 12:47:44 2022
    On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 12:29:35 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 10:42:40 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 5:12:17 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

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

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

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

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Fri Feb 11 12:58:56 2022
    On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 10:55:12 AM UTC-5, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 15:55:05 +0100, David Brown
    <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 11/02/2022 14:12, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 06:54:29 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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

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


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

    The rabid neo-Darwinists are so afraid of being accused of being Bible-bangers that they won't allow themselves to think about anything
    but spontaneous generation in primordial soup. That fear has seriously
    slowed down evolutionary science.
    Waving magic words like "quantum" will not convince anyone here, nor
    will carefully omitting any direct mention of your pet god. At least
    have the decency to be honest and say you think "God" made life on earth >but you don't know how.
    We have no pets, since the cat died. It's reasonably probable that a
    robot custom-designed the first cells on earth. That's about as good
    an idea as any other right now.

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


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

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

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

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

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

    --

    Rick C.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sjouke Burry@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Fri Feb 11 22:03:46 2022
    On 11.02.22 21:36, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:46:05 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

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

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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


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

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

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

    And how did the master designer come about?

    By magic?

    Spontaneous self-creation?

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Fri Feb 11 22:51:58 2022
    On 2022-02-11 21:36, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:46:05 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

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

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

    Jeroen Belleman

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to whit3rd@gmail.com on Fri Feb 11 21:53:37 2022
    whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in news:2d577fbc-ce0b-4bda-8e77-20e1715009b4n@googlegroups.com:

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

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

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

    And yes, it's quantum mechanical.

    Well, sure; all chemistry is quantum mechanical.

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


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


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

    Srinivasa Ramanujan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joe Gwinn@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology. on Fri Feb 11 16:57:12 2022
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 12:36:50 -0800, John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:

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

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

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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


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

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

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

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

    Joe Gwinn

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Fri Feb 11 14:02:31 2022
    On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 12:37:05 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

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

    Biologists aren't successful at a calculation? So?

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

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


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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to Sjouke Burry on Fri Feb 11 22:13:07 2022
    Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> wrote in news:nnd $29c813ca$02166fd8@938b15c86ca9cbd3:

    And how did the master designer come about?


    Different plane of existence? Different dimension(s)?

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

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

    Though many may have been "shown" throughout history.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to Jeroen Belleman on Fri Feb 11 21:49:35 2022
    Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in news:su6aa1$1tf$1@gioia.aioe.org:

    snip

    I think intelligent life is unstable. By the time it has become
    sufficiently powerful to communicate or travel over cosmic
    distances, it also has become powerful enough to blow itself into
    oblivion, and will, after a short while (on cosmic timescales).

    Jeroen Belleman


    Ever see the movie "Lucy"?

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to Jeroen Belleman on Fri Feb 11 22:40:06 2022
    On 11/02/22 18:35, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    On 2022-02-11 19:12, Tom Gardner wrote:
    On 11/02/22 17:02, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 16:42:33 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 11/02/22 15:39, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:25:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On a sunny day (Fri, 11 Feb 2022 05:12:01 -0800) it happened
    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
    <lonc0h1l5k6a9tbn00ib4u9fle8gd7nbvj@4ax.com>:

    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 06:54:29 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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

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

    The article describes how the basic chemicals needed for RNA an DNA could
    form in space.

    If you say 'was designed' you get into a loop,
    start:
    'who or what designed it, and who or what designed that...
    goto start

    It could have been designed by some intelligence that had a less
    complex, more incremental evolutionary path. Something that evolved
    billions of years before earth formed.

    If you believe in evolution, you will give that a fair consideration. >>>>
    OK.
    <0.1s interval>
    Jan has already addressed that, you've ignored it or not
    understood it, viz:
         'who or what designed it, and who or what designed that...'

    If you believe in spontaneous generation and evolution, you might
    consider that life should have evolved in billions of places in the
    universe, billions of years ago.

    Give that another 100 milliseconds of thought before you dismiss it.

    “Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe
    or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.” ― Arthur C. Clarke

    My personal belief is that intelligent life has evolved many
    times, but we haven't yet communicated with other examples.

    Many people have indeed given that serious consideration,
    famously Enrico Fermi's name and fellow physicists Edward Teller,
    Herbert York and Emil Konopinski - back in 1950. FFI, see the
    inconclusive musings about "The Fermi Paradox".

    I think intelligent life is unstable. By the time it has become
    sufficiently powerful to communicate or travel over cosmic distances,
    it also has become powerful enough to blow itself into oblivion,
    and will, after a short while (on cosmic timescales).

    That's one of the factors in the Drake equation. People
    will continue to argue/refine the parameters - sometimes
    through careful thought/experiment, sometimes through
    prejudice.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to Tom Gardner on Fri Feb 11 22:56:19 2022
    Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in news:su6ok6$ado$1@dont-email.me:

    On 11/02/22 18:35, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    On 2022-02-11 19:12, Tom Gardner wrote:
    On 11/02/22 17:02, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 16:42:33 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 11/02/22 15:39, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:25:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On a sunny day (Fri, 11 Feb 2022 05:12:01 -0800) it happened
    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
    <lonc0h1l5k6a9tbn00ib4u9fle8gd7nbvj@4ax.com>:

    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 06:54:29 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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

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

    The article describes how the basic chemicals needed for RNA
    an DNA could form in space.

    If you say 'was designed' you get into a loop,
    start:
    'who or what designed it, and who or what designed that...
    goto start

    It could have been designed by some intelligence that had a
    less complex, more incremental evolutionary path. Something
    that evolved billions of years before earth formed.

    If you believe in evolution, you will give that a fair
    consideration.

    OK.
    <0.1s interval>
    Jan has already addressed that, you've ignored it or not
    understood it, viz:
         'who or what designed it, and who or what designed
    that...'

    If you believe in spontaneous generation and evolution, you
    might consider that life should have evolved in billions of
    places in the universe, billions of years ago.

    Give that another 100 milliseconds of thought before you
    dismiss it.

    “Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe
    or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.” ― Arthur C.
    Clarke

    My personal belief is that intelligent life has evolved many
    times, but we haven't yet communicated with other examples.

    Many people have indeed given that serious consideration,
    famously Enrico Fermi's name and fellow physicists Edward
    Teller, Herbert York and Emil Konopinski - back in 1950. FFI,
    see the inconclusive musings about "The Fermi Paradox".

    I think intelligent life is unstable. By the time it has become
    sufficiently powerful to communicate or travel over cosmic
    distances, it also has become powerful enough to blow itself into
    oblivion, and will, after a short while (on cosmic timescales).

    That's one of the factors in the Drake equation. People
    will continue to argue/refine the parameters - sometimes
    through careful thought/experiment, sometimes through
    prejudice.


    Same question I asked JB... ever see the movie "Lucy"?

    total fiction but great... fun movie nonetheless.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll on Fri Feb 11 16:10:10 2022
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 22:03:46 +0100, Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> wrote:

    On 11.02.22 21:36, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:46:05 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

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

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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


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

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

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

    And how did the master designer come about?

    By magic?

    Spontaneous self-creation?

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

    As I have noted, non-DNA life could have evolved in a more incremental
    way in a different environment. Then it invented us.

    Consider possibilities. Or sneer.

    Obviously something very impressive happened.

    --

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to All on Fri Feb 11 16:18:10 2022
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 16:57:12 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
    wrote:

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

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

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

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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


    It's astoundingly complex now, yes, but it can't have been in the beginning. >>
    It had to be. DNA style reproduction is incredibly recursively
    complex. Nobody has explained how that self-defining complexity could
    have happened from a puddle of primordial soup. Lots of biologists
    have calculated the probability as indistingishable from impossible.

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

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

    Joe Gwinn

    Is there any RNA life around now, independent of DNA? Where did it go?

    Some lab jock should invent some.

    --

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to All on Fri Feb 11 16:21:37 2022
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:02:31 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
    wrote:

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

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

    Biologists aren't successful at a calculation? So?

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

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


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

    You are demonstrating that anti-theology inhibits even speculating
    about alternates to spontaneous generation in promordial soup.

    I dare you to suggest something else.

    --

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to jeroen@nospam.please on Fri Feb 11 16:15:32 2022
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 22:51:58 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 2022-02-11 21:36, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:46:05 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

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

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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


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

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

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


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

    DNA can't evolve until DNA exists, with the recipes to make itself and
    all its support and reproductive systems. A little polymerization
    won't do that.


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


    Not quite!


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

    If life is created spontaneously, it must have happened on a trillion
    planets across the universe, billions of years ago. That has
    possibilities.


    Jeroen Belleman
    --

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Sat Feb 12 01:54:08 2022
    On 12/02/22 00:10, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 22:03:46 +0100, Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> wrote:

    On 11.02.22 21:36, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:46:05 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

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

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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


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

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

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

    And how did the master designer come about?

    By magic?

    Spontaneous self-creation?

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

    As I have noted, non-DNA life could have evolved in a more incremental
    way in a different environment. Then it invented us.

    Consider possibilities. Or sneer.

    Obviously something very impressive happened.

    Have you seriously considered the flying spaghetti monster?

    It is very impressive, and there's no evidence it is DNA-based.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Fri Feb 11 18:03:10 2022
    On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 4:02:27 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 16:42:33 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
    On 11/02/22 15:39, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:25:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    On a sunny day (Fri, 11 Feb 2022 05:12:01 -0800) it happened jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in <lonc0h1l5k6a9tbn0...@4ax.com>:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 06:54:29 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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

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

    For John Larkin's value of "almost certain" which is to say it is the delusion of an ignorant idiot.

    And yes, it's quantum mechanical.

    Everything else is. Life is certainly no exception. It's not a useful observation.

    The article describes how the basic chemicals needed for RNA an DNA could form in space.

    If you say 'was designed' you get into a loop,
    start:
    'who or what designed it, and who or what designed that...
    goto start

    It could have been designed by some intelligence that had a less
    complex, more incremental evolutionary path. Something that evolved
    billions of years before earth formed.

    It is conceivable, but they'd have to be truly rotten designers if that were true.

    If you believe in evolution, you will give that a fair consideration.

    We do, and there's not a shred of evidence that makes it any kind of useful hypothesis. Name one feature of life as we know it that we might be able to explain if, and only if, the system that we've got had been "designed". Note that John Larki has
    rather odd ideas about what might constitute "design".

    OK.
    <0.1s interval>
    Jan has already addressed that, you've ignored it or not
    understood it, viz:
    'who or what designed it, and who or what designed that...'

    If you believe in spontaneous generation and evolution, you might
    consider that life should have evolved in billions of places in the universe, billions of years ago.

    Nobody believes in "spontaneous generation" any more. Pasteur put paid to that.

    We know that life - as we know it - appeared on earth a couple of billion years ago. Life - as we know it - depends on elements far enough up the periodic table that they weren't around in the early universe until they'd been generated in stars that
    went supernova and spread them around.

    The sun is sufficiently "metal rich" to have to be at least a second generation star. Astronomers class any element heavier that hydrogen and helium as a "metal" which isn't how most people use the term.

    It may be that the universe had to wait a few billion years before there were metal-rich stars around with planets on which life could evolve, and it got going here relatively early. It certainly took another few billion years before we evolved to start
    thinking about what might have been going on.

    Give that another 100 milliseconds of thought before you dismiss it.

    It doesn't take that long in anybody with a functional brain, and access to the relevant information. John Larkin's brain more or less works, but he doesn't know much.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Fri Feb 11 18:08:18 2022
    On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 7:25:23 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 18:12:33 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
    On 11/02/22 17:02, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 16:42:33 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
    On 11/02/22 15:39, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:25:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    On a sunny day (Fri, 11 Feb 2022 05:12:01 -0800) it happened jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in <lonc0h1l5k6a9tbn0...@4ax.com>:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 06:54:29 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

    Many people have indeed given that serious consideration,
    famously Enrico Fermi's name and fellow physicists Edward Teller,
    Herbert York and Emil Konopinski - back in 1950. FFI, see the
    inconclusive musings about "The Fermi Paradox".

    F=MA was discovered a few hundred years ago. Electronics, about a
    century ago. Imagine what a civilization could do in a few million
    years.

    If it lasted that long. A "civilisation" that includes Donald Trump and John Larkin has several fairly obvious failure modes.

    Got another tenth of a second to spare?

    Not to waste on John Larkin's ill-informed speculations.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk on Fri Feb 11 18:20:59 2022
    On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 01:54:08 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 12/02/22 00:10, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 22:03:46 +0100, Sjouke Burry
    <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> wrote:

    On 11.02.22 21:36, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:46:05 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

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

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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


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

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

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

    And how did the master designer come about?

    By magic?

    Spontaneous self-creation?

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

    As I have noted, non-DNA life could have evolved in a more incremental
    way in a different environment. Then it invented us.

    Consider possibilities. Or sneer.

    Obviously something very impressive happened.

    Have you seriously considered the flying spaghetti monster?

    It is very impressive, and there's no evidence it is DNA-based.

    OK, your skill set centers on sneering.

    But you're not very good at that.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Fri Feb 11 18:21:29 2022
    On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 7:37:05 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:46:05 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:

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

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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


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

    It had to be. DNA style reproduction is incredibly recursively complex.

    John Larkin hasn't heard of the RNA-based stage that had to precede DNA-based reproduction, and is still visible in the nuts and bolts of cellular processing.
    RNA does have the advantage that there are RNA-based "enzymes", so that long enough strings of RNA could have created the first self-replicating system.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090109173205.htm

    Nobody has explained how that self-defining complexity could
    have happened from a puddle of primordial soup. Lots of biologists
    have calculated the probability as indistingishable from impossible.

    It's easy to calculate probabilities for the wrong process. Finding the more probable process that might have happened is trickier.

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

    They aren't because they just push back the problem to someplace even less accessible to us.

    You just got carved up by Occam's Razor.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Fri Feb 11 18:45:39 2022
    On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 11:15:47 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 22:51:58 +0100, Jeroen Belleman <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
    On 2022-02-11 21:36, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:46:05 +0100, Jeroen Belleman <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
    On 2022-02-11 14:12, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 06:54:29 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

    <snip>

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

    DNA can't evolve until DNA exists, with the recipes to make itself and
    all its support and reproductive systems. A little polymerization
    won't do that.

    DNA didn't have to evolve on it's own. It seems likely that RNA based life preceded that - and there are enough RNA-based components in life as we know it to suggest that DNA was to RNA what hard drives are to floppies. Both exist to encode and generate
    proteins, so seeing the proteins as the starting point does have it's attractions. The fact that some RNA strings can work as enzymes takes the gilt off that particular bit of gingerbread.

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

    Not quite!

    Or not yet.

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

    If life is created spontaneously, it must have happened on a trillion planets across the universe, billions of years ago. That has possibilities.

    And the SETI project exists to check them out. There's no data available yet that makes it a useful hypothesis.

    https://www.seti.org/

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Fri Feb 11 18:34:39 2022
    On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 11:10:26 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 22:03:46 +0100, Sjouke Burry <burrynu...@ppllaanneett.nnll> wrote:
    On 11.02.22 21:36, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:46:05 +0100, Jeroen Belleman <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
    On 2022-02-11 14:12, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 06:54:29 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

    <snip>

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

    And how did the master designer come about?

    By magic?

    Spontaneous self-creation?

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

    As I have noted, non-DNA life could have evolved in a more incremental
    way in a different environment. Then it invented us.

    Consider possibilities. Or sneer.

    We have considered the possibilities rather more comprehensively than you have.

    Sneering at your half-baked ideas does seem to be the appropriate response.

    Obviously something very impressive happened.

    It eventually lead to us. It's a trifle egocentric to be impressed by that. The species that replaces us may find something else to get impressed by.
    It's possible that we may have come up with a new trick that may give us access to a wider range of habitats than any previous life-form and we may evolve to exploit them. It's just as likely that we've found a blind alley in that the skills that might
    let us exploit new habitats are perfectly capable of destroying the only one that supports us at the moment.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Fri Feb 11 18:51:24 2022
    On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 1:21:15 PM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 01:54:08 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
    On 12/02/22 00:10, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 22:03:46 +0100, Sjouke Burry <burrynu...@ppllaanneett.nnll> wrote:
    On 11.02.22 21:36, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:46:05 +0100, Jeroen Belleman <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
    On 2022-02-11 14:12, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 06:54:29 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

    Obviously something very impressive happened.

    Have you seriously considered the flying spaghetti monster?

    It is very impressive, and there's no evidence it is DNA-based.
    OK, your skill set centers on sneering.

    But you're not very good at that.

    This is the kind of response Flyguy would have come up with, based on wishful thinking rather an any intelligent consideration of what had been said.

    John Larkin has earned the sneering he has got, and - unlike Flyguy - he probably isn't too dim to realise it. He *is* too vain to admit it.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Fri Feb 11 19:18:42 2022
    On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 11:18:26 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 16:57:12 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net> wrote: >On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 12:36:50 -0800, John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:46:05 +0100, Jeroen Belleman <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
    On 2022-02-11 14:12, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 06:54:29 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

    <snip>

    Is there any RNA life around now, independent of DNA? Where did it go?

    Covid-19 has an RNA genome. It's a parasite, but it has to have ancestors. We know about the recent ancestors in bats, but there's no reason to imagine that RNA-only viruses evolved from their DNA-based relatives (such as the small pox virus).

    Some lab jock should invent some.

    One of the sillier theories about Covid-19 is that it was invented by a lab jock.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Fri Feb 11 19:40:30 2022
    On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 4:21:53 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:02:31 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 12:37:05 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

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

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


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

    You are demonstrating that anti-theology inhibits even speculating
    about alternates to spontaneous generation in promordial soup.

    Nonsense. I'm considering the virtues of theories according to normal scientific-theory assesment protocols. It isn't theologically 'good' that concerns a scientist, though that was tried out (alchemy spent a lot of effort on
    old-testament Egyptian lore).

    No theory is 'good' if it can't be explored or used. Life-was-planted doesn't even
    offer blind alleys, let alone roads to understanding.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to david.brown@hesbynett.no on Sat Feb 12 07:45:18 2022
    On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 16:21:54 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 11/02/2022 16:54, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 15:55:05 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

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

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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

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


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


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

    Since "neo-Darwinist" is a made-up term used by people who don't
    understand the science of evolution, it makes no sense to suggest they
    are afraid of anything - they don't exist.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Darwinism


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

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


    I doubt if you
    even understand that they refer to different things.

    Of course they do, at least to me. But the anti-creationist concensus
    seems to blur the boundary, that abiogenesis was itself gradual
    chemical evolution, which I consider to be absurd.

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

    This is especially nonsensical:

    "Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among
    scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood."

    How can something that's un-observed and not understood be
    uncontroversial? The answer is that concensus crushes thinking.


    I seem to believe in evolution more than you do.




    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sat Feb 12 16:21:54 2022
    On 11/02/2022 16:54, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 15:55:05 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

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

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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

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


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


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

    Since "neo-Darwinist" is a made-up term used by people who don't
    understand the science of evolution, it makes no sense to suggest they
    are afraid of anything - they don't exist.

    But like most people who misunderstand science in general, and biology
    in particular, you mix up evolution and abiogenesis. I doubt if you
    even understand that they refer to different things. (You also mix up
    the theory of evolution in general, which is simple and well
    established, and the mechanisms at play in biology and lifeforms
    throughout the history of the earth, which are a lot more complex and
    with new details being regularly discovered.)

    I've been accused of "talking past you" in discussions. I think that's
    fair comment. But it is because you have such a very vague idea of what
    you are talking about, and produce nothing but the flimsiest of thoughts
    with no evidence, justification, or even serious consideration, that
    addressing your "points" is like trying to shoot fog.


    Let me try to put this in simpler terms. (I've tried before, but I'll
    try again.)

    Evolution explains how simple lifeforms can gradually change into more
    complex ones. This covers all aspects of the lifeforms, including how
    genetic code is stored, how mutations occur, and how mutations are
    prevented. It does not, however, have anything to say about how life
    started. The principles of evolution can be tested experimentally
    without waiting millions of years - any kid who studied biology at
    school has done it themselves with fruit flies.

    Abiogenesis is about how life started from non-life. This occurred on
    earth many billions of years ago (it may also have occurred many times
    later - it may be occurring now in a mudpool in your back garden - but
    it hasn't been observed). No fossil record remains from those early
    days, obviously. So information is limited and inferred from what we
    know of chemical and physical conditions, along with what we can trace backwards from existing living things. Thus we will almost certainly
    never be able to determine how abiogenesis actually happened. What we
    /can/ do, however, is identify plausible scenarios and explanations
    about what /might/ have happened. These theories will be strengthened
    or weakened as we find signs of life on other planets, or fail to find
    it where we might have expected it.


    People studying abiogenesis are not /afraid/. Religious people are
    afraid - because they only have the one possible explanation for things,
    and they know the facts don't fit. The more evidence we gather and the
    more we learn, the clearer it is that an "explanation" based on modern misinterpretations of ancient writings makes no sense. Scientists - at
    least the ones doing things right - are open-minded, but sceptical.
    They will accept new ideas but only if there is good reason for it.

    It is this requirement for rational thought and evidence that plagues
    you. You have an attitude that when there is a question for which we
    don't know the answer, then /any/ answer is equally valid. That is just nonsense.

    There is no evidence, and no rational basis for thinking that anything
    involved in biology on earth was "designed" or had any "intelligence"
    behind it, until homo sapiens started domesticating animals and plants,
    and breeding them purposefully. There is vast evidence and solid
    rational theory indicating that it all came about through natural selection.


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

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


    No, it is /not/ a good idea. It is absolute bollocks as ideas go.
    There is /no/ evidence, no justification, no logic, no rationality. It
    does not stand up to a few seconds scrutiny or questioning - such as
    asking "why?", or what happened to the robots, or where did they come
    from, or who made them, or where did that lifeform come from, or why we
    haven't seen /any/ evidence of such "design". No, it is not "reasonably probable" - and you haven't any kind of justification for saying so.

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

    Whether you call your imaginary creator "God" or "alien robot" is pretty
    much just a name. It's the same religious idea. You know you are not
    capable of understanding how biology works, you know we will never know
    for sure how life started on earth (and that's true - all we can learn
    is plausible scenarios). Rather than being curious and wanting to try
    to discover what we can, you prefer to pick a meaningless pat answer
    that has no basis and gives you nothing. It is intellectual laziness.
    And "Aliens did it" is /no/ different from "God did it".

    It is not even a remotely new or interesting idea.

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




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

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

    Mocking means not thinking. Think about that.


    Try thinking about your own so-called "ideas" for a second.

    No, there is nothing wrong with mocking laughable fantasies that you
    pretend are scientific or rational by tagging on "quantum".

    And what makes you think I /didn't/ think about your idea before mocking
    it? What makes you so sure that I dismissed it "instantly" ? A lot of
    what you write certainly can be dismissed quickly as groundless and
    contrary to known evidence - that does not make the dismissal
    inappropriate. It just means other people are far better than you at
    sorting the wheat from the chaff.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to Rick C on Sat Feb 12 16:58:18 2022
    On 11/02/2022 21:10, Rick C wrote:
    On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 9:29:54 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
    On 11/02/2022 08:53, Rick C wrote:
    On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 1:54:57 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje
    wrote:
    How life came to Earth ?

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

    Not really "life" as such, but the most important and fundamental
    building blocks of life. People think life is all about DNA or
    RNA, but the reality is they are pointless without proteins.
    Peptides are short proteins, or it is more common to consider
    proteins to be made of multiple peptides, hence the term
    polypeptide. Proteins are the functioning units of life.
    Virtually everything that happens in living organisms involves
    proteins in some way. It is conceivable that life started with
    proteins, without any nucleic acids. It is not conceivable that
    life started with nucleic acids without proteins. In fact, the
    purpose of nucleic acids is as a blueprint to allow proteins to
    make other proteins.
    That last bit is not accurate. While acting as a blueprint for
    proteins is a major purpose of DNA, it is not the only purpose. For
    humans, only about 1.5% of our DNA codes directly for proteins as
    "blueprints". Other purposes include epigenetic control and
    structural support, but there's a lot we simply do not yet
    understand. RNA also comes in many types, with many purposes. In
    particular, several key jobs done by proteins as enzymes and
    catalysts can be done by RNA molecules.

    I think you have gone off the deep end here. None of this is
    relevant to the origins of life. You are describing interactions
    that have happened long after life began. I like that you even
    describe "a lot we simply do not yet understand" as something that is
    outside the basic processing of DNA being the blueprint for proteins.


    I was making two points. One is that your statement "the purpose of
    nucleic acids is as a blueprint for proteins" is a massive
    over-simplification. The other is that it is entirely plausible that
    RNA (or similar nucleic acids) were the basis for life before proteins
    were involved, at least as far as we currently know. More research into
    these areas may eliminate or strengthen the hypothesis.



    Thus there is the hypothesis called "RNA world" which supposes that
    RNA was central to the earliest lifeforms, and came before the
    biological use of proteins. It's a hypothesis - nothing is proven.
    But there's enough justification and support for it that it is a
    serious research topic. Certainly there is not enough supporting
    evidence to claim that it is inconceivable that life started with
    nucleic acids without proteins - abiogenesis researchers very
    actively conceive that idea. (Equally, of course, they also
    consider proteins first, or combinations of nucleic acids and
    proteins at a similar time, or other possibilities - it's an open
    area of science.)

    Once you start talking about things needing to happen coincidentally,
    you get into an increasingly improbable region.

    Sure. /All/ hypothesis for abiogenesis are based on improbable
    coincidence. But that's okay - a small probability multiplied by
    countless mudpools or volcanic vents (or other appropriate environment)
    across the earth, multiplied by hundreds of millions of years, add up to
    a reasonable probability in total.

    But we don't know.

    Indeed. We can speculate, and we can find different ways to estimate conditions on the early earth, and we can experiment to replicate these
    and see if we can eliminate some possibilities and promote others. In experiments and simulations, pretty much all the parts of abiogenesis
    have been shown - formation of cell membranes, protein fabrication,
    metabolism, replication, nucleic acids, etc. The big challenge is
    finding out how all (or at least most) of these parts could have formed
    in the same environment.

    However, since proteins can function in a life-like process without
    nucleic acid blueprints, there is no reason to think they must have
    been involved in the beginning.


    Basic proteins can form and have simple function without nucleic acids.
    Basic nucleic acids can form and have simple function without proteins.
    There is, currently, no way to know which was first. Perhaps both
    orderings are feasible - or perhaps life required both to have formed coincidentally in the same place and time.


    So they are suggesting that the basic units of life, may have
    come from space rather than for them to have been created on
    earth initially. They are at least, leaving the door open for
    these units to have been created in space.

    Whether such "basic units of life" (including amino acids,
    peptides, fatty acids, nucleic acids, organic molecules, complex
    carbohydrates, etc.) first arrived from space or first came
    together on earth, is unlikely ever to be fully established.
    However, the fact that we have found many of them in space makes it
    clear that they can be produced by relatively simple natural
    forces, breaking the chicken-and-egg cycle of requiring lifeforms
    to make the building blocks of life.

    It can also help to answer some of the /why/ questions - such as
    why all known lifeforms use mostly the same chemical parts. Those
    are the parts that were found lying around when the lifeforms first
    formed.

    Or that these are the "parts" that are possible given the raw
    materials available due to the basics of physics and chemistry.


    Yes.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to david.brown@hesbynett.no on Sat Feb 12 09:03:54 2022
    On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 17:43:55 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

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

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

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


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

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


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

    You claim to understand the origin of life. I speculate precisely
    because I don't understand it. Nobody does.

    Design is speculating widely about unknowns. Uncertainty, confusion,
    wandering about the solution space are assets to design. Concensus,
    surity, convention, "good engineering practice" are the enemies of
    invention.

    Design something, post it, and we can discuss it.






    I doubt if you
    even understand that they refer to different things.

    Of course they do, at least to me. But the anti-creationist concensus
    seems to blur the boundary, that abiogenesis was itself gradual
    chemical evolution, which I consider to be absurd.


    You love to complain when people quickly dismiss your baseless random >thoughts, yet you dismiss serious science on the grounds that /you/
    consider it to be absurd.

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

    This is especially nonsensical:

    "Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among
    scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood."

    How can something that's un-observed and not understood be
    uncontroversial? The answer is that concensus crushes thinking.

    Right...

    You really haven't given this much thought, have you? /Please/ tell me
    you haven't. The alternative is that you are incapable of simple
    rational thought.

    Design something. It's on-topic and requires rational thought.




    This is just a simple two-step process.

    We know that at some point in the past, there was no life. (Let's
    humour you and say we are talking about the planet that developed the >lifeforms that made the robots that seeded the earth - for those that
    prefer to stick to reality, we are talking about the earth or any other >planet that developed life itself.)

    We know that there is life here now.

    Therefore, the planet moved from the state of having no life to the
    state of having life, in a purely chemical and physical manner. That is >termed "abiogenesis" - the formation of life from non-living matter.


    Abiogenesis is completely uncontroversial. Even if you believe in alien >robots, abiogenesis happened on /their/ planet.

    Right. But maybe not DNA.





    Really, it's not hard.


    (The only alternative is that some god or gods created life - and that
    is not science. Science can't disprove anything about gods, and there
    is no evidence of any gods. It is simply a non-issue as far as science
    is concerned, since if evidence of gods were found, that would then be >science.)


    I seem to believe in evolution more than you do.


    $DEITY only knows what you believe in, or why.

    Next you'll be telling us that the red sun of Krypton means that
    Superman's cells produce antigravity that lets him fly, and thus /you/ >believe in gravity more than I do.

    The more rational and scientifically minded among us

    Us? That's funny. A clan of Science groupies.

    don't rely on
    "belief" for evolution - we rely on knowledge of the best current
    theories in science, with the expectation that these will be changed if
    new evidence is found that contradicts them.

    New evidence? What's the old evidence for life springing from
    primordial soup and evolution in RNA World? Making a few organic
    molecules in a test tube, with an electric arc, ain't making a living, reproducing cell. It's not a chemistry problem, it's an information
    problem.






    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to Jeroen Belleman on Sat Feb 12 17:21:13 2022
    On 11/02/2022 19:35, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    On 2022-02-11 19:12, Tom Gardner wrote:
    On 11/02/22 17:02, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    If you believe in spontaneous generation and evolution, you might
    consider that life should have evolved in billions of places in the
    universe, billions of years ago.

    Give that another 100 milliseconds of thought before you dismiss it.

    “Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe
    or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.” ― Arthur C. Clarke

    My personal belief is that intelligent life has evolved many
    times, but we haven't yet communicated with other examples.

    Many people have indeed given that serious consideration,
    famously Enrico Fermi's name and fellow physicists Edward Teller,
    Herbert York and Emil Konopinski - back in 1950. FFI, see the
    inconclusive musings about "The Fermi Paradox".

    I think intelligent life is unstable. By the time it has become
    sufficiently powerful to communicate or travel over cosmic distances,
    it also has become powerful enough to blow itself into oblivion,
    and will, after a short while (on cosmic timescales).


    There is also the big issue that on a cosmic scale, planets are unstable.

    So far, we have only one planet with life to look at. We can make
    guesses from that, but of course we have no way of knowing the accuracy
    of our extrapolations. With that proviso, we know:

    1. Life on earth formed pretty much as soon as conditions were
    tolerable. Within a few hundred million years of there being surface
    water, an atmosphere (giving more stable global temperature) and an end
    to the planet-building phase of the solar system, life evolved on earth.

    2. It took about 2 billion years to go from simple cellular lifeforms
    (bacteria and archaea) to the next big thing - the eukaryote.

    3. It took a hundred million years to invent sex, then development
    really started taking off. A few more hundred million years, and multi-cellular life was common.

    4. Life tends to stabilise and find a balance, with long periods of
    relatively little change. This is interspersed with catastrophes that
    lead to mass extinctions, followed by rapid evolutionary diversity to
    fill the niches that open up once conditions improve again.

    5. "Advanced" animal life is only a few hundred million years old. "Intelligent" life is far younger.


    This would all suggest that its relatively easy for basic lifeforms to
    form and evolve on planets with the appropriate fundamental requirements (liquid water, stable environments, appropriate chemicals). But
    evolution of complex and then intelligent life requires a lot more time,
    and a lot more luck with disasters that are almost but not quite deadly
    to the planet - "whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger".

    What are the chances of a planet in this galaxy surviving for 4.5
    billion years without being hit by a nearby gamma glint, bumped a little
    out of orbit by a passing star, getting hit by a meteor a few times
    bigger than the dinosaurs' bane? I haven't seen the calculations, but I suspect that very few planets remain viable for life for long enough
    without the universe obliterating their populations - that's before they
    get intelligent enough to do it themselves.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sat Feb 12 17:43:55 2022
    On 12/02/2022 16:45, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 16:21:54 +0100, David Brown

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

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


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

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


    I doubt if you
    even understand that they refer to different things.

    Of course they do, at least to me. But the anti-creationist concensus
    seems to blur the boundary, that abiogenesis was itself gradual
    chemical evolution, which I consider to be absurd.


    You love to complain when people quickly dismiss your baseless random
    thoughts, yet you dismiss serious science on the grounds that /you/
    consider it to be absurd.

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

    This is especially nonsensical:

    "Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among
    scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood."

    How can something that's un-observed and not understood be
    uncontroversial? The answer is that concensus crushes thinking.

    Right...

    You really haven't given this much thought, have you? /Please/ tell me
    you haven't. The alternative is that you are incapable of simple
    rational thought.

    This is just a simple two-step process.

    We know that at some point in the past, there was no life. (Let's
    humour you and say we are talking about the planet that developed the
    lifeforms that made the robots that seeded the earth - for those that
    prefer to stick to reality, we are talking about the earth or any other
    planet that developed life itself.)

    We know that there is life here now.

    Therefore, the planet moved from the state of having no life to the
    state of having life, in a purely chemical and physical manner. That is
    termed "abiogenesis" - the formation of life from non-living matter.


    Abiogenesis is completely uncontroversial. Even if you believe in alien robots, abiogenesis happened on /their/ planet.


    Really, it's not hard.


    (The only alternative is that some god or gods created life - and that
    is not science. Science can't disprove anything about gods, and there
    is no evidence of any gods. It is simply a non-issue as far as science
    is concerned, since if evidence of gods were found, that would then be science.)


    I seem to believe in evolution more than you do.


    $DEITY only knows what you believe in, or why.

    Next you'll be telling us that the red sun of Krypton means that
    Superman's cells produce antigravity that lets him fly, and thus /you/
    believe in gravity more than I do.

    The more rational and scientifically minded among us don't rely on
    "belief" for evolution - we rely on knowledge of the best current
    theories in science, with the expectation that these will be changed if
    new evidence is found that contradicts them.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sat Feb 12 20:03:12 2022
    On 2022-02-12 18:03, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 17:43:55 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

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

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

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


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

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


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

    You claim to understand the origin of life. I speculate precisely
    because I don't understand it. Nobody does.

    Design is speculating widely about unknowns. Uncertainty, confusion, wandering about the solution space are assets to design. Concensus,
    surity, convention, "good engineering practice" are the enemies of
    invention.

    Design something, post it, and we can discuss it.






    I doubt if you
    even understand that they refer to different things.

    Of course they do, at least to me. But the anti-creationist concensus
    seems to blur the boundary, that abiogenesis was itself gradual
    chemical evolution, which I consider to be absurd.


    You love to complain when people quickly dismiss your baseless random
    thoughts, yet you dismiss serious science on the grounds that /you/
    consider it to be absurd.

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

    This is especially nonsensical:

    "Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among
    scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood."

    How can something that's un-observed and not understood be
    uncontroversial? The answer is that concensus crushes thinking.

    Right...

    You really haven't given this much thought, have you? /Please/ tell me
    you haven't. The alternative is that you are incapable of simple
    rational thought.

    Design something. It's on-topic and requires rational thought.




    This is just a simple two-step process.

    We know that at some point in the past, there was no life. (Let's
    humour you and say we are talking about the planet that developed the
    lifeforms that made the robots that seeded the earth - for those that
    prefer to stick to reality, we are talking about the earth or any other
    planet that developed life itself.)

    We know that there is life here now.

    Therefore, the planet moved from the state of having no life to the
    state of having life, in a purely chemical and physical manner. That is
    termed "abiogenesis" - the formation of life from non-living matter.


    Abiogenesis is completely uncontroversial. Even if you believe in alien
    robots, abiogenesis happened on /their/ planet.

    Right. But maybe not DNA.





    Really, it's not hard.


    (The only alternative is that some god or gods created life - and that
    is not science. Science can't disprove anything about gods, and there
    is no evidence of any gods. It is simply a non-issue as far as science
    is concerned, since if evidence of gods were found, that would then be
    science.)


    I seem to believe in evolution more than you do.


    $DEITY only knows what you believe in, or why.

    Next you'll be telling us that the red sun of Krypton means that
    Superman's cells produce antigravity that lets him fly, and thus /you/
    believe in gravity more than I do.

    The more rational and scientifically minded among us

    Us? That's funny. A clan of Science groupies.

    don't rely on
    "belief" for evolution - we rely on knowledge of the best current
    theories in science, with the expectation that these will be changed if
    new evidence is found that contradicts them.

    New evidence? What's the old evidence for life springing from
    primordial soup and evolution in RNA World? Making a few organic
    molecules in a test tube, with an electric arc, ain't making a living, reproducing cell. It's not a chemistry problem, it's an information
    problem.


    At the lowest level, it *is* a chemistry problem. The known fact is that polypeptides make copies of themselves under the right conditions. There
    is no need for complex proteins to do it, even if it works better with
    them. There is no need for this process to happen inside cells, although
    that does provide a better environment with the right conditions. The early details of the process, and the various steps towards increasing
    sophistication are still very uncertain, but the overall outline is
    pretty clear.

    We can't exclude (yet) that life came from elsewhere, but even then, this solves nothing. It's just another level of indirection. It has to start somewhere. There may be life elsewhere, or not. We don't yet have the statistics to make any plausible guesses.

    Jeroen Belleman

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joe Gwinn@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology. on Sat Feb 12 14:18:01 2022
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 16:18:10 -0800, John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:

    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 16:57:12 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
    wrote:

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

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

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

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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


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

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

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

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

    Joe Gwinn

    Is there any RNA life around now, independent of DNA? Where did it go?

    Some DNA-free bacteria probably still exist, but have not yet been
    found. But there are plenty of bacteria that have never been studied,
    so don't lose hope. They may be only in extreme environments, like
    near deep-sea "smoker" vents.

    .<https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22093146/>

    "Does a DNA-less cellular organism exist on Earth?", Akira Hiyoshi,
    Kohji Miyahara, Chiaki Kato, Yasumi Ohshima,
    Genes Cells, . 2011 Dec;16(12):1146-58.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2443.2011.01558.x. Epub 2011 Nov 17.


    Some lab jock should invent some.

    Could well be underway, done by the same folk who have been trying to
    find the minimum number of genes a bacteria can have. I don't recall
    the current number, but it was something like a thousand. I laid out
    the details in the "cool book" thread of mid 2021, as I recall.

    Joe Gwinn

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to jeroen@nospam.please on Sat Feb 12 12:38:57 2022
    On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 20:03:12 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

    You claim to understand the origin of life. I speculate precisely
    because I don't understand it. Nobody does.

    Design is speculating widely about unknowns. Uncertainty, confusion,
    wandering about the solution space are assets to design. Concensus,
    surity, convention, "good engineering practice" are the enemies of
    invention.

    Design something, post it, and we can discuss it.






    I doubt if you
    even understand that they refer to different things.

    Of course they do, at least to me. But the anti-creationist concensus
    seems to blur the boundary, that abiogenesis was itself gradual
    chemical evolution, which I consider to be absurd.


    You love to complain when people quickly dismiss your baseless random
    thoughts, yet you dismiss serious science on the grounds that /you/
    consider it to be absurd.

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

    This is especially nonsensical:

    "Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among
    scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood."

    How can something that's un-observed and not understood be
    uncontroversial? The answer is that concensus crushes thinking.

    Right...

    You really haven't given this much thought, have you? /Please/ tell me
    you haven't. The alternative is that you are incapable of simple
    rational thought.

    Design something. It's on-topic and requires rational thought.




    This is just a simple two-step process.

    We know that at some point in the past, there was no life. (Let's
    humour you and say we are talking about the planet that developed the
    lifeforms that made the robots that seeded the earth - for those that
    prefer to stick to reality, we are talking about the earth or any other
    planet that developed life itself.)

    We know that there is life here now.

    Therefore, the planet moved from the state of having no life to the
    state of having life, in a purely chemical and physical manner. That is >>> termed "abiogenesis" - the formation of life from non-living matter.


    Abiogenesis is completely uncontroversial. Even if you believe in alien >>> robots, abiogenesis happened on /their/ planet.

    Right. But maybe not DNA.





    Really, it's not hard.


    (The only alternative is that some god or gods created life - and that
    is not science. Science can't disprove anything about gods, and there
    is no evidence of any gods. It is simply a non-issue as far as science
    is concerned, since if evidence of gods were found, that would then be
    science.)


    I seem to believe in evolution more than you do.


    $DEITY only knows what you believe in, or why.

    Next you'll be telling us that the red sun of Krypton means that
    Superman's cells produce antigravity that lets him fly, and thus /you/
    believe in gravity more than I do.

    The more rational and scientifically minded among us

    Us? That's funny. A clan of Science groupies.

    don't rely on
    "belief" for evolution - we rely on knowledge of the best current
    theories in science, with the expectation that these will be changed if
    new evidence is found that contradicts them.

    New evidence? What's the old evidence for life springing from
    primordial soup and evolution in RNA World? Making a few organic
    molecules in a test tube, with an electric arc, ain't making a living,
    reproducing cell. It's not a chemistry problem, it's an information
    problem.


    At the lowest level, it *is* a chemistry problem. The known fact is that >polypeptides make copies of themselves under the right conditions. There
    is no need for complex proteins to do it, even if it works better with
    them. There is no need for this process to happen inside cells, although
    that does provide a better environment with the right conditions. The early >details of the process, and the various steps towards increasing >sophistication are still very uncertain, but the overall outline is
    pretty clear.

    Uncertain and pretty clear? RNA world is just as faith-based as life
    springing from the head of Zeus.

    The dilemma with DNA *is* an information problem. What was the
    bootstrap process for an incredibly complex machine that is programmed
    to make itself?



    We can't exclude (yet) that life came from elsewhere, but even then, this >solves nothing. It's just another level of indirection. It has to start >somewhere. There may be life elsewhere, or not. We don't yet have the >statistics to make any plausible guesses.

    Jeroen Belleman

    Why do guesses have to be plausible? Seems like a very sterile way to
    live.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to All on Sat Feb 12 12:42:09 2022
    On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 14:18:01 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 16:18:10 -0800, John Larkin ><jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:

    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 16:57:12 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
    wrote:

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

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

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

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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


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

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

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

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

    Joe Gwinn

    Is there any RNA life around now, independent of DNA? Where did it go?

    Some DNA-free bacteria probably still exist, but have not yet been
    found. But there are plenty of bacteria that have never been studied,
    so don't lose hope. They may be only in extreme environments, like
    near deep-sea "smoker" vents.

    .<https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22093146/>

    "Does a DNA-less cellular organism exist on Earth?", Akira Hiyoshi,
    Kohji Miyahara, Chiaki Kato, Yasumi Ohshima,
    Genes Cells, . 2011 Dec;16(12):1146-58.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2443.2011.01558.x. Epub 2011 Nov 17.


    Some lab jock should invent some.

    Could well be underway, done by the same folk who have been trying to
    find the minimum number of genes a bacteria can have. I don't recall
    the current number, but it was something like a thousand. I laid out
    the details in the "cool book" thread of mid 2021, as I recall.

    Joe Gwinn

    https://www.sciencefriday.com/articles/how-many-genes-are-necessary-to-create-a-living-cell/

    It's not said if that cell can reproduce.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sat Feb 12 14:25:11 2022
    On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 9:04:08 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 17:43:55 +0100, David Brown
    <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:

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

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

    False. The 'caution' you refer to is a social concern, NOT a knowledge-and-understanding
    one, thus is not of primary interest in the sciences. The 'should be' phrase means
    you're trying to invoke some kind of value judgment, but whether this is true-false,
    good-evil, or some religious morality scale, is completely obscure.

    Criticism of a science theory is easy: you suggest an improvement. You don't discard bits and invoke cancel-culture concepts to demonize... if you expect to be taken seriously.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sat Feb 12 14:40:38 2022
    On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 2:45:33 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 16:21:54 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
    On 11/02/2022 16:54, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 15:55:05 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
    On 11/02/2022 14:12, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 06:54:29 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

    <snip>

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

    Not a bit.

    John Larkin thinks he knows enough to make that claim. He clearly doesn't.

    But "The Science" of both is incomplete. There remains room for discovery.

    But not a lot of room for ill-informed speculation.

    I doubt if you even understand that they refer to different things.

    Of course they do, at least to me. But the anti-creationist concensus seems to blur the boundary, that abiogenesis was itself gradual chemical evolution, which I consider to be absurd.

    As if your opinion is worth posting

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

    This is especially nonsensical:

    "Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood."

    How can something that's un-observed and not understood be uncontroversial?

    Life exists now. It wouldn't have existed at the instant of the Big Bang, so it had to have come into existence sometime later. It is observed now, so abiogenenis has has to have happened sometime and to that it extent it has been observed. Exactly how
    it happened is less obvious.

    The answer is that concensus crushes thinking.

    You seem to feel that it crushes your sort of "thinking". Sadly, it hasn't.

    I seem to believe in evolution more than you do.

    You may believe in something you imagine to be evolution, but you don't seem to know enough about what the word means to more sophisticated people for this to be a particularly meaningful claim. Or to put it more bluntly, your ideas about "evolution" are
    comically wide of the mark.

    --
    Bill Sloman. Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to All on Sat Feb 12 14:52:48 2022
    On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 14:25:11 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 9:04:08 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 17:43:55 +0100, David Brown
    <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:

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

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

    False. The 'caution' you refer to is a social concern, NOT a knowledge-and-understanding
    one, thus is not of primary interest in the sciences. The 'should be' phrase means
    you're trying to invoke some kind of value judgment, but whether this is true-false,
    good-evil, or some religious morality scale, is completely obscure.

    Science is a social system. It usually resists theories that upset the concensus. It's been observed that the old guard has to die out before
    new theories are taken seriously; that slows things down. Science is
    also notorious for rejecting theories and discoveries from women,
    which is hardly objective.

    "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents
    and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents
    eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
    . . . An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by
    gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens
    that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents
    gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized
    with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that
    the future lies with the youth.

    Max Planck, Scientific autobiography, 1950, p. 33, 97


    Are you a scientist?


    Criticism of a science theory is easy: you suggest an improvement. You don't
    discard bits and invoke cancel-culture concepts to demonize... if you expect to
    be taken seriously.

    "Taken seriously" is part of the problem in science. My version of
    "taken seriously" is a purchase order.






    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joe Gwinn@21:1/5 to All on Sat Feb 12 17:54:49 2022
    On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 12:42:09 -0800, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
    wrote:

    On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 14:18:01 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 16:18:10 -0800, John Larkin >><jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:

    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 16:57:12 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>wrote:

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

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

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

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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


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

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

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

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

    Joe Gwinn

    Is there any RNA life around now, independent of DNA? Where did it go?

    Some DNA-free bacteria probably still exist, but have not yet been
    found. But there are plenty of bacteria that have never been studied,
    so don't lose hope. They may be only in extreme environments, like
    near deep-sea "smoker" vents.

    .<https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22093146/>

    "Does a DNA-less cellular organism exist on Earth?", Akira Hiyoshi,
    Kohji Miyahara, Chiaki Kato, Yasumi Ohshima,
    Genes Cells, . 2011 Dec;16(12):1146-58.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2443.2011.01558.x. Epub 2011 Nov 17.


    Some lab jock should invent some.

    Could well be underway, done by the same folk who have been trying to
    find the minimum number of genes a bacteria can have. I don't recall
    the current number, but it was something like a thousand. I laid out
    the details in the "cool book" thread of mid 2021, as I recall.

    Joe Gwinn

    https://www.sciencefriday.com/articles/how-many-genes-are-necessary-to-create-a-living-cell/

    It's not said if that cell can reproduce.

    Given that it's Venter, I would assume that it can reproduce. The
    actual scientific articles (versus an interview) will likely tell.



    Joe Gwinn

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sat Feb 12 14:56:58 2022
    On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 4:04:08 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 17:43:55 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
    On 12/02/2022 16:45, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 16:21:54 +0100, David Brown

    M<snip>

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


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

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

    It absolutely is. You don't know enough about the subject to appreciate precisely how this caution is baked into the scientific method.

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

    You claim to understand the origin of life.

    He didn't. He laid out what we do know about it.

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

    You speculate very imprecisely because you not only don't understand it , but also don't know enough about area to have any kind of remotely useful ideas.

    Design is speculating widely about unknowns. Uncertainty, confusion, wandering about the solution space are assets to design. Concensus,
    surity, convention, "good engineering practice" are the enemies of
    invention.

    But you don't seem to have invented anything patentable, and your approach to the design process seems to be remarkably slap-dash.

    Design something, post it, and we can discuss it.

    John Larkin plays what he imagines to be his "get out of jail for free" card.

    He is asserting his usual claim that he is capable of design electronic design, which is suspect, and promises to discuss somebody else's design, which he never does.

    <snipped the rest>

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sat Feb 12 15:19:00 2022
    On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 7:39:13 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 20:03:12 +0100, Jeroen Belleman <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
    On 2022-02-12 18:03, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 17:43:55 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
    On 12/02/2022 16:45, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 16:21:54 +0100, David Brown

    <snip>

    New evidence? What's the old evidence for life springing from
    primordial soup and evolution in RNA World? Making a few organic
    molecules in a test tube, with an electric arc, ain't making a living,
    reproducing cell. It's not a chemistry problem, it's an information
    problem.

    At the lowest level, it *is* a chemistry problem. The known fact is that >polypeptides make copies of themselves under the right conditions. There >is no need for complex proteins to do it, even if it works better with >them. There is no need for this process to happen inside cells, although >that does provide a better environment with the right conditions. The early >details of the process, and the various steps towards increasing >sophistication are still very uncertain, but the overall outline is
    pretty clear.

    Uncertain and pretty clear?

    You've got a problem with that?

    RNA world is just as faith-based as life springing from the head of Zeus.

    Not remotely correct. There are enough RNA-based mechanisms in our own cells to suggest that RNA preceded DNA, and RNA-genome viruses do seem to be hangovers from that RNA-world.

    The dilemma with DNA *is* an information problem. What was the bootstrap process for an incredibly complex machine that is programmed to make itself?

    Where's the dilemma? DNA works by having the information it stores translated into shorter strings of RNA which then go off and turn that information into proteins or use it to regulate enzyme ativity. Quite how the original RNA machine acquired the
    capacity to translate itself into DNA and decode that DNA to make more reliable copies of the original DNA is an interesting question.

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

    We can't exclude (yet) that life came from elsewhere, but even then, this >solves nothing. It's just another level of indirection. It has to start >somewhere. There may be life elsewhere, or not. We don't yet have the >statistics to make any plausible guesses.

    Why do guesses have to be plausible? Seems like a very sterile way to live.

    It saves time. There's nothing fertile in coming up with silly ideas that aren't likely to go anywhere. The scientific method does include a number of devices for throwing out bad ideas early so that only a few people get distracted by them. Peer-review
    before publication does exactly that. I haven't refereed al that many scientific papers, but most of them were un-publishable rubbish. I'm rather proud of the one that got published after the authors corrected the mistake that I'd objected to.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sat Feb 12 15:32:11 2022
    On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 9:53:01 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 14:25:11 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 9:04:08 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 17:43:55 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:

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

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

    False. The 'caution' you refer to is a social concern, NOT a knowledge-and-understanding
    one, thus is not of primary interest in the sciences. The 'should be' phrase means
    you're trying to invoke some kind of value judgment, but whether this is true-false,
    good-evil, or some religious morality scale, is completely obscure.

    Science is a social system. It usually resists theories that upset the concensus. It's been observed that the old guard has to die out before
    new theories are taken seriously; that slows things down. Science is
    also notorious for rejecting theories and discoveries from women,
    which is hardly objective.

    "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents
    and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents
    eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
    . . . An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by
    gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens
    that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents
    gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized
    with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that
    the future lies with the youth.

    — Max Planck, Scientific autobiography, 1950, p. 33, 97

    That is the same Max Planck who published all four of Albert Einsteins "annus mirabilis" papers in 1905 without bothering to send them out for peer review.

    https://guides.loc.gov/einstein-annus-mirabilis/1905-papers

    He was being rude about some of his contemporaties, probably mainly Ernest Mach - who "famously declared, after an 1897 lecture by Ludwig Boltzmann at the Imperial Academy of Science in Vienna: "I don't believe that atoms exist!" From about 1908 to 1911,
    Max Planck criticized Mach's reluctance to acknowledge the reality of atoms as incompatible with physics. Einstein's 1905 demonstration that the statistical fluctuations of atoms allowed measurement of their existence without direct individuated sensory
    evidence marked a turning point in the acceptance of atomic theory. "

    Are you a scientist?

    Does it matter? We know that John Larkin isn't one.

    Criticism of a science theory is easy: you suggest an improvement. You don't
    discard bits and invoke cancel-culture concepts to demonize... if you expect to
    be taken seriously.

    "Taken seriously" is part of the problem in science. My version of "taken seriously" is a purchase order.

    That's about as much as you can manage.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to whit3rd@gmail.com on Sat Feb 12 23:25:08 2022
    whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in news:c7e0ae10-926c-4c54-b563-19ec4acf3b38n@googlegroups.com:

    On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 9:04:08 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 17:43:55 +0100, David Brown
    <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:

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

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

    False. The 'caution' you refer to is a social concern, NOT a knowledge-and-understanding one, thus is not of primary interest
    in the sciences. The 'should be' phrase means you're trying to
    invoke some kind of value judgment, but whether this is
    true-false, good-evil, or some religious morality scale, is
    completely obscure.

    Criticism of a science theory is easy: you suggest an
    improvement. You don't discard bits and invoke cancel-culture
    concepts to demonize... if you expect to be taken seriously.


    Think about the tardigrade. They have sequenced its DNA.

    <https://www.sciencealert.com/the-tardigrade-genome-has-been- sequenced-and-it-has-the-most-foreign-dna-of-any-animal>

    It is very strange however as it "adds" DNA elements via "horizontal
    gene transfer" as in not via reproductive hand off, but by adding
    DNA elements of others into its own. They are trying to figure out
    why it is so hardy.

    from nearly absolute zero to very hot temps, and from the vacuum of
    space to very high pressures it lives. even through radiation
    exposure.

    They had to do it twice though because they think the first set of
    scientists may have accidentally included DNA from bacteria that was
    on the animal when sampled.

    We may have arrived here this way. I mean whatever we evolved
    from, that is.

    I found a very interesting piece y'all might like...

    <https://youtu.be/CT7SiRiqK-Q>

    Funny that the random YouTube link has a Q in it. :-)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Sun Feb 13 01:29:38 2022
    On 11/02/2022 21:36, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:46:05 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

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

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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


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

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

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


    This is all just the "watchmaker argument", wrapped up in
    pseudo-scientific nonsense about alien robots and quantum mechanics.

    Nobody thinks the first lifeforms on earth were DNA-based.

    Most likely, they were RNA-based - or something similar. It could have
    been a somewhat simpler nucleic acid, and it was not necessarily exactly
    the same nucleobases that we have now. And yes, many bits and pieces of
    the chemicals involved have been found in space, or produced chemically
    in simulated early earth conditions. It is entirely reasonable to
    suppose that they came about chemically.

    But even if we did not have that support for how nucleic acids came
    about, a hypothesis involving alien robots or divine intervention is
    /not/ "as legit a theory".

    To start with, it is not a /theory/ - in science, "theory" means there
    is a lot of evidence for the idea, a strong hypothesis with internally consistent logic that fits at least reasonably with existing scientific theories, that makes predictions, and that is falsifiable. It does not
    "just some random thought I had".

    If there is a question to which we really don't know the answer (and
    there are many such questions in science), the appropriate response is
    "we don't know". You don't just make up whatever twaddle crosses your
    mind and say "that's as good as any other idea" - it is /not/. When
    there is zero evidence for an idea, no logic, no predictions, no way to
    test the the idea, it answers no questions, it raises far more questions
    that could not possibly be answered consistently, then it is of no help, interest or relevance to anyone. If it leads anyone to waste their time considering it rather than looking for new evidence or considering new
    ideas based on evidence, then it is /worse/ than useless.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sun Feb 13 00:38:49 2022
    On 12/02/22 22:52, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 14:25:11 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
    Criticism of a science theory is easy: you suggest an improvement. You don't
    discard bits and invoke cancel-culture concepts to demonize... if you expect to
    be taken seriously.

    "Taken seriously" is part of the problem in science. My version of
    "taken seriously" is a purchase order.

    Revealing, but not surprising.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to whit3rd@gmail.com on Sun Feb 13 00:35:05 2022
    whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in news:69a7cfcf-5b4f-467f-8535-4fe21c49bc0bn@googlegroups.com:

    On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 2:53:01 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 14:25:11 -0800 (PST), whit3rd
    <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 9:04:08 AM UTC-8,
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 17:43:55 +0100, David Brown
    <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:

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

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

    False. The 'caution' you refer to is a social concern, NOT a
    knowledge-and-understanding one, thus is not of primary interest
    in the sciences. The 'should be' phrase means you're trying to
    invoke some kind of value judgment, but whether this is
    true-false, good-evil, or some religious morality scale, is
    completely obscure.

    Science is a social system. It usually resists theories that
    upset the concensus.

    Coward. Give an example, at least. The 'upset' and 'resists'
    are just the exact same observation, repeated. A force that
    upsets your balance, is one that you resist, if you have any will
    at all.

    Science is a philosophical branch, not a 'social system', it
    organizes only knowledge, not persons.

    It's been observed that the old guard has to die out before ...

    Yeah, THAT's why we know science isn't social; the social pressure
    to conform effectively doesn't exist in the sciences.

    How do these errors continue to creep into JL's discourse?


    I call it a moderately BENT perception.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sat Feb 12 16:16:59 2022
    On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 2:53:01 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 14:25:11 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 9:04:08 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 17:43:55 +0100, David Brown
    <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:

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

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

    False. The 'caution' you refer to is a social concern, NOT a knowledge-and-understanding
    one, thus is not of primary interest in the sciences. The 'should be' phrase means
    you're trying to invoke some kind of value judgment, but whether this is true-false,
    good-evil, or some religious morality scale, is completely obscure.

    Science is a social system. It usually resists theories that upset the concensus.

    Coward. Give an example, at least. The 'upset' and 'resists'
    are just the exact same observation, repeated. A force that upsets
    your balance, is one that you resist, if you have any will at all.

    Science is a philosophical branch, not a 'social system', it organizes
    only knowledge, not persons.

    It's been observed that the old guard has to die out before ...

    Yeah, THAT's why we know science isn't social; the social pressure
    to conform effectively doesn't exist in the sciences.

    How do these errors continue to creep into JL's discourse?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to Anthony William Sloman on Sun Feb 13 00:41:09 2022
    On 12/02/22 22:56, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 4:04:08 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    Design something, post it, and we can discuss it.

    John Larkin plays what he imagines to be his "get out of jail for free" card.

    The key word there is "imagines".

    His statement doesn't fool the rest of us.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to Tom Gardner on Sun Feb 13 00:50:44 2022
    Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in news:su9k35$ugc$2@dont-email.me:

    On 12/02/22 22:56, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 4:04:08 AM UTC+11,
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    Design something, post it, and we can discuss it.

    John Larkin plays what he imagines to be his "get out of jail for
    free" card.

    The key word there is "imagines".

    His statement doesn't fool the rest of us.

    When I was living in Virginia, I was doing work for various three
    letter agencies in a $500k research lab in my Boss' basement.

    Larkin is a dork because he has no grasp of what the main courses
    of discourse in these groups are, despite the group's name. Many
    Usenet news groups are the same.

    When cornered, he likes to act as if he is "The scheme police",
    presumeably as a diversion. Similar to how certain politicians
    behave.

    We pass time here. There are on topic discussions and posts but we
    do not get in their way and they do not get in ours unless one is a
    pedantic antisocial twerp.

    It is a quantum thing. Upon observation he breaks down. Upon our observation of him we break down. It's all one big fat crappy
    breakdown.

    He probably ate too much Jimson weed too many times at his frat
    house.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to David Brown on Sun Feb 13 00:44:26 2022
    On 13/02/22 00:29, David Brown wrote:
    On 11/02/2022 21:36, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:46:05 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

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

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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


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

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

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


    This is all just the "watchmaker argument", wrapped up in
    pseudo-scientific nonsense about alien robots and quantum mechanics.

    Just so.

    I've previously pointed John to "The Blind Watchmaker", and
    he indicated he would read it.

    There is no indication that he has read it - or if he has,
    then he hasn't understood it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to David Brown on Sun Feb 13 00:41:59 2022
    David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote in news:su9jdj$sfr$1@dont- email.me:

    Nobody thinks the first lifeforms on earth were DNA-based.


    Huh?

    Bacteria was first, up to 3.22 billion years ago.

    It may have started as RNA based, but very early on in their
    existence everything was DNA based. We will never know if there was
    RNA "originals".

    <https://www.britannica.com/science/bacteria/Evolution-of-bacteria>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk on Sat Feb 12 19:56:31 2022
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 00:44:26 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 13/02/22 00:29, David Brown wrote:
    On 11/02/2022 21:36, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:46:05 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

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

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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


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

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

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


    This is all just the "watchmaker argument", wrapped up in
    pseudo-scientific nonsense about alien robots and quantum mechanics.

    Just so.

    I've previously pointed John to "The Blind Watchmaker", and
    he indicated he would read it.

    There is no indication that he has read it - or if he has,
    then he hasn't understood it.

    I read some of it. It's a lot of repetition. And a lot of hand waving.





    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to david.brown@hesbynett.no on Sat Feb 12 19:54:12 2022
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 01:29:38 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 11/02/2022 21:36, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:46:05 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

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

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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


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

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

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


    This is all just the "watchmaker argument", wrapped up in
    pseudo-scientific nonsense about alien robots and quantum mechanics.

    Nobody thinks the first lifeforms on earth were DNA-based.


    Than someone should find or make a non-DNA life form.

    Most likely, they were RNA-based - or something similar. It could have
    been a somewhat simpler nucleic acid, and it was not necessarily exactly
    the same nucleobases that we have now. And yes, many bits and pieces of
    the chemicals involved have been found in space, or produced chemically
    in simulated early earth conditions. It is entirely reasonable to
    suppose that they came about chemically.

    All you need is faith.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to whit3rd@gmail.com on Sun Feb 13 05:07:38 2022
    whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in news:930d85f7-5249-442a-abf2-eba4847aba6an@googlegroups.com:

    On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 7:54:26 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 01:29:38 +0100, David Brown
    <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    Nobody thinks the first lifeforms on earth were DNA-based.

    Than someone should find or make a non-DNA life form.

    Finding modern life forms is easy. Finding ancient ones, which
    have survived to modern times, is like looking for last year's
    Xmas cookies.

    Usually, someone has eaten those already.

    Tardigrade... over 500 million years old and counting... that we know
    of.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sat Feb 12 20:48:21 2022
    On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 7:54:26 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 01:29:38 +0100, David Brown
    <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    Nobody thinks the first lifeforms on earth were DNA-based.

    Than someone should find or make a non-DNA life form.

    Finding modern life forms is easy. Finding ancient ones, which have survived to modern times, is like looking for last year's Xmas cookies.

    Usually, someone has eaten those already.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Clifford Heath@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sun Feb 13 16:25:29 2022
    On 13/2/22 2:54 pm, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 01:29:38 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 11/02/2022 21:36, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:46:05 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

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

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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


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

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

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


    This is all just the "watchmaker argument", wrapped up in
    pseudo-scientific nonsense about alien robots and quantum mechanics.

    Nobody thinks the first lifeforms on earth were DNA-based.


    Than someone should find or make a non-DNA life form.

    I posted here just a couple of months ago about complex self-replicating molecules (that self-align to form something very like *cell walls*)
    recently found in the edges of geothermal springs. Once a bubble like
    this can form a boundary between inside and outside, it can isolate
    other processes from the outside world, providing a framework that could (conceptually) easily evolve into a self-reproducing organism. That
    seems to be the most likely way that life got started, to my mind.

    But it didn't fit your mindset so you ignored it, just as you ignore all
    the other science that discredits your fantasies. Just as you'll
    probably ignore it again now, or scoff at it. I'm not even going to
    repost the URL, because you don't care. You can find it in my recent
    post anyhow.

    CH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sat Feb 12 22:41:46 2022
    On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 2:54:26 PM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 01:29:38 +0100, David Brown
    <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 11/02/2022 21:36, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:46:05 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:

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

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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


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

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

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


    This is all just the "watchmaker argument", wrapped up in
    pseudo-scientific nonsense about alien robots and quantum mechanics.

    Nobody thinks the first lifeforms on earth were DNA-based.

    Than someone should find or make a non-DNA life form.

    Covid-19 is an example. It's a strictly parasitic life form, but it does rely on an RNA genome

    Most likely, they were RNA-based - or something similar. It could have
    been a somewhat simpler nucleic acid, and it was not necessarily exactly >the same nucleobases that we have now. And yes, many bits and pieces of
    the chemicals involved have been found in space, or produced chemically
    in simulated early earth conditions. It is entirely reasonable to
    suppose that they came about chemically.

    All you need is faith.

    All John Larkin has to offer is faith. More complicated and useful ways of looking at the data available are beyond him. and he imagines that everybody else is as intellectually crippled as he is.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sat Feb 12 22:52:48 2022
    On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 2:56:45 PM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 00:44:26 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 13/02/22 00:29, David Brown wrote:
    On 11/02/2022 21:36, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:46:05 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:

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

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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


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

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

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


    This is all just the "watchmaker argument", wrapped up in
    pseudo-scientific nonsense about alien robots and quantum mechanics.

    Just so.

    I've previously pointed John to "The Blind Watchmaker", and
    he indicated he would read it.

    There is no indication that he has read it - or if he has,
    then he hasn't understood it.

    I read some of it. It's a lot of repetition. And a lot of hand waving.

    That's a rather rude way of saying that he couldn't understand it.

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

    https://www.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp/0393351491?ref_=nav_custrec_signin&

    Both sources suggest that a lot of people have a rather higher opinion of it than John Larkin has expressed. It was first published in 1986 and is still in print.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to William Sloman on Sun Feb 13 07:19:58 2022
    On a sunny day (Sat, 12 Feb 2022 15:19:00 -0800 (PST)) it happened Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <fb8fcd39-787c-4c26-b366-eb511aa8fabcn@googlegroups.com>:

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

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Jan Panteltje on Sat Feb 12 23:47:13 2022
    On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 6:20:41 PM UTC+11, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    On a sunny day (Sat, 12 Feb 2022 15:19:00 -0800 (PST)) it happened Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote in <fb8fcd39-787c-4c26...@googlegroups.com>:'

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

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

    It came up with correction mechanisms, but they aren't the error-detecting and correcting codes you find every last hard drive.

    They depends adding an extra string of bits to the data string you are storing and retrieving, and can absolutely correct small numbers of errors anywhere in the string data read back, and detect larger numbers of errors so you at least know that you
    need to discard what you have read back.

    The math is neat.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to whit3rd@gmail.com on Sun Feb 13 07:55:16 2022
    On a sunny day (Sat, 12 Feb 2022 16:16:59 -0800 (PST)) it happened whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in <69a7cfcf-5b4f-467f-8535-4fe21c49bc0bn@googlegroups.com>:

    Yeah, THAT's why we know science isn't social; the social pressure
    to conform effectively doesn't exist in the sciences.

    That is - and has been - probably not always the case.

    Depends what you call 'science'
    The sun orbiting the earth had a lot of mathematicians create 'epicycles'
    to describe the motion of the planets [grin a bit like string theory these days I'd think]
    until that dogma (earth at center was no longer believed - how many died on fires set by the church
    being accused of witchcraft etc..]
    It is ALL about social pressure and religious fanaticism.

    I can very well understand J Larkin's arguments,
    but he lacks knowledge on some of the RNA and DNA science (as do I of course).

    In todays 'science' we see strong devotion to ideas from for example Einstein (OneStone in English)
    while if you ask 'what is a field other than a mathematical concept?' things get fishy.

    This shows how much more complicated it all is
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/02/220208113945.htm

    I like that article very much, my own theories about a Le Sage type particle that is both
    carrier of EM radiation and gravity (and does away with Einstein's problems) says something similar.
    Different state of same thing more fundamental than we have 'shown' yet.

    But I am not going to push that on you poor humans
    as you humming beans were brought into the world by storks and I obviously was put here by a flying cup and saucer
    oh and so much for life and oh I use lifepo4 batteries...

    How do these errors continue

    eeeh
    Sunday morning, lots of coding ToDo
    Have not even had breakfast yet..

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sun Feb 13 09:34:11 2022
    On 13/02/22 03:56, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 00:44:26 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 13/02/22 00:29, David Brown wrote:
    On 11/02/2022 21:36, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:46:05 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

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

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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


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

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

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


    This is all just the "watchmaker argument", wrapped up in
    pseudo-scientific nonsense about alien robots and quantum mechanics.

    Just so.

    I've previously pointed John to "The Blind Watchmaker", and
    he indicated he would read it.

    There is no indication that he has read it - or if he has,
    then he hasn't understood it.

    I read some of it. It's a lot of repetition. And a lot of hand waving.

    I can see how someone skimming it might come to that conclusion.

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

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

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to Jan Panteltje on Sun Feb 13 02:53:37 2022
    On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 11:56:03 PM UTC-8, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    On a sunny day (Sat, 12 Feb 2022 16:16:59 -0800 (PST)) it happened whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote in
    <69a7cfcf-5b4f-467f...@googlegroups.com>:
    Yeah, THAT's why we know science isn't social; the social pressure
    to conform effectively doesn't exist in the sciences.
    That is - and has been - probably not always the case.

    Depends what you call 'science'
    The sun orbiting the earth had a lot of mathematicians create 'epicycles'
    to describe the motion of the planets [grin a bit like string theory these days I'd think]
    until that dogma (earth at center was no longer believed - how many died on fires set by the church
    being accused of witchcraft etc..]
    It is ALL about social pressure and religious fanaticism.

    The power of the medieval church isn't 'science', but is a kind
    of social pressure. Science didn't order those actions, wasn't the social operator, but the church did, and was.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sun Feb 13 12:30:34 2022
    On 12/02/2022 18:03, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 17:43:55 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

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

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

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


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

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


    It is.


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

    You claim to understand the origin of life.

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

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

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


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

    What would you think of someone who speculated that the reason circuits
    get hot is that the electrons get tired from all that running round in
    circles, and we all get hot when we run a lot?

    We do not know why some materials are superconductors at relatively high temperatures - scientists have hypotheses, but no clear answers. Is it
    then fine to suggest it's because the Norse gods (or alien robots) like Yttrium, and fine-tuned the universal constants to make them superconduct?

    Isn't that all just reasonable speculation - as legitimate an idea as
    any other? It has as much evidence as your own speculations in biology,
    and as much rational basis, and is equally helpful at answering
    questions, furthering science and knowledge, or solving practical problems.



    Design is speculating widely about unknowns. Uncertainty, confusion, wandering about the solution space are assets to design. Concensus,
    surity, convention, "good engineering practice" are the enemies of
    invention.


    Wandering about the solution space is good. Wandering off with the
    fairies and your head in the clouds is not. In biology you have
    apparently so little idea as to where the solution space might be, that
    you don't even realise how absurd you are.

    Design something, post it, and we can discuss it.


    That's your own personal take on Godwin's law, and a clear indication
    that you realise you have been ridiculous. Whenever someone calls you
    out for your ignorance or points out the stupidity of something you've
    said, you /always/ come back to this as though it were some kind of
    trump card.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc on Sun Feb 13 12:59:30 2022
    On 13/02/2022 01:41, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
    David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote in news:su9jdj$sfr$1@dont- email.me:

    Nobody thinks the first lifeforms on earth were DNA-based.


    Huh?

    Bacteria was first, up to 3.22 billion years ago.

    It may have started as RNA based, but very early on in their
    existence everything was DNA based.

    That would mean that the first lifeforms were RNA-based, not DNA-based -
    as I said.

    We will never know if there was
    RNA "originals".

    <https://www.britannica.com/science/bacteria/Evolution-of-bacteria>


    Bacteria - as we know them today - were not first. The current theories
    of abiogenesis see RNA (or something related) as the first nucleic
    acids, since RNA strings and parts can be easily formed and replicated
    by relatively simple chemical processes (given the right environment).
    DNA requires more complex processes - it almost certainly evolved from
    RNA beginnings.

    It may be that the step from RNA to DNA happened quite quickly (in
    evolutionary terms), and that the DNA-based lifeforms outcompeted
    RNA-based lifeforms. The only RNA-based organisms we know of at the
    moment are some types of virus, which are not "alive", but which may
    have a history stretching back to the earliest lifeforms or
    partially-alive "things". (Maybe we'll find other RNA-based lifeforms
    hidden away somewhere.)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to Tom Gardner on Sun Feb 13 12:03:54 2022
    On 11/02/2022 22:40, Tom Gardner wrote:
    On 11/02/22 18:35, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    On 2022-02-11 19:12, Tom Gardner wrote:
    On 11/02/22 17:02, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 16:42:33 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 11/02/22 15:39, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:25:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On a sunny day (Fri, 11 Feb 2022 05:12:01 -0800) it happened
    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in

    It could have been designed by some intelligence that had a less
    complex, more incremental evolutionary path. Something that evolved >>>>>> billions of years before earth formed.

    If you believe in evolution, you will give that a fair consideration. >>>>>
    OK.
    <0.1s interval>
    Jan has already addressed that, you've ignored it or not
    understood it, viz:
         'who or what designed it, and who or what designed that...'

    If you believe in spontaneous generation and evolution, you might
    consider that life should have evolved in billions of places in the
    universe, billions of years ago.

    Give that another 100 milliseconds of thought before you dismiss it.

    “Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe
    or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.” ― Arthur C. Clarke

    My personal belief is that intelligent life has evolved many
    times, but we haven't yet communicated with other examples.

    I think that life as in self replicating chemical elements that convert sunlight or chemical energy into useful work to allow them to grow and reproduce may well be fairly common in the universe. It would be nice to
    find another example in our own solar system (or even in the deep oceans
    on Earth) that had evolved with different chemistry to our own.

    Until we have at least one other example we are guessing. OTOH life got
    going PDQ once the Earth had cooled enough for water to remain liquid.

    There are still some controversial observations of things in sandstone
    that might or might not be organic life much smaller than bacteria and suspiciously like the things seen in the Martian meteorite sample. eg

    http://minsocam.org/MSA/ammin/toc/Articles_Free/1998/Uwins_p1541-1550_98.pdf

    Complex multicellular life may be much rarer than life itself. Taking la definition of life as some sort of photochemical coloured slime that
    lives by harvesting sunlight from its nearest star (or chemical energy). Extremophiles like snottites on Earth live happily in some sulphurous
    caves without sunlight relying entirely on chemical energy.

    https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/caves/extremophiles.html

    Many people have indeed given that serious consideration,
    famously Enrico Fermi's name and fellow physicists Edward Teller,
    Herbert York and Emil Konopinski - back in 1950. FFI, see the
    inconclusive musings about "The Fermi Paradox".

    I think intelligent life is unstable. By the time it has become
    sufficiently powerful to communicate or travel over cosmic distances,
    it also has become powerful enough to blow itself into oblivion,
    and will, after a short while (on cosmic timescales).

    They will probably be non-thermal radio bright for a century or so
    before they blow themselves up with thermonuclear weapons (or worse) if
    we are any guide. We have probably been visible to radio telescopes
    since over the horizon radar, VHF radio and terrestrial TV. Our signals
    will be much harder to decode now we have gone digital - the analogue
    ones practically shout their frame rate at anyone who sees it.

    Once we go to optical fibre we will effectively go radio dark again.

    Arecibo was pretty good at standing out when it was operating. Anything
    in the beam when they were doing TDR imaging off near Earth Asteroids
    would know about it if they had similar radio telescopes to us.

    That's one of the factors in the Drake equation. People
    will continue to argue/refine the parameters - sometimes
    through careful thought/experiment, sometimes through
    prejudice.

    Unless and until we find some other life elsewhere it will be
    speculation but some people are much better at it than others.

    RNA world looks like a compelling model to me since RNA structures can
    both store information (if a little unreliably) and behave as catalysts.
    Most of the required ingredients have been seen in interstellar space.

    Invoking a deity to avoid the question is the sole preserve of the
    feeble minded. They are still left with "who created The Creator?".

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sun Feb 13 12:41:25 2022
    On 12/02/22 17:03, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    I speculate precisely because I don't understand it.

    Speculation based on knowledge and understanding is valuable.

    Speculation based on ignorance is lazy and time wasting.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to whit3rd@gmail.com on Sun Feb 13 13:54:15 2022
    On a sunny day (Sun, 13 Feb 2022 02:53:37 -0800 (PST)) it happened whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in <bdeb49d4-6146-4b3c-8ef2-067445bb5744n@googlegroups.com>:

    On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 11:56:03 PM UTC-8, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    On a sunny day (Sat, 12 Feb 2022 16:16:59 -0800 (PST)) it happened whit3rd >> <whi...@gmail.com> wrote in
    <69a7cfcf-5b4f-467f...@googlegroups.com>:
    Yeah, THAT's why we know science isn't social; the social pressure
    to conform effectively doesn't exist in the sciences.
    That is - and has been - probably not always the case.

    Depends what you call 'science'
    The sun orbiting the earth had a lot of mathematicians create 'epicycles'
    to describe the motion of the planets [grin a bit like string theory these days I'd think]
    until that dogma (earth at center was no longer believed - how many died on fires set by the church
    being accused of witchcraft etc..]
    It is ALL about social pressure and religious fanaticism.

    The power of the medieval church isn't 'science', but is a kind
    of social pressure. Science didn't order those actions, wasn't the social >operator, but the church did, and was.

    You should see that in the time frame
    the mathematicians that were working on the epicycles most certainly
    did think of themselves as scientists.
    So did the schools in those days that teached it

    These days same happens with string theory and endless parroting of 'photon' and
    Einstein's math (is only math).
    We need to look for a mechanism_ if we want to advance, I suggested one
    (not even my idea), but the fact that gravity seems to move at the same speed as light IS a big hint
    it is the same particle in my view, and from that a lot of things fall into place.
    When those particles are produced in stars or maybe black holes the universe will push itself apart
    expand ever faster, internal heating of the planets is then explained too, as is galaxy arms motion,
    plus a few other experiments.
    Indeed it is when the old guys [peers] die and a new generation embraces new ideas that we advance,
    That or we selfdestruct or at least set civilization back for thousands of years with the war mongering US
    Military Complex and their brainless puppet Biden and his low IQ supporters.
    I Have Spoken
    :-)
    I posted this in the raspi newsgroup last week about fairy tails about 'glowball warming the current fake science':
    About greenhouse gas causing glowball warming:
    it is a fake story:
    https://old.world-mysteries.com/alignments/mpl_al3b.htm
    look up Milankovich cycles on that page, and scroll down to to graphs
    showing cold and warm periods.

    Look up CO2 levels over the previous millions of years with google,
    those were at times much higher, not many humans around back then.
    Same Milankovich cycles.

    Al Gore's fairy tales telling to sell his stuff, an excess of [US] capitalism. Same way for jabbing everybody over and over again against a virus that is not worse than the flue
    and the jabs do not provide immunity -the Medical Industrial Complex.
    And there is their Military Industrial Complex trying to make war in Europe in Ukrain.

    No radiation is not as dangerous as many are made to think, a plot originating from 'hide under the table for the nuclear bomb' media drive.
    Wild life at Chernobyl is thriving!

    have worked with radiation, still have a live interest
    designed and build stuff to measure it:
    http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/gm_pic/
    http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/gm_pic2/
    http://panteltje.com/panteltje/pic/sc_pic/
    and of course there is tri-pic:
    http://panteltje.com/panteltje/tri_pic/
    that link is old, much more since then.

    I measure radiation 24/7 with YES logged by a Raspberry!
    And this sits next to me on the table:
    http://panteltje.com/pub/gamma_spectrometer_plus_probe_plus_geiger_counter_2_IMG_4185.JPG
    there is a PMT with scintillator crystal in that cardboard tube.


    Secondly, there's not as much uranium still in the ground as a lot of
    people think.

    Thorium _maybe_ a way out I think China is experimenting with a Thorium reactor.


    Thirdly, radioactive waste disposal hasn't been properly tackled yet.
    There's a lot of talk about long term repositories, but the actual
    situation is that all the waste is still sitting in cooling ponds, etc
    while governments, scared of the cost of proper disposal, do bugger all
    about it.

    Dump it in the Mariana Trench, lock up the few that start babbling about the deep sea fishes and creatures there
    ask them if they eat meat.

    Lastly, there are a lot fewer engineering firms who can build and
    dismantle nuclear plant than is generally realised, something like six >globally so its very much an open question whether enough generation
    capacity can be built in time to make a difference the global warming.

    True, same way we wonder: 'How did they build those pyramids?'


    Especially when you consider that the engineers who built all the nuclear >plant of a similar age to that running in the UK at present are now all >retired or dead. About the only type of nuclear plant that's readily >available these days are the compact units used to run submarines. Small, >modular, relatively easy to produce, though I get the impression that >refuelling them may be another matter and, anyway, imaging the fuss if >anybody tried to use them to replace the current small natural gas load >balancing plants, which would be the obvious way to use them.

    Russia has some ships with small nuclear reactors that they use to power cities on the coast.


    Check out http://www.stormsmith.nl/ for a good review of how things
    really stand regarding nuclear energy production and its future prospects.

    A bunch of green fanatics calling 'mama help' (or 'God help us') as the changing climate drives them to other parts of the world
    where they, if lucky, cook their food on campfires is a possible scenario.
    All that knowledge we had, replaced by rain-dances
    Oh wait its already happening in the US.
    The black revolution of lower IQ and their facilitator Precedent ByeThen

    Just imagine every transport electric and the power grid fails (it often does there)
    no emergency vehicles no tools no instruments...
    Bringing a generation up with lies and fairy tales is dangerous for the species.
    Religious powers in the past, Viking experiment was positive for life on Mars was denied half an hour later (I remember the announcement).
    Those religious leaders do not allow you to know we are just like a speck of dust
    in an universe where there are many others and their beliefs, their fairy tales differ.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to Jan Panteltje on Sun Feb 13 14:53:43 2022
    On 13/02/2022 07:55, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    On a sunny day (Sat, 12 Feb 2022 16:16:59 -0800 (PST)) it happened whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in <69a7cfcf-5b4f-467f-8535-4fe21c49bc0bn@googlegroups.com>:

    Yeah, THAT's why we know science isn't social; the social pressure
    to conform effectively doesn't exist in the sciences.

    That is - and has been - probably not always the case.

    Scientists are always looking for an experiment that demonstrates a
    weakness in the prevailing theory of the day, or a better more complete
    theory that works in more extreme conditions or makes new testable
    predictions. That is pretty much how Nobel prizes are won.

    We are living through a golden age of observational astronomy where more
    and more wavebands are coming on stream at very high resolution. The
    latest will be the Webb telescope once its mirrors are all aligned.

    Depends what you call 'science'
    The sun orbiting the earth had a lot of mathematicians create 'epicycles'
    to describe the motion of the planets [grin a bit like string theory these days I'd think]

    Epicycles were the Fourier transform of their day and did allow
    astronomers to make useful predictions even if they were wrong in
    principle they did work well enough in practice to get results.

    Even when they put the sun at the centre which neatly sorted out
    retrograde motion they still *needed* epicycles to handle the
    eccentricity of orbits until Kepler formulated his famous equations for elliptical motion.

    Even then solving for the true eccentric anomaly accurately and quickly
    for a given mean anomaly remains an active research problem even today!

    E = M + e*sin E

    Looks deceptively simple and going from E to M it is.
    Going the other way gets very interesting when M is small and e -> 1.
    Mercury is quite a handful with e = 0.25 if you are doing it by hand.

    The real time series for planetary positions today are actually a set of Fourier terms to perturb the basic planetary position form Kepler's laws
    to take account of all the other planets. It isn't really so different.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSOP_(planets)

    Engineering solutions do not need to be completely correct they just
    have to be good enough for the task in hand.

    No-one applies relativistic corrections to automotive speedometers!

    until that dogma (earth at center was no longer believed - how many died on fires set by the church
    being accused of witchcraft etc..]
    It is ALL about social pressure and religious fanaticism.

    Established church tended to be into burning heretics and their books.
    New knowledge conflicting with scripture was viewed as very dangerous by
    the authorities. US YEC's still haven't got out of those Dark Ages.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/04/book-burning-harry-potter-twilight-us-pastor-tennessee

    There can be some big egos involved in science. Leibnitz and Newton is
    one we can look back on from far enough to see that. Poor old Hooke was practically written out of history by Newton's fans after his death.

    Hoyle's steady state theory was another more recent example. Shot down
    in flames when the microwave background and also way too many very
    remote active radio galaxies were discovered by the observers. Insanely
    bright and very compact engines driving the jets make them hard to
    explain without dropping matter down the gravitational plug hole.

    I can very well understand J Larkin's arguments,
    but he lacks knowledge on some of the RNA and DNA science (as do I of course).

    He chooses to remain wilfully ignorant.

    In todays 'science' we see strong devotion to ideas from for example Einstein (OneStone in English)
    while if you ask 'what is a field other than a mathematical concept?' things get fishy.

    This shows how much more complicated it all is
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/02/220208113945.htm

    I like that article very much, my own theories about a Le Sage type particle that is both
    carrier of EM radiation and gravity (and does away with Einstein's problems) says something similar.
    Different state of same thing more fundamental than we have 'shown' yet.

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

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to David Brown on Sun Feb 13 14:59:00 2022
    David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote in news:suarr2$996$1@dont- email.me:

    Bacteria - as we know them today - were not first.

    Had you examined the article, you would know that I already knew that.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to no.spam@please.net on Sun Feb 13 07:36:28 2022
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:25:29 +1100, Clifford Heath
    <no.spam@please.net> wrote:

    On 13/2/22 2:54 pm, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 01:29:38 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 11/02/2022 21:36, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:46:05 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

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

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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


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

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

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


    This is all just the "watchmaker argument", wrapped up in
    pseudo-scientific nonsense about alien robots and quantum mechanics.

    Nobody thinks the first lifeforms on earth were DNA-based.


    Than someone should find or make a non-DNA life form.

    I posted here just a couple of months ago about complex self-replicating >molecules (that self-align to form something very like *cell walls*)
    recently found in the edges of geothermal springs. Once a bubble like
    this can form a boundary between inside and outside, it can isolate
    other processes from the outside world, providing a framework that could >(conceptually) easily evolve into a self-reproducing organism. That
    seems to be the most likely way that life got started, to my mind.


    Cartoons of living cells aren't life.


    But it didn't fit your mindset so you ignored it, just as you ignore all
    the other science that discredits your fantasies. Just as you'll
    probably ignore it again now, or scoff at it. I'm not even going to
    repost the URL, because you don't care. You can find it in my recent
    post anyhow.

    What people here are ignoring is the information content of a living, replicating DNA-based cell. They substitute faith.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk on Sun Feb 13 07:32:32 2022
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 09:34:11 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 13/02/22 03:56, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 00:44:26 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 13/02/22 00:29, David Brown wrote:
    On 11/02/2022 21:36, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:46:05 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

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

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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


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

    It had to be. DNA style reproduction is incredibly recursively
    complex. Nobody has explained how that self-defining complexity could >>>>> have happened from a puddle of primordial soup. Lots of biologists
    have calculated the probability as indistingishable from impossible. >>>>>
    Until someone does show how it could have happened, without
    intelligent intervention, robots from outer space, or some master
    designer, are as legit a theory as spontaneous generation.


    This is all just the "watchmaker argument", wrapped up in
    pseudo-scientific nonsense about alien robots and quantum mechanics.

    Just so.

    I've previously pointed John to "The Blind Watchmaker", and
    he indicated he would read it.

    There is no indication that he has read it - or if he has,
    then he hasn't understood it.

    I read some of it. It's a lot of repetition. And a lot of hand waving.

    I can see how someone skimming it might come to that conclusion.

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

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

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

    The two big leaps are

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

    and

    How did DNA come about?

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



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com on Sun Feb 13 07:50:48 2022
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 07:19:58 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

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

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

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

    Cool. It follows that the repair mechanisms distinguish between
    uselesss/fatal mutations and potentially useful ones. They must let a calibrated fraction of potentially useful ones past the checks.





    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com on Sun Feb 13 07:56:56 2022
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 07:55:16 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On a sunny day (Sat, 12 Feb 2022 16:16:59 -0800 (PST)) it happened whit3rd ><whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in ><69a7cfcf-5b4f-467f-8535-4fe21c49bc0bn@googlegroups.com>:

    Yeah, THAT's why we know science isn't social; the social pressure
    to conform effectively doesn't exist in the sciences.

    That is - and has been - probably not always the case.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPhUXkXkpH4


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



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sun Feb 13 15:57:45 2022
    On 13/02/22 15:32, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 09:34:11 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 13/02/22 03:56, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 00:44:26 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 13/02/22 00:29, David Brown wrote:
    On 11/02/2022 21:36, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:46:05 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

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

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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


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

    It had to be. DNA style reproduction is incredibly recursively
    complex. Nobody has explained how that self-defining complexity could >>>>>> have happened from a puddle of primordial soup. Lots of biologists >>>>>> have calculated the probability as indistingishable from impossible. >>>>>>
    Until someone does show how it could have happened, without
    intelligent intervention, robots from outer space, or some master
    designer, are as legit a theory as spontaneous generation.


    This is all just the "watchmaker argument", wrapped up in
    pseudo-scientific nonsense about alien robots and quantum mechanics.

    Just so.

    I've previously pointed John to "The Blind Watchmaker", and
    he indicated he would read it.

    There is no indication that he has read it - or if he has,
    then he hasn't understood it.

    I read some of it. It's a lot of repetition. And a lot of hand waving.

    I can see how someone skimming it might come to that conclusion.

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

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

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

    The two big leaps are

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

    and

    How did DNA come about?

    Agreed.


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

    That's unknown.

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

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

    Either answer is terrifying, as AC Clarke observed.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sun Feb 13 15:59:41 2022
    On 13/02/22 15:36, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:25:29 +1100, Clifford Heath
    <no.spam@please.net> wrote:

    On 13/2/22 2:54 pm, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 01:29:38 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 11/02/2022 21:36, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:46:05 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

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

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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


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

    It had to be. DNA style reproduction is incredibly recursively
    complex. Nobody has explained how that self-defining complexity could >>>>> have happened from a puddle of primordial soup. Lots of biologists
    have calculated the probability as indistingishable from impossible. >>>>>
    Until someone does show how it could have happened, without
    intelligent intervention, robots from outer space, or some master
    designer, are as legit a theory as spontaneous generation.


    This is all just the "watchmaker argument", wrapped up in
    pseudo-scientific nonsense about alien robots and quantum mechanics.

    Nobody thinks the first lifeforms on earth were DNA-based.


    Than someone should find or make a non-DNA life form.

    I posted here just a couple of months ago about complex self-replicating
    molecules (that self-align to form something very like *cell walls*)
    recently found in the edges of geothermal springs. Once a bubble like
    this can form a boundary between inside and outside, it can isolate
    other processes from the outside world, providing a framework that could
    (conceptually) easily evolve into a self-reproducing organism. That
    seems to be the most likely way that life got started, to my mind.


    Cartoons of living cells aren't life.


    But it didn't fit your mindset so you ignored it, just as you ignore all
    the other science that discredits your fantasies. Just as you'll
    probably ignore it again now, or scoff at it. I'm not even going to
    repost the URL, because you don't care. You can find it in my recent
    post anyhow.

    What people here are ignoring is the information content of a living, replicating DNA-based cell. They substitute faith.

    AIUI you substitute faith, albeit of a different kind.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to '''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk on Sun Feb 13 08:02:49 2022
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 14:53:43 +0000, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    On 13/02/2022 07:55, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    On a sunny day (Sat, 12 Feb 2022 16:16:59 -0800 (PST)) it happened whit3rd >> <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in
    <69a7cfcf-5b4f-467f-8535-4fe21c49bc0bn@googlegroups.com>:

    Yeah, THAT's why we know science isn't social; the social pressure
    to conform effectively doesn't exist in the sciences.

    That is - and has been - probably not always the case.

    Scientists are always looking for an experiment that demonstrates a
    weakness in the prevailing theory of the day, or a better more complete >theory that works in more extreme conditions or makes new testable >predictions. That is pretty much how Nobel prizes are won.

    We are living through a golden age of observational astronomy where more
    and more wavebands are coming on stream at very high resolution. The
    latest will be the Webb telescope once its mirrors are all aligned.

    Depends what you call 'science'
    The sun orbiting the earth had a lot of mathematicians create 'epicycles'
    to describe the motion of the planets [grin a bit like string theory these days I'd think]

    Epicycles were the Fourier transform of their day and did allow
    astronomers to make useful predictions even if they were wrong in
    principle they did work well enough in practice to get results.

    Even when they put the sun at the centre which neatly sorted out
    retrograde motion they still *needed* epicycles to handle the
    eccentricity of orbits until Kepler formulated his famous equations for >elliptical motion.

    Even then solving for the true eccentric anomaly accurately and quickly
    for a given mean anomaly remains an active research problem even today!

    E = M + e*sin E

    Looks deceptively simple and going from E to M it is.
    Going the other way gets very interesting when M is small and e -> 1.
    Mercury is quite a handful with e = 0.25 if you are doing it by hand.

    The real time series for planetary positions today are actually a set of >Fourier terms to perturb the basic planetary position form Kepler's laws
    to take account of all the other planets. It isn't really so different.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSOP_(planets)

    Engineering solutions do not need to be completely correct they just
    have to be good enough for the task in hand.

    No-one applies relativistic corrections to automotive speedometers!

    until that dogma (earth at center was no longer believed - how many died on fires set by the church
    being accused of witchcraft etc..]
    It is ALL about social pressure and religious fanaticism.

    Established church tended to be into burning heretics and their books.
    New knowledge conflicting with scripture was viewed as very dangerous by
    the authorities. US YEC's still haven't got out of those Dark Ages.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/04/book-burning-harry-potter-twilight-us-pastor-tennessee

    There can be some big egos involved in science. Leibnitz and Newton is
    one we can look back on from far enough to see that. Poor old Hooke was >practically written out of history by Newton's fans after his death.

    Hoyle's steady state theory was another more recent example. Shot down
    in flames when the microwave background and also way too many very
    remote active radio galaxies were discovered by the observers. Insanely >bright and very compact engines driving the jets make them hard to
    explain without dropping matter down the gravitational plug hole.

    I can very well understand J Larkin's arguments,
    but he lacks knowledge on some of the RNA and DNA science (as do I of course).

    I've read a bunch of books about the origin of life. The soup theory
    has very bad numbers.


    He chooses to remain wilfully ignorant.

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

    That provokes hostility. Perfectly normal.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to All on Sun Feb 13 08:26:12 2022
    On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 20:48:21 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 7:54:26 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 01:29:38 +0100, David Brown
    <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    Nobody thinks the first lifeforms on earth were DNA-based.

    Than someone should find or make a non-DNA life form.

    Finding modern life forms is easy. Finding ancient ones, which have survived
    to modern times, is like looking for last year's Xmas cookies.

    Usually, someone has eaten those already.

    Then someone should make some RNA-based life in a lab.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to david.brown@hesbynett.no on Sun Feb 13 08:24:35 2022
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 12:30:34 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

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

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

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

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


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

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


    It is.


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

    You claim to understand the origin of life.

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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







    What would you think of someone who speculated that the reason circuits
    get hot is that the electrons get tired from all that running round in >circles, and we all get hot when we run a lot?

    We do not know why some materials are superconductors at relatively high >temperatures - scientists have hypotheses, but no clear answers. Is it
    then fine to suggest it's because the Norse gods (or alien robots) like >Yttrium, and fine-tuned the universal constants to make them superconduct?

    Isn't that all just reasonable speculation - as legitimate an idea as
    any other? It has as much evidence as your own speculations in biology,
    and as much rational basis, and is equally helpful at answering
    questions, furthering science and knowledge, or solving practical problems.



    Design is speculating widely about unknowns. Uncertainty, confusion,
    wandering about the solution space are assets to design. Concensus,
    surity, convention, "good engineering practice" are the enemies of
    invention.


    Wandering about the solution space is good. Wandering off with the
    fairies and your head in the clouds is not. In biology you have
    apparently so little idea as to where the solution space might be, that
    you don't even realise how absurd you are.

    Design something, post it, and we can discuss it.


    That's your own personal take on Godwin's law, and a clear indication
    that you realise you have been ridiculous. Whenever someone calls you
    out for your ignorance or points out the stupidity of something you've
    said, you /always/ come back to this as though it were some kind of
    trump card.


    Well, this is sci.electronic.design. Why are you posting here? To
    insult people who can actually design electronics? What is your
    motivation for that? I have found that the few people here who are
    actually competant designers are friendly, tolerant, interested,
    funny. The other tend to be foul and intolerant, and drive away the
    good ones.


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

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



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to no.spam@please.net on Sun Feb 13 08:29:26 2022
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:25:29 +1100, Clifford Heath
    <no.spam@please.net> wrote:

    On 13/2/22 2:54 pm, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 01:29:38 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 11/02/2022 21:36, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:46:05 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

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

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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


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

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

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


    This is all just the "watchmaker argument", wrapped up in
    pseudo-scientific nonsense about alien robots and quantum mechanics.

    Nobody thinks the first lifeforms on earth were DNA-based.


    Than someone should find or make a non-DNA life form.

    I posted here just a couple of months ago about complex self-replicating >molecules (that self-align to form something very like *cell walls*)
    recently found in the edges of geothermal springs. Once a bubble like
    this can form a boundary between inside and outside, it can isolate
    other processes from the outside world, providing a framework that could >(conceptually) easily evolve into a self-reproducing organism. That
    seems to be the most likely way that life got started, to my mind.

    It would be a numerically remote path from "very like" to a DNA based replicating cell. I've seen calculations like 1 part in 1e150 in the
    age of the universe.

    It's not a chemistry problem, it's a programming problem.


    But it didn't fit your mindset so you ignored it, just as you ignore all
    the other science that discredits your fantasies. Just as you'll
    probably ignore it again now, or scoff at it. I'm not even going to
    repost the URL, because you don't care. You can find it in my recent
    post anyhow.

    CH


    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Sun Feb 13 16:51:40 2022
    On 12/02/2022 00:18, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 16:57:12 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
    wrote:

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

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

    On 2022-02-11 14:12, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    It's astoundingly complex now, yes, but it can't have been in the beginning.

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

    A few with a big axe to grind have tried to convince the scientific
    community that it is impossible so that "Goddidit" is the only answer.

    It solves nothing to kick the can down the road like that.

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

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

    Joe Gwinn

    Is there any RNA life around now, independent of DNA? Where did it go?

    Yes. It didn't go away. Plenty of common viruses are RNA based.

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

    That is bare RNA usually loop based infective agents mainly cause
    trouble for plants though. Animals have better counter measures.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus_classification#Subviral_agents

    Isn't a bad layman's introduction. We have been over this same ground
    many times before. About the simplest viroids are an RNA loop containing
    just enough info to self replicate in a host and very little else.

    You can haggle about whether or not they are truly alive because they
    need to hijack a cell to replicate (at least all the ones I know of do).

    It is possible that someone will cook up an RNA world in the lab or a
    computer simulation before too much longer. They are getting closer.

    The coronavirus giving us so much trouble, flu and common colds too are
    all RNA viruses. That is why they evolve so rapidly. Their replication
    isn't entirely reliable. Covid actually has better error checking on its transcription phase then most so it changes more slowly than influenza.

    Some lab jock should invent some.

    No need they are already present in nature and some still cause trouble
    for important commercial crops from time to time. This one attacks
    avocados but other viroids target other specific hosts.

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

    There are even simpler things that can only replicate if the plant they
    infect is also infected with another independent virus.

    People have been making designer RNA sequences for ages.

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sun Feb 13 17:08:24 2022
    On 13/02/2022 16:29, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:25:29 +1100, Clifford Heath
    <no.spam@please.net> wrote:

    On 13/2/22 2:54 pm, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    Than someone should find or make a non-DNA life form.

    I posted here just a couple of months ago about complex self-replicating
    molecules (that self-align to form something very like *cell walls*)
    recently found in the edges of geothermal springs. Once a bubble like
    this can form a boundary between inside and outside, it can isolate
    other processes from the outside world, providing a framework that could
    (conceptually) easily evolve into a self-reproducing organism. That
    seems to be the most likely way that life got started, to my mind.

    It would be a numerically remote path from "very like" to a DNA based replicating cell. I've seen calculations like 1 part in 1e150 in the
    age of the universe.

    It's not a chemistry problem, it's a programming problem.

    It is a lack of imagination problem - yours and the bone heads who did
    the daft calculation on the odds of a perfect DNA based cell springing
    up from nowhere perfectly formed. If you set out to fail you will!

    What you and they are missing is all the scaffold and dead ends explored between the simplest self replicating molecule that ever formed and the
    gradual evolution of ever more complex life over geological timescales.
    The Earth sat with single celled not particularly exciting stage for a
    long time before more complex cooperative multicellular life evolved.

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


    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sun Feb 13 18:24:13 2022
    On 13/02/2022 16:50, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 07:19:58 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

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

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

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

    Cool.

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

    It follows

    No.

    that the repair mechanisms distinguish

    No.

    between uselesss/fatal mutations

    No.

    and potentially useful ones.

    No.

    They must

    No.

    let a calibrated

    No.

    fraction of potentially useful

    No.

    ones past the checks.


    No.


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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sun Feb 13 18:28:45 2022
    On 13/02/2022 17:24, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 12:30:34 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

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

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

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

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


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

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


    It is.


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

    You claim to understand the origin of life.

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

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

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

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

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

    Yes.

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

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


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


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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to Martin Brown on Sun Feb 13 18:31:26 2022
    On 13/02/2022 17:51, Martin Brown wrote:

    You can haggle about whether or not they are truly alive because they
    need to hijack a cell to replicate (at least all the ones I know of do).

    There are some viruses that are so simple that they can't hijack a
    cell's replication systems - they hijack another virus's hijacking! In
    a sense, they are small viruses that infect other large viruses. Fun stuff.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc on Sun Feb 13 18:38:53 2022
    On 13/02/2022 15:59, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
    David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote in news:suarr2$996$1@dont- email.me:

    Bacteria - as we know them today - were not first.

    Had you examined the article, you would know that I already knew that.


    In the part you skipped, you responded to my point that "Nobody thinks
    the first lifeforms on earth were DNA-based" by "Huh? Bacteria were
    first." Then you mixed things up thoroughly by saying you thought RNA
    might have been first.

    Given your other posts in this thread, I do think you already knew that
    the kind of bacteria we see today were not the first lifeforms, and that
    you /do/ understand that RNA-based lifeforms almost certainly preceded DNA-based lifeforms. But your post looked confusingly like the exact
    opposite.

    Let's chalk this down to miscommunication rather than misunderstanding,
    and move on.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk on Sun Feb 13 10:01:57 2022
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 15:59:41 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 13/02/22 15:36, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:25:29 +1100, Clifford Heath
    <no.spam@please.net> wrote:

    On 13/2/22 2:54 pm, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 01:29:38 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 11/02/2022 21:36, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:46:05 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

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

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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


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

    It had to be. DNA style reproduction is incredibly recursively
    complex. Nobody has explained how that self-defining complexity could >>>>>> have happened from a puddle of primordial soup. Lots of biologists >>>>>> have calculated the probability as indistingishable from impossible. >>>>>>
    Until someone does show how it could have happened, without
    intelligent intervention, robots from outer space, or some master
    designer, are as legit a theory as spontaneous generation.


    This is all just the "watchmaker argument", wrapped up in
    pseudo-scientific nonsense about alien robots and quantum mechanics. >>>>>
    Nobody thinks the first lifeforms on earth were DNA-based.


    Than someone should find or make a non-DNA life form.

    I posted here just a couple of months ago about complex self-replicating >>> molecules (that self-align to form something very like *cell walls*)
    recently found in the edges of geothermal springs. Once a bubble like
    this can form a boundary between inside and outside, it can isolate
    other processes from the outside world, providing a framework that could >>> (conceptually) easily evolve into a self-reproducing organism. That
    seems to be the most likely way that life got started, to my mind.


    Cartoons of living cells aren't life.


    But it didn't fit your mindset so you ignored it, just as you ignore all >>> the other science that discredits your fantasies. Just as you'll
    probably ignore it again now, or scoff at it. I'm not even going to
    repost the URL, because you don't care. You can find it in my recent
    post anyhow.

    What people here are ignoring is the information content of a living,
    replicating DNA-based cell. They substitute faith.

    AIUI you substitute faith, albeit of a different kind.


    Speculation about possibilities, alternates to concensus, is the
    opposite of faith. It's an admission that we may be wrong.

    Try it. Speculate about something. Design. Try to phrase it as
    something other than insults, to inspire constructive discussion.
    Maybe even on-topic.

    One of my daughters is a PhD biologist who has her own DNA consulting
    business. She's been mentioned in the New York Times. She doesn't mock
    my ideas, but then she knows I can write her out of my will.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to '''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk on Sun Feb 13 10:05:19 2022
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 17:08:24 +0000, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    On 13/02/2022 16:29, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:25:29 +1100, Clifford Heath
    <no.spam@please.net> wrote:

    On 13/2/22 2:54 pm, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    Than someone should find or make a non-DNA life form.

    I posted here just a couple of months ago about complex self-replicating >>> molecules (that self-align to form something very like *cell walls*)
    recently found in the edges of geothermal springs. Once a bubble like
    this can form a boundary between inside and outside, it can isolate
    other processes from the outside world, providing a framework that could >>> (conceptually) easily evolve into a self-reproducing organism. That
    seems to be the most likely way that life got started, to my mind.

    It would be a numerically remote path from "very like" to a DNA based
    replicating cell. I've seen calculations like 1 part in 1e150 in the
    age of the universe.

    It's not a chemistry problem, it's a programming problem.

    It is a lack of imagination problem - yours and the bone heads who did
    the daft calculation on the odds of a perfect DNA based cell springing
    up from nowhere perfectly formed. If you set out to fail you will!

    What you and they are missing is all the scaffold and dead ends explored >between the simplest self replicating molecule that ever formed and the >gradual evolution of ever more complex life over geological timescales.
    The Earth sat with single celled not particularly exciting stage for a
    long time before more complex cooperative multicellular life evolved.

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

    I like the jump from "water" to "earliest known life." The rest is
    routine.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to '''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk on Sun Feb 13 20:15:35 2022
    On a sunny day (Sun, 13 Feb 2022 14:53:43 +0000) it happened Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in <sub61n$vcp$1@gioia.aioe.org>:

    On 13/02/2022 07:55, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    This shows how much more complicated it all is
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/02/220208113945.htm

    I like that article very much, my own theories about a Le Sage type particle that is both
    carrier of EM radiation and gravity (and does away with Einstein's problems) says something similar.
    Different state of same thing more fundamental than we have 'shown' yet.

    Le Sage doesn't really work, but there is no point in arguing with you
    about this since you don't actually understand relativity at all.

    Relativity is very simple.

    Too simple as it lacks a mechanism;
    Its like electrickety without electrons, and breaks down by definition.
    The sad part is the peer reviewed masses parroting it no end without looking for a mechanism.
    Mamaticians are the worst, got fixed on divide by zero,
    re-normalization, singularities, and the epicycles of course.
    There ARE no singularities in nature!
    Mamaticians have a lack of understanding of nature, math is just a couple of neurons
    in the brain running an incomplete model of nature.
    However those mamaticians sell it as the ultimate and only truth.
    We neural nets know better,



    That
    seems to be a big failing in many electrical engineering courses.

    Design some electronics and you will see how limited your mamatical theories are in describing reality.

    I have seen the first picture of that new telescope, many stars that will become one after the mirrors are aligned.
    Nice that it works so far.

    Le Sage does not work for particles that are like billiard balls (or snooker balls if you live under Boris),
    but it can very well work for a more complicated particle.
    In the 5 1/4 floppy days I wrote a simulation that worked.

    Einstein had more mind shortcuts, photon was one of those
    more a political pawn in the game.

    Been coding all day, reached my target, very complex stuff, was not sure I would get it to work,
    but already started on phase 2 now, 14 hours at the keyboard.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sun Feb 13 12:56:03 2022
    On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 10:02:18 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    Speculation about possibilities, alternates to concensus, is the
    opposite of faith. It's an admission that we may be wrong.

    Self-centered and misses the point. This isn't about speculation, or consensus, or
    'wrong' (whatever that means), it's about the utility of a theory. In the sciences, a good theory is defined by properties that 'maybe a miracle happened'
    lacks.

    If you can't see those properties, you cannot appreciate a good theory.
    If you don't recognize those properties, as is apparently the case,
    you generate meaningless badges of validity that you apply to
    any random concept. 'John Larkin says it's valid' is thus a tainted brand.

    One of my daughters ... doesn't mock
    my ideas...

    But, you imagine that someone here does? No one except you can even identify the members of the set 'my ideas'. We make specific statements here about the IDEAS, that you always ignore. Somehow, though, you
    always try to defend the tainted brand.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to Jan Panteltje on Sun Feb 13 13:09:20 2022
    On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 12:16:33 PM UTC-8, Jan Panteltje wrote:

    Mamaticians are the worst, got fixed on divide by zero,
    re-normalization, singularities, and the epicycles of course.
    There ARE no singularities in nature!

    Black holes.

    Trying to claim some mathematics is useless, is missing the point
    entirely. You need math because much of it is useful. Singularities
    and fractals are messy math, but... that doesn't always misfit the world
    around us.

    There are very important uses of (for instance) eigenvalues, that are not immediately apparent in nature.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sun Feb 13 22:35:20 2022
    On 13/02/2022 19:01, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:


    One of my daughters is a PhD biologist who has her own DNA consulting business. She's been mentioned in the New York Times. She doesn't mock
    my ideas, but then she knows I can write her out of my will.




    """
    Orsino recognised him and smiled. ‘I know who you are,’ he said. ‘How
    are you, my good fellow?’

    ‘To tell you the truth, sir,’ said Feste, ‘all the better for having enemies and all the worse for having friends.’

    Orsino laughed. ‘It’s the opposite.’ he said. ‘The better for your friends.’

    ‘No, sir, the worse,’ said Feste.

    ‘How can that be?’

    ‘Well, sir, they praise me and make an ass of me. Now, my enemies tell
    me plainly that I’m an ass, so that, sir, I learn something about myself
    from my enemies, while I’m deceived by my friends, so that, comparing conclusions with kisses, if four negatives make two affirmatives, why
    then, I’m worse off having friends and better off having enemies.’
    """

    (From "Twelfth Night")



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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Clifford Heath@21:1/5 to Martin Brown on Mon Feb 14 09:28:08 2022
    On 13/2/22 11:03 pm, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 11/02/2022 22:40, Tom Gardner wrote:
    On 11/02/22 18:35, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    I think intelligent life is unstable. By the time it has become
    sufficiently powerful to communicate or travel over cosmic distances,
    it also has become powerful enough to blow itself into oblivion,
    and will, after a short while (on cosmic timescales).

    They will probably be non-thermal radio bright for a century or so
    before they blow themselves up with thermonuclear weapons (or worse) if
    we are any guide. We have probably been visible to radio telescopes
    since over the horizon radar, VHF radio and terrestrial TV. Our signals
    will be much harder to decode now we have gone digital - the analogue
    ones practically shout their frame rate at anyone who sees it.

    Arecibo was pretty good at standing out when it was operating. Anything
    in the beam when they were doing TDR imaging off near Earth Asteroids
    would know about it if they had similar radio telescopes to us.

    Even Arecibo's most powerful pulses would be invisible to equipment like
    ours beyond about 10,000 light years. That's not very far in galactic
    terms, and definitely not intergalactic.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Clifford Heath@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Mon Feb 14 09:18:25 2022
    On 14/2/22 2:36 am, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:25:29 +1100, Clifford Heath
    <no.spam@please.net> wrote:

    On 13/2/22 2:54 pm, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 01:29:38 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
    Nobody thinks the first lifeforms on earth were DNA-based.
    Than someone should find or make a non-DNA life form.

    I posted here just a couple of months ago about complex self-replicating
    molecules (that self-align to form something very like *cell walls*)
    recently found in the edges of geothermal springs. Once a bubble like
    this can form a boundary between inside and outside, it can isolate
    other processes from the outside world, providing a framework that could
    (conceptually) easily evolve into a self-reproducing organism. That
    seems to be the most likely way that life got started, to my mind.

    Cartoons of living cells aren't life.

    But it didn't fit your mindset so you ignored it, just as you ignore all
    the other science that discredits your fantasies. Just as you'll
    probably ignore it again now, or scoff at it. I'm not even going to
    repost the URL, because you don't care. You can find it in my recent
    post anyhow.

    What people here are ignoring is the information content of a living, replicating DNA-based cell. They substitute faith.

    On the contrary. The discussion here is wrongly fixated on the
    information content of DNA, and where that information could have come from.

    Before there can be any physical mechanism that self-replicates using *whatever* coding scheme, the mechanism itself must be enclosed away
    from the environment. A "self/non-self" distinction must be drawn, and
    these bubbles do exactly that. Any chemical environment (such as these
    thermal pools) which can spontaneously generate such enclosures allows
    the encapsulation of *anything* that aids in the generation of more such enclosures. The *tiniest* advantage related to the increase in any ionic
    or chemical element that enhances the process leads to a proliferation
    of that variant.

    Such non-coded replication requires no majick injection of encoded
    information to start the slow climb up to coded self-replication.

    I'm glad your daughter is polite to you, even though she must be aware
    you're a lost cause.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to david.brown@hesbynett.no on Sun Feb 13 15:51:45 2022
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 22:35:20 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 13/02/2022 19:01, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:


    One of my daughters is a PhD biologist who has her own DNA consulting
    business. She's been mentioned in the New York Times. She doesn't mock
    my ideas, but then she knows I can write her out of my will.




    """
    Orsino recognised him and smiled. I know who you are, he said. How
    are you, my good fellow?

    To tell you the truth, sir, said Feste, all the better for having
    enemies and all the worse for having friends.

    Orsino laughed. Its the opposite. he said. The better for your friends.

    No, sir, the worse, said Feste.

    How can that be?

    Well, sir, they praise me and make an ass of me. Now, my enemies tell
    me plainly that Im an ass, so that, sir, I learn something about myself
    from my enemies, while Im deceived by my friends, so that, comparing >conclusions with kisses, if four negatives make two affirmatives, why
    then, Im worse off having friends and better off having enemies.
    """

    (From "Twelfth Night")


    The 1997 version, with Imogen Stubbs, HBC, and Ben Kingsley, is one of
    my favorite movies.



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

    No, just more prissy.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to no.spam@please.net on Sun Feb 13 15:54:07 2022
    On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:18:25 +1100, Clifford Heath
    <no.spam@please.net> wrote:

    On 14/2/22 2:36 am, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:25:29 +1100, Clifford Heath
    <no.spam@please.net> wrote:

    On 13/2/22 2:54 pm, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 01:29:38 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
    Nobody thinks the first lifeforms on earth were DNA-based.
    Than someone should find or make a non-DNA life form.

    I posted here just a couple of months ago about complex self-replicating >>> molecules (that self-align to form something very like *cell walls*)
    recently found in the edges of geothermal springs. Once a bubble like
    this can form a boundary between inside and outside, it can isolate
    other processes from the outside world, providing a framework that could >>> (conceptually) easily evolve into a self-reproducing organism. That
    seems to be the most likely way that life got started, to my mind.

    Cartoons of living cells aren't life.

    But it didn't fit your mindset so you ignored it, just as you ignore all >>> the other science that discredits your fantasies. Just as you'll
    probably ignore it again now, or scoff at it. I'm not even going to
    repost the URL, because you don't care. You can find it in my recent
    post anyhow.

    What people here are ignoring is the information content of a living,
    replicating DNA-based cell. They substitute faith.

    On the contrary. The discussion here is wrongly fixated on the
    information content of DNA, and where that information could have come from.

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




    Before there can be any physical mechanism that self-replicates using >*whatever* coding scheme, the mechanism itself must be enclosed away
    from the environment. A "self/non-self" distinction must be drawn, and
    these bubbles do exactly that. Any chemical environment (such as these >thermal pools) which can spontaneously generate such enclosures allows
    the encapsulation of *anything* that aids in the generation of more such >enclosures. The *tiniest* advantage related to the increase in any ionic
    or chemical element that enhances the process leads to a proliferation
    of that variant.

    Such non-coded replication requires no majick injection of encoded >information to start the slow climb up to coded self-replication.

    I'm glad your daughter is polite to you, even though she must be aware
    you're a lost cause.

    She has ideas too. Must run in the family.




    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Clifford Heath@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Mon Feb 14 11:11:49 2022
    On 14/2/22 10:54 am, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:18:25 +1100, Clifford Heath
    <no.spam@please.net> wrote:

    On 14/2/22 2:36 am, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:25:29 +1100, Clifford Heath
    <no.spam@please.net> wrote:

    On 13/2/22 2:54 pm, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 01:29:38 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
    Nobody thinks the first lifeforms on earth were DNA-based.
    Than someone should find or make a non-DNA life form.

    I posted here just a couple of months ago about complex self-replicating >>>> molecules (that self-align to form something very like *cell walls*)
    recently found in the edges of geothermal springs. Once a bubble like
    this can form a boundary between inside and outside, it can isolate
    other processes from the outside world, providing a framework that could >>>> (conceptually) easily evolve into a self-reproducing organism. That
    seems to be the most likely way that life got started, to my mind.

    Cartoons of living cells aren't life.

    But it didn't fit your mindset so you ignored it, just as you ignore all >>>> the other science that discredits your fantasies. Just as you'll
    probably ignore it again now, or scoff at it. I'm not even going to
    repost the URL, because you don't care. You can find it in my recent
    post anyhow.

    What people here are ignoring is the information content of a living,
    replicating DNA-based cell. They substitute faith.

    On the contrary. The discussion here is wrongly fixated on the
    information content of DNA, and where that information could have come from.

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


    You worked hard to misinterpret me there. Of course the information is important. But it's also utterly irrelevant until some containment can
    be postulated. Fixating on the information while ignoring the need to
    contain it, is what is wrong.

    What I mentioned is the best candidate for containment. Within that
    context, we can discuss the chemistry and information theory required to enhance the generation of such cells. That enhancement doesn't have to
    start with either DNA, with RNA, or with any a-priori information. It
    only needs something that enhances the probability of generation of a
    cell similar to itself.

    And that's important.

    CH

    Before there can be any physical mechanism that self-replicates using
    *whatever* coding scheme, the mechanism itself must be enclosed away
    from the environment. A "self/non-self" distinction must be drawn, and
    these bubbles do exactly that. Any chemical environment (such as these
    thermal pools) which can spontaneously generate such enclosures allows
    the encapsulation of *anything* that aids in the generation of more such
    enclosures. The *tiniest* advantage related to the increase in any ionic
    or chemical element that enhances the process leads to a proliferation
    of that variant.

    Such non-coded replication requires no majick injection of encoded
    information to start the slow climb up to coded self-replication.

    I'm glad your daughter is polite to you, even though she must be aware
    you're a lost cause.

    She has ideas too. Must run in the family.





    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk on Sun Feb 13 16:24:42 2022
    On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 00:17:54 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

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

    She has ideas too. Must run in the family.

    Ideas are easy and cheap.

    Then why do so few people have them?



    Even my daughter's /dog/ has ideas! Mostly they are
    repetitive, but he shows imagination about ways to
    encourage you to throw his ball or other toys.

    You know your life's out of kilter when you are having
    a nice hot bath, there's a plop, and you open your eyes
    to see a Jack Russell looking at you and the ball he's
    dropped in the water.

    Sounds OK to me.




    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Mon Feb 14 00:17:54 2022
    On 13/02/22 23:54, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:18:25 +1100, Clifford Heath
    I'm glad your daughter is polite to you, even though she must be aware
    you're a lost cause.

    She has ideas too. Must run in the family.

    Ideas are easy and cheap.

    Even my daughter's /dog/ has ideas! Mostly they are
    repetitive, but he shows imagination about ways to
    encourage you to throw his ball or other toys.

    You know your life's out of kilter when you are having
    a nice hot bath, there's a plop, and you open your eyes
    to see a Jack Russell looking at you and the ball he's
    dropped in the water.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Mon Feb 14 02:13:58 2022
    On 14/02/22 00:24, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 00:17:54 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

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

    She has ideas too. Must run in the family.

    Ideas are easy and cheap.

    Then why do so few people have them?

    Most people /do/ have ideas.

    Few people have ideas that it is worth /other/
    people following up.


    Even my daughter's /dog/ has ideas! Mostly they are
    repetitive, but he shows imagination about ways to
    encourage you to throw his ball or other toys.

    You know your life's out of kilter when you are having
    a nice hot bath, there's a plop, and you open your eyes
    to see a Jack Russell looking at you and the ball he's
    dropped in the water.

    Sounds OK to me.

    It is to me, too. If it wasn't I'd simply shut the door.
    He's a fun animal to have around.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Jan Panteltje on Sun Feb 13 20:28:41 2022
    On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 12:55:16 AM UTC+11, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    On a sunny day (Sun, 13 Feb 2022 02:53:37 -0800 (PST)) it happened whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote in <bdeb49d4-6146-4b3c...@googlegroups.com>:
    On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 11:56:03 PM UTC-8, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    On a sunny day (Sat, 12 Feb 2022 16:16:59 -0800 (PST)) it happened whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote in <69a7cfcf-5b4f-467f...@googlegroups.com>:

    <snip>

    Depends what you call 'science'
    The sun orbiting the earth had a lot of mathematicians create 'epicycles' >> to describe the motion of the planets [grin a bit like string theory these days I'd think]
    until that dogma (earth at center was no longer believed - how many died on fires set by the church
    being accused of witchcraft etc..]
    It is ALL about social pressure and religious fanaticism.

    The power of the medieval church isn't 'science', but is a kind
    of social pressure. Science didn't order those actions, wasn't the social >operator, but the church did, and was.

    You should see that in the time frame
    the mathematicians that were working on the epicycles most certainly did think of themselves as scientists.

    They absolutely certainly didn't. William Whewell invented the term in 1833. Natural philosophy is as close as you could get to that before then.

    So did the schools in those days that taught it.

    They might have taught natural philosophy, which isn't quite the same thing - science is about creating and improving a coherent body of knowledge as a shared literature which everybody can cite.

    Natural philosophers wanted to set up a body of knowledge about the real world, but the refinements involved in getting everybody else to accept it and letting other people improve it are what makes modern science.

    <snipped Jan demonstrating that he doesn't know what modern science is about>

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Martin Brown on Sun Feb 13 20:35:35 2022
    On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 1:53:57 AM UTC+11, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 13/02/2022 07:55, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    On a sunny day (Sat, 12 Feb 2022 16:16:59 -0800 (PST)) it happened whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote in <69a7cfcf-5b4f-467f...@googlegroups.com>

    snip>

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

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

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sun Feb 13 20:50:45 2022
    On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 2:32:47 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 09:34:11 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
    On 13/02/22 03:56, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 00:44:26 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
    On 13/02/22 00:29, David Brown wrote:
    On 11/02/2022 21:36, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:46:05 +0100, Jeroen Belleman <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
    On 2022-02-11 14:12, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 06:54:29 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

    The two big leaps are

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

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

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

    and

    How did DNA come about?

    It's one more aspect of organic chemistry.

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

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

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

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

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sun Feb 13 20:57:38 2022
    On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 2:51:02 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 07:19:58 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney
    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sun Feb 13 21:06:47 2022
    On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 2:57:11 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 07:55:16 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    On a sunny day (Sat, 12 Feb 2022 16:16:59 -0800 (PST)) it happened whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote in <69a7cfcf-5b4f-467f...@googlegroups.com>:

    <snip>

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

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

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

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sun Feb 13 21:16:39 2022
    On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 3:03:03 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 14:53:43 +0000, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
    On 13/02/2022 07:55, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    On a sunny day (Sat, 12 Feb 2022 16:16:59 -0800 (PST)) it happened whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote in <69a7cfcf-5b4f-467f...@googlegroups.com>:

    <snip>

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

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

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

    He chooses to remain wilfully ignorant.

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

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

    That provokes hostility. Perfectly normal.

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

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sun Feb 13 21:53:08 2022
    On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 3:24:50 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 12:30:34 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
    On 12/02/2022 18:03, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 17:43:55 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
    On 12/02/2022 16:45, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 16:21:54 +0100, David Brown

    <snip>

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

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

    Clearly Einstein was.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    <snip>

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

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

    What is your motivation for that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Sure. We can do saltation

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

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sun Feb 13 22:04:20 2022
    On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 10:54:21 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:18:25 +1100, Clifford Heath <no....@please.net> wrote: >On 14/2/22 2:36 am, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:25:29 +1100, Clifford Heath <no....@please.net> wrote:
    On 13/2/22 2:54 pm, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 01:29:38 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    <snip>

    What people here are ignoring is the information content of a living,
    replicating DNA-based cell. They substitute faith.

    On the contrary. The discussion here is wrongly fixated on the
    information content of DNA, and where that information could have come from.

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

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

    Before there can be any physical mechanism that self-replicates using >*whatever* coding scheme, the mechanism itself must be enclosed away
    from the environment. A "self/non-self" distinction must be drawn, and >these bubbles do exactly that. Any chemical environment (such as these >thermal pools) which can spontaneously generate such enclosures allows
    the encapsulation of *anything* that aids in the generation of more such >enclosures. The *tiniest* advantage related to the increase in any ionic
    or chemical element that enhances the process leads to a proliferation
    of that variant.

    Such non-coded replication requires no majick injection of encoded >information to start the slow climb up to coded self-replication.

    I'm glad your daughter is polite to you, even though she must be aware >you're a lost cause.

    She has ideas too. Must run in the family.

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

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sun Feb 13 22:08:34 2022
    On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 11:24:55 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 00:17:54 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
    On 13/02/22 23:54, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:18:25 +1100, Clifford Heath

    <snip>

    Ideas are easy and cheap.

    Then why do so few people have them?

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

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

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to whit3rd@gmail.com on Mon Feb 14 06:47:31 2022
    On a sunny day (Sun, 13 Feb 2022 13:09:20 -0800 (PST)) it happened whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in <729c2e8b-5a35-4d86-bc9f-d60fc1576a0dn@googlegroups.com>:

    On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 12:16:33 PM UTC-8, Jan Panteltje wrote:

    Mamaticians are the worst, got fixed on divide by zero,
    re-normalization, singularities, and the epicycles of course.
    There ARE no singularities in nature!

    Black holes.

    Trying to claim some mathematics is useless, is missing the point
    entirely. You need math because much of it is useful. Singularities
    and fractals are messy math, but... that doesn't always misfit the world >around us.

    There are very important uses of (for instance) eigenvalues, that are not >immediately apparent in nature.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    So here the mechanism its very simple.

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

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to Anthony William Sloman on Mon Feb 14 09:06:29 2022
    On 14/02/2022 05:35, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 1:53:57 AM UTC+11, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 13/02/2022 07:55, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    On a sunny day (Sat, 12 Feb 2022 16:16:59 -0800 (PST)) it happened whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote in <69a7cfcf-5b4f-467f...@googlegroups.com>

    snip>

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

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


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

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Mon Feb 14 09:15:33 2022
    On 14/02/2022 00:51, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 22:35:20 +0100, David Brown


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

    No, just more prissy.


    Enjoy your fantasy world.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Mon Feb 14 09:45:07 2022
    On 14/02/2022 01:24, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 00:17:54 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

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

    She has ideas too. Must run in the family.

    Ideas are easy and cheap.

    Then why do so few people have them?


    /Everyone/ has ideas.

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

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

    But you have got yourself into a kind of narcissism or megalomania where
    you think /all/ your ideas are great, and other peoples' are not.
    Perhaps you've had too many people around you - at home or at work - who
    kept telling you your ideas are good and worth considering. If you were
    into politics instead of electronics, maybe you'd be at a podium telling
    people your ideas of injecting bleach, nuking hurricanes, or shining
    bright UV lights insight your body - they must be good ideas because you
    are a "very stable genius". Fortunately for the world, you are just a
    harmless electronics engineer.

    Your ideas are like everyone else's. Mostly they are rubbish, mostly derivative, mostly they don't stand up to scrutiny or fit with reality.
    Most of the good ones have already been thought of by someone else. Occasionally you'll have a truly terrible idea and not recognise it
    before things go horribly wrong (we all do that sometimes), and
    occasionally you'll have a really good idea.

    However, your evaluation filters are broken. You don't realise that
    most of your ideas are rubbish, so you don't filter them out yourself
    before opening your mouth and proving yourself a fool. You don't
    realise that everyone else has ideas just like you, and condemn them for
    having better filters than you.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to Anthony William Sloman on Mon Feb 14 09:48:05 2022
    On 14/02/22 05:16, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 3:03:03 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    That provokes hostility. Perfectly normal.

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

    /Informed/ speculations are fun and more than acceptable.

    My manager^2 in the bit of HPLabs that recruited me was
    pretty laid back, but he had one rule: you must know
    the literature.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to Clifford Heath on Mon Feb 14 09:33:40 2022
    On 13/02/2022 22:28, Clifford Heath wrote:
    On 13/2/22 11:03 pm, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 11/02/2022 22:40, Tom Gardner wrote:
    On 11/02/22 18:35, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    I think intelligent life is unstable. By the time it has become
    sufficiently powerful to communicate or travel over cosmic distances,
    it also has become powerful enough to blow itself into oblivion,
    and will, after a short while (on cosmic timescales).

    They will probably be non-thermal radio bright for a century or so
    before they blow themselves up with thermonuclear weapons (or worse)
    if we are any guide. We have probably been visible to radio telescopes
    since over the horizon radar, VHF radio and terrestrial TV. Our
    signals will be much harder to decode now we have gone digital - the
    analogue ones practically shout their frame rate at anyone who sees it.

    Arecibo was pretty good at standing out when it was operating.
    Anything in the beam when they were doing TDR imaging off near Earth
    Asteroids would know about it if they had similar radio telescopes to us.

    Even Arecibo's most powerful pulses would be invisible to equipment like
    ours beyond about 10,000 light years. That's not very far in galactic
    terms, and definitely not intergalactic.

    I agree. It is only about 1/400 th of the volume of our galaxy.

    But there are a hell of a lot of stars within 10k ly even so. There are
    133 within 10ly.

    http://www.icc.dur.ac.uk/~tt/Lectures/Galaxies/LocalGroup/Back/50lys.html

    So at that rough density you would expect 133M stars within 10k ly.

    The milky way is densely populated with stars in the plane of the
    galaxy. Aiming at the densest regions of stars like they did with M13
    once probably isn't likely to yield results since the stars in globular clusters are too close together for their own good (and get ever closer
    by flinging unlucky ones off to infinity).

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

    They were also being a bit optimistic about the aliens having better
    technology since that is ~25kly away. Naked eye object in a dark sky and magical spherical dust of diamond like stars in a decent telescope.
    Easily found in the summer skies a third the way down from Hercules
    shoulder.

    https://skyandtelescope.org/observing/m13-and-galaxies/


    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to David Brown on Mon Feb 14 09:51:29 2022
    On 13/02/2022 17:31, David Brown wrote:
    On 13/02/2022 17:51, Martin Brown wrote:

    You can haggle about whether or not they are truly alive because they
    need to hijack a cell to replicate (at least all the ones I know of do).

    There are some viruses that are so simple that they can't hijack a
    cell's replication systems - they hijack another virus's hijacking! In
    a sense, they are small viruses that infect other large viruses. Fun stuff.

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

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

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

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

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

    Tardigrades only go back about about half a billion years. They haven't
    changed all that much - they are good enough to beat most things in
    terms of staying alive (if only just) in very hostile environments.

    https://www.americanscientist.org/article/tardigrades

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to David Brown on Mon Feb 14 06:03:55 2022
    On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 7:06:40 PM UTC+11, David Brown wrote:
    On 14/02/2022 05:35, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 1:53:57 AM UTC+11, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 13/02/2022 07:55, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    On a sunny day (Sat, 12 Feb 2022 16:16:59 -0800 (PST)) it happened whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote in <69a7cfcf-5b4f-467f...@googlegroups.com>

    snip>

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

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

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

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

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

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Jan Panteltje on Mon Feb 14 05:59:51 2022
    On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 5:48:35 PM UTC+11, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    On a sunny day (Sun, 13 Feb 2022 13:09:20 -0800 (PST)) it happened whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote in <729c2e8b-5a35-4d86...@googlegroups.com>:
    On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 12:16:33 PM UTC-8, Jan Panteltje wrote:

    <snip>

    But having a mathematical model does _not_ mean you can just declare it as the final truth,
    It needs verifying against experiments again and again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Now I will show you why a Le Sage model predicts that.

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

    <snip more ill-informed nonsense>

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to david.brown@hesbynett.no on Mon Feb 14 07:51:59 2022
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 18:24:13 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

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

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

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

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

    Cool.

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

    It follows

    No.

    that the repair mechanisms distinguish

    No.

    between uselesss/fatal mutations

    No.

    and potentially useful ones.

    No.

    They must

    No.

    let a calibrated

    No.

    fraction of potentially useful

    No.

    ones past the checks.


    No.


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

    No is your mantra. Maybe is mine.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to '''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk on Mon Feb 14 08:05:19 2022
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 14:53:43 +0000, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    ..........

    Established church tended to be into burning heretics and their books.
    New knowledge conflicting with scripture was viewed as very dangerous by
    the authorities. US YEC's still haven't got out of those Dark Ages.

    But modern science and technology developed mainly in Christian
    countries. The Jesuits have been great scientists and mathematicians.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jesuit_scientists

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

    ...........


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

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

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





    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to david.brown@hesbynett.no on Mon Feb 14 08:10:24 2022
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 18:28:45 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


    It is.


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

    You claim to understand the origin of life.

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

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

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

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

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

    Yes.

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

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


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


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

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

    Are you a biologist?

    Do you design electronics?



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk on Mon Feb 14 08:14:13 2022
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 15:57:45 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

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

    On 13/02/22 03:56, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 00:44:26 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 13/02/22 00:29, David Brown wrote:
    On 11/02/2022 21:36, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:46:05 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

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

    How life came to Earth ?

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

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


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

    It had to be. DNA style reproduction is incredibly recursively
    complex. Nobody has explained how that self-defining complexity could >>>>>>> have happened from a puddle of primordial soup. Lots of biologists >>>>>>> have calculated the probability as indistingishable from impossible. >>>>>>>
    Until someone does show how it could have happened, without
    intelligent intervention, robots from outer space, or some master >>>>>>> designer, are as legit a theory as spontaneous generation.


    This is all just the "watchmaker argument", wrapped up in
    pseudo-scientific nonsense about alien robots and quantum mechanics. >>>>>
    Just so.

    I've previously pointed John to "The Blind Watchmaker", and
    he indicated he would read it.

    There is no indication that he has read it - or if he has,
    then he hasn't understood it.

    I read some of it. It's a lot of repetition. And a lot of hand waving.

    I can see how someone skimming it might come to that conclusion.

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

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

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

    The two big leaps are

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

    and

    How did DNA come about?

    Agreed.


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

    That's unknown.

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

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


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

    Either answer is terrifying, as AC Clarke observed.

    Or wonderful.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to david.brown@hesbynett.no on Mon Feb 14 08:35:34 2022
    On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:45:07 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

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

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

    She has ideas too. Must run in the family.

    Ideas are easy and cheap.

    Then why do so few people have them?


    /Everyone/ has ideas.

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

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


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

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

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


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

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





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

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

    But some of them really work.

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

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


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

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

    You don't
    realise that everyone else has ideas just like you, and condemn them for >having better filters than you.

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


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


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



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to david.brown@hesbynett.no on Mon Feb 14 08:20:13 2022
    On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:15:33 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

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


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

    No, just more prissy.


    Enjoy your fantasy world.

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

    Do you enjoy your World of No?


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

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

    Besides, younger people don't post to usenet.





    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Mon Feb 14 18:00:24 2022
    On 14/02/22 16:35, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:45:07 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

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

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

    She has ideas too. Must run in the family.

    Ideas are easy and cheap.

    Then why do so few people have them?


    /Everyone/ has ideas.

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

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


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

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

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

    It /looks/ as David describes it.

    It wouldn't if you listened to and understood the reasons
    other people give you. Instead you either ignore them or
    resort to irrelevant points (e.g. "design something").

    Now the reasons other people give you might be incorrect,
    but you are free to understand and correct those reasons.
    But typically you act as if you don't want to understand
    their reasons.


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

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

    Competence in one area means zero about competence in another.


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

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

    But some of them really work.

    We aren't doubting or challenging that.



    You don't
    realise that everyone else has ideas just like you, and condemn them for
    having better filters than you.

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

    If the idea has demonstrable gross foetal abnormalities, it
    should be aborted.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Mon Feb 14 20:11:46 2022
    On 14/02/2022 16:51, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 18:24:13 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

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

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

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

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

    Cool.

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

    It follows

    No.

    that the repair mechanisms distinguish

    No.

    between uselesss/fatal mutations

    No.

    and potentially useful ones.

    No.

    They must

    No.

    let a calibrated

    No.

    fraction of potentially useful

    No.

    ones past the checks.


    No.


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

    No is your mantra. Maybe is mine.


    I reply "yes" to most people in this kind of thread. Your posts stand
    out as extraordinarily silly and ignorant, so you pick up a lot of no's.

    Would you feel better if I wrote "/Yes/, you failed to read the article.
    /Maybe/ you haven't a clue what you are writing about" ?

    When you make a comment that is less sensible than "Maybe the moon is
    made of green cheese", the sane response is "No." If you want a "yes",
    write something that isn't idiotic. (And yes, you sometimes /do/ write
    things that aren't idiotic, and you sometimes get a "yes" in reply. It
    doesn't happen much in the biology threads.)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Mon Feb 14 10:52:49 2022
    On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 8:14:27 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 15:57:45 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 13/02/22 15:32, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

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

    That's unknown.

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

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

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

    Sadly, this is a lot like the Drake equation. There's LOTS of variables, including how many non-DNA life possibilities exist; if there's a billion different other candidates, that multiplies by 10**9 the probability that one of them
    gets explored and becomes... us. Even a smart biologist cannot
    have the whole equation worked out; that math tells us very little
    about the world, only allows us to discard an occasional set of assumptions.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Mon Feb 14 20:41:33 2022
    On 14/02/2022 17:10, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 18:28:45 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


    It is.


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

    You claim to understand the origin of life.

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

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

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

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

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

    Yes.

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

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


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


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

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

    I don't come here to insult people. I sometimes call out stupid posts
    for what they are. Most others don't see my posts as insulting, as most
    other people don't post the kind of bizarre and absurd "ideas" that you
    are so fond of. (There are other posters here who post some far worse
    stuff, but they are beyond all hope of redemption. I still hope that
    one day you will learn to understand evolution.)


    Are you a biologist?


    I am an interested amateur, without formal higher education in the
    subject. In this group, there are a fair number of amateur biologists,
    leading to interesting discussions.

    Do you design electronics?


    I haven't done much electronics design for quite some time - there are
    others at my company who do it more efficiently, and I have more than
    enough other tasks (mostly software related). I rarely get involved in electronics discussions here, simply because the kind of electronics I
    work with doesn't come up much - control systems and digital electronics
    is usually quite easy. I don't have the education or interest in the
    kind of electronics that benefits from discussion, such as more
    complicated analogue stuff. I have neither the theoretical background
    nor the experience to contribute much. (On some electronics threads, I
    read with interest despite not posting.)

    Like most people in this group, I come for the chatter.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Mon Feb 14 20:27:03 2022
    On 14/02/2022 17:05, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 14:53:43 +0000, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    ..........

    Established church tended to be into burning heretics and their books.
    New knowledge conflicting with scripture was viewed as very dangerous by
    the authorities. US YEC's still haven't got out of those Dark Ages.


    The "Genesis is a literal description of creation" is a modern idea -
    young earthers, like flat earthers, are not people that never left the
    Dark Ages, they are people who have chosen to re-enter it. Until people started finding geological proof that the earth is old, and Darwin and
    others (before and afterwards) began to understand evolution, few people
    really thought about the creation of the earth in any kind of real
    sense. Theologians of the day knew fine that Genesis was not a literal
    record of creation - they could see perfectly well that it contains two contradictory accounts and thus literalism cannot possibly make sense.

    But modern science and technology developed mainly in Christian
    countries. The Jesuits have been great scientists and mathematicians.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jesuit_scientists

    Europe was dragged kicking and screaming out of the dark ages by the
    Islamic scholars. India and China were /way/ ahead for a long time.
    But in the past few centuries the west took over.

    However, it was not /because/ of the Christian church, it is mainly
    /despite/ it. For a long time, scientists in the west were all
    religious - part of that was that saying anything could get your badly
    burned, literally or at least metaphorically. And since education was
    in the hands of the church, and education is required for real progress
    in science, there was a strong overlap for a while. As long as the
    scientists did not contradict the church (this was Martin's point), that
    was fine.


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


    Yes.

    Science really took off in the west took off after the enlightenment,
    when people started questioning the church teachings a lot more. But
    the church still provided the backbone of higher education for a long
    time. (Not least was the teaching of Latin, giving educated people a
    common language.)

    I would not say the church "stepped aside" - it would be more accurate
    to say they were pushed aside. It was not a voluntary process on the
    part of the church.




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

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

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


    I have seen that in EE graduates too.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to david.brown@hesbynett.no on Mon Feb 14 13:52:07 2022
    On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 20:27:03 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 14/02/2022 17:05, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 14:53:43 +0000, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    ..........

    Established church tended to be into burning heretics and their books.
    New knowledge conflicting with scripture was viewed as very dangerous by >>> the authorities. US YEC's still haven't got out of those Dark Ages.


    The "Genesis is a literal description of creation" is a modern idea -
    young earthers, like flat earthers, are not people that never left the
    Dark Ages, they are people who have chosen to re-enter it. Until people >started finding geological proof that the earth is old, and Darwin and
    others (before and afterwards) began to understand evolution, few people >really thought about the creation of the earth in any kind of real
    sense. Theologians of the day knew fine that Genesis was not a literal >record of creation - they could see perfectly well that it contains two >contradictory accounts and thus literalism cannot possibly make sense.

    But modern science and technology developed mainly in Christian
    countries. The Jesuits have been great scientists and mathematicians.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jesuit_scientists

    Europe was dragged kicking and screaming out of the dark ages by the
    Islamic scholars. India and China were /way/ ahead for a long time.
    But in the past few centuries the west took over.

    The Islamic and Chinese science was not dissiminated, didn't become
    beneficial technology, like western science did. Partially because we
    printed a lot of books.



    However, it was not /because/ of the Christian church, it is mainly
    /despite/ it.


    For a long time, scientists in the west were all
    religious - part of that was that saying anything could get your badly >burned, literally or at least metaphorically. And since education was
    in the hands of the church, and education is required for real progress
    in science, there was a strong overlap for a while. As long as the >scientists did not contradict the church (this was Martin's point), that
    was fine.


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


    Yes.

    Science really took off in the west took off after the enlightenment,
    when people started questioning the church teachings a lot more. But
    the church still provided the backbone of higher education for a long
    time. (Not least was the teaching of Latin, giving educated people a
    common language.)

    One reason printing flourished was to print a lot of bibles. One
    reason literacy advanced was so people could read them.



    I would not say the church "stepped aside" - it would be more accurate
    to say they were pushed aside. It was not a voluntary process on the
    part of the church.




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

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

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


    I have seen that in EE graduates too.

    --

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to david.brown@hesbynett.no on Mon Feb 14 13:43:33 2022
    On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 20:11:46 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 14/02/2022 16:51, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 18:24:13 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

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

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

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

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

    Cool.

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

    It follows

    No.

    that the repair mechanisms distinguish

    No.

    between uselesss/fatal mutations

    No.

    and potentially useful ones.

    No.

    They must

    No.

    let a calibrated

    No.

    fraction of potentially useful

    No.

    ones past the checks.


    No.


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

    No is your mantra. Maybe is mine.


    I reply "yes" to most people in this kind of thread. Your posts stand
    out as extraordinarily silly and ignorant, so you pick up a lot of no's.

    Would you feel better if I wrote "/Yes/, you failed to read the article.
    /Maybe/ you haven't a clue what you are writing about" ?

    When you make a comment that is less sensible than "Maybe the moon is
    made of green cheese", the sane response is "No." If you want a "yes",
    write something that isn't idiotic. (And yes, you sometimes /do/ write >things that aren't idiotic, and you sometimes get a "yes" in reply. It >doesn't happen much in the biology threads.)

    Are you a biologist? Do you know one?

    I took a biologist to lunch today.

    --

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Mon Feb 14 17:59:03 2022
    On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 2:52:14 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 18:24:13 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
    On 13/02/2022 16:50, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 07:19:58 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    On a sunny day (Sat, 12 Feb 2022 15:19:00 -0800 (PST)) it happened Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote in <fb8fcd39-787c-4c26...@googlegroups.com>:

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

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

    Cool.

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

    It follows

    It didn't.

    <snip>

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

    No is your mantra. Maybe is mine.

    David Brown wasn't using "no" as a mantra. He might have explained how you got it wrong in more detail - I did - but since you don't read that kind of reaction it would have been a waste of time.

    Your use of "maybe" probably does qualify as a mantra, since it has no intellectual content at all.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Mon Feb 14 18:09:29 2022
    On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 3:20:27 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:15:33 +0100, David Brown
    <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:

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


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

    No, just more prissy.


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

    Except that if you actually have invented stuff, you should have got at least one patent. It's a fairly high bar - patents are expensive.

    Publishing a scientific paper with enough novel content that other people have cited it might be good enough - getting a paper published takes work and you've got no control over the people who read it and may even cite it.

    Do you enjoy your World of No?

    Pointing out that John Larkin has got oi wrong again is to easy to be remotely enjoyable.

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

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

    Breeding involves selecting the parents. Your daughter reflects your choice of wife - or you wife's choice of you. I doubt if the potential "delicacy" of your offspring played any part in that.

    Besides, younger people don't post to usenet.

    They may read what gets posted. We don't know anything about lurkers.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Mon Feb 14 18:33:02 2022
    On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 3:35:48 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:45:07 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
    On 14/02/2022 01:24, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 00:17:54 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
    On 13/02/22 23:54, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:18:25 +1100, Clifford Heath

    <snip>

    Ideas are easy and cheap.

    Then why do so few people have them?


    /Everyone/ has ideas.

    The only strange thing is that some people have this twisted concept
    that /they/ are special in regard to ideas - that /their/ ideas are >somehow better than everyone else's, or that only /they/ have good ideas.
    I guess. It's almosy guaranteed that those people don't have good
    ideas. Internally, they will actually reject their own.

    When I worked at EMI Central Research one of our colleague submitted more "patent queries" in one year than anybody else in the building.
    None of them got patented. He clearly didn't reject any of his ideas.

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

    But you have got yourself into a kind of narcissism or megalomania where >you think /all/ your ideas are great, and other peoples' are not.
    I never said anything like that. Many of my ideas are crazy;
    deliberately crazy, because all idea genaration is exercize for
    creating and considering ideas.

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

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

    You essentially do bespoke electronics. People tell you what they want and you put it together for them. Vanity published publish a lot of books.
    They don't tend to sell well to anybody except the authors relatives.

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

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

    But some of them really work.

    If your average development time for a new product is two weeks - as you have claimed - your new ideas have to look very like ideas you have had earlier, so the threshold you set for an inventive step can't be all that high.

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

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

    But quite enough of them to let me know quite a few. I do have the advantage of having worked in places where there was enough new stuff being invented that they applied for patents on a routine basis.

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

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

    It would cut down the number of foolish ideas. The brainstorming sessions I was involved in didn't come up with foolish ideas - they did produce a lot of odd ones that didn't go anywhere, but none of them were obviously stupid. You may have to set the
    bar lower.

    You don't realise that everyone else has ideas just like you, and condemn them for having better filters than you.
    Too many filters, applied way too soon. Idea abortion.

    It prevents idea miscarriages, where you spend a couple of weeks realising that an idea isn't going to go anywhere. That's expensive.

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

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

    And John Larkin's criterion for "people who matter" includes the rule that they have to be willing flatter him. How can they work closely with him if they won't lie about his competence, and be very diplomatic in steering him away from his sillier ideas.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Mon Feb 14 19:08:09 2022
    On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 8:52:24 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
    On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 20:27:03 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
    On 14/02/2022 17:05, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 14:53:43 +0000, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    <snip>

    But modern science and technology developed mainly in Christian
    countries. The Jesuits have been great scientists and mathematicians.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jesuit_scientists

    Europe was dragged kicking and screaming out of the dark ages by the >Islamic scholars. India and China were /way/ ahead for a long time.

    But in the past few centuries the west took over.
    The Islamic and Chinese science was not dissiminated, didn't become beneficial technology, like western science did. Partially because we printed a lot of books.

    But mainly because we invented the scientific method - peer-reviewed publications in recognised scientific journals, and a habit of citing earlier publications.

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Gutenberg>

    invented the moveable type printing press around 1450, and we started printing a lot of books from then on.

    The Royal Society wasn't established until 1660. It grew out of Robert Boyle's "invisible college" first mentioned in 1646.

    However, it was not /because/ of the Christian church, it is mainly /despite/ it.

    For a long time, scientists in the west were all
    religious - part of that was that saying anything could get your badly >burned, literally or at least metaphorically. And since education was
    in the hands of the church, and education is required for real progress
    in science, there was a strong overlap for a while. As long as the >scientists did not contradict the church (this was Martin's point), that >was fine.

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

    Yes.

    Science really took off in the west took off after the enlightenment,
    when people started questioning the church teachings a lot more. But
    the church still provided the backbone of higher education for a long >time. (Not least was the teaching of Latin, giving educated people a >common language.)

    One reason printing flourished was to print a lot of bibles. One reason literacy advanced was so people could read them.

    Literacy and printing will have been precussors to scientific advance, but they weren't sufficient on their own.

    I would not say the church "stepped aside" - it would be more accurate to say they were pushed aside. It was not a voluntary process on the part of the church.

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

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

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

    "Any behavior is instinctive if it is performed without being based upon prior experience (that is, in the absence of learning), and is therefore an expression of innate biological factors."

    A university course can't instil instincts. It can teach people the kind of behavior they can expect from electrical circuits, but it isn't instilling any kind of instinct.

    John Larkin doesn't seem to like doing conscious thought, and seems to think that there is a virtue in training the sub-conscious to do it for you. University instruction can do that, but universities like people to think about what they are doing, so
    that the process is accessible to introspection.

    "Easily-forgotten mathematical rigor" is easy to retrieve from text-books - if you know they exist, and even easier if you know your way around a particular textbook, which is why selective entry universities tend to use "The Art of Electronics" as an
    undergraduate electronic text. It's not a comprehensive text - that's an impractical idea - but it is a very good start, and lists other useful text books.

    I have seen that in EE graduates too.

    Everybody has areas where they have specialised knowledge. Most electronic development forces you to expand those areas to cover new ground.

    A good EE course should teach you how to do that, but there are other ways of acquiring that particular skill. I got into it via physical chemisty. Win Hill got into it via chemical physics. John Larkin sees to have missed out.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Mon Feb 14 19:48:55 2022
    On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 1:52:24 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
    On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 20:27:03 +0100, David Brown
    <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    Europe was dragged kicking and screaming out of the dark ages by the >Islamic scholars. India and China were /way/ ahead for a long time.
    But in the past few centuries the west took over.

    The Islamic and Chinese science was not dissiminated, didn't become beneficial technology, like western science did. Partially because we
    printed a lot of books.

    Oh, Islamic science DID become beneficial technology; wootz process for steelmaking, to start with. Latin writings and Roman numerals
    aren't the roots of our algebra and arabic numbers; that was Islamic work. Toledo isn't famed for cutlery because of the Christian influence.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk on Mon Feb 14 21:02:49 2022
    On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 18:00:24 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 14/02/22 16:35, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:45:07 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

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

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

    She has ideas too. Must run in the family.

    Ideas are easy and cheap.

    Then why do so few people have them?


    /Everyone/ has ideas.

    The only strange thing is that some people have this twisted concept
    that /they/ are special in regard to ideas - that /their/ ideas are
    somehow better than everyone else's, or that only /they/ have good ideas. >>
    I guess. It's almosy guaranteed that those people don't have good
    ideas. Internally, they will actually reject their on.


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

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

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

    It /looks/ as David describes it.

    It wouldn't if you listened to and understood the reasons
    other people give you. Instead you either ignore them or
    resort to irrelevant points (e.g. "design something").

    Of course people who don't design things have different attitudes
    towards new ideas. They instinctively don't like them.


    Now the reasons other people give you might be incorrect,
    but you are free to understand and correct those reasons.
    But typically you act as if you don't want to understand
    their reasons.

    That would have to state reasons, something better than "you are
    stupid." They might even practice having some ideas of their own.





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

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

    Competence in one area means zero about competence in another.

    No! System dynamics transcends a lot of things. The tools that we use
    in electronic design (formal logic, number theory, signals and
    systems, control theory, thermo, optics, physics, information theory, measurement, statistics) have hard analogies to many other fields,
    which is why electronics is now ubiquitous. And why EEs can help
    others understand their own processes. That's fun, actually.



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

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

    But some of them really work.

    We aren't doubting or challenging that.



    You don't
    realise that everyone else has ideas just like you, and condemn them for >>> having better filters than you.

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

    If the idea has demonstrable gross foetal abnormalities, it
    should be aborted.


    Killing ideas in 100 milliseconds is excellent practice for killing
    ideas in 100 milliseconds. After a while, you can do it without
    thinking.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Clifford Heath@21:1/5 to All on Tue Feb 15 16:38:58 2022
    On 15/2/22 2:48 pm, whit3rd wrote:
    Oh, Islamic science DID become beneficial technology; wootz process for steelmaking, to start with. Latin writings and Roman numerals
    aren't the roots of our algebra and arabic numbers; that was Islamic work. Toledo isn't famed for cutlery because of the Christian influence.

    No, it was famed because it contained about the only library that wasn't
    burnt by Northern barbarians wearing crosses. A significant percentage
    of the scholarly work was Roman or Greek, but the Moors had definitely
    extended it in important areas.

    BTW, the Arabs call them "Hindi numbers". Just saying...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Mon Feb 14 22:20:08 2022
    On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 4:03:04 PM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 18:00:24 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
    On 14/02/22 16:35, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:45:07 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
    On 14/02/2022 01:24, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 00:17:54 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
    On 13/02/22 23:54, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:18:25 +1100, Clifford Heath

    <snip>

    Then why do so few people have them?

    /Everyone/ has ideas.

    The only strange thing is that some people have this twisted concept
    that /they/ are special in regard to ideas - that /their/ ideas are
    somehow better than everyone else's, or that only /they/ have good ideas. >>
    I guess. It's almost guaranteed that those people don't have good
    ideas. Internally, they will actually reject their on.

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

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

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

    It /looks/ as David describes it.

    It wouldn't if you listened to and understood the reasons
    other people give you. Instead you either ignore them or
    resort to irrelevant points (e.g. "design something").

    Of course people who don't design things have different attitudes
    towards new ideas. They instinctively don't like them.

    The problem is that you don't have new ideas. What you come up with are old ideas, long exploded, even of they look new to you.

    Now the reasons other people give you might be incorrect,
    but you are free to understand and correct those reasons.

    But typically you act as if you don't want to understand
    their reasons.

    That would have to state reasons, something better than "you are
    stupid."

    They do, but you can't be bothered processing them. Maybe if they were sweetened by a liberal dose of flattery you might take them more seriously.

    They might even practice having some ideas of their own.

    We do, but you couldn't care less about them, and don't register their existence.

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

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

    Competence in one area means zero about competence in another.

    No! System dynamics transcends a lot of things. The tools that we use
    in electronic design (formal logic, number theory, signals and
    systems, control theory, thermo, optics, physics, information theory, measurement, statistics) have hard analogies to many other fields,
    which is why electronics is now ubiquitous. And why EEs can help
    others understand their own processes. That's fun, actually.

    What a load of pretentious nonsense. The tools named exist in their own right, and electronics is just one of the practical arts where they find application.

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

    Your ideas are like everyone else's. Mostly they are rubbish, mostly
    derivative, mostly they don't stand up to scrutiny or fit with reality. >>
    But some of them really work.

    We aren't doubting or challenging that.

    You don't realise that everyone else has ideas just like you, and condemn them for having better filters than you.

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

    If the idea has demonstrable gross foetal abnormalities, it
    should be aborted.

    Killing ideas in 100 milliseconds is excellent practice for killing ideas in 100 milliseconds. After a while, you can do it without thinking.

    John Larkin would know. He doesn't do much thinking, and imagines that everybody else is equally crippled.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Tue Feb 15 09:08:33 2022
    On 14/02/2022 22:43, John Larkin wrote:

    I took a biologist to lunch today.


    And you think that means you know biology? The many years of education, experience, understanding and interest leapt out of your lunch
    companion's head and into yours while waiting for your order to arrive?

    That reminds me of someone who claimed to have a "natural ability" for
    science because his uncle is a "super genius professor". Any guesses
    who that might have been?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to Anthony William Sloman on Tue Feb 15 09:11:02 2022
    On 15/02/2022 02:59, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 2:52:14 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 18:24:13 +0100, David Brown
    <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
    On 13/02/2022 16:50, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 07:19:58 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    On a sunny day (Sat, 12 Feb 2022 15:19:00 -0800 (PST)) it
    happened Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote in
    <fb8fcd39-787c-4c26...@googlegroups.com>:

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

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


    Cool.

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

    It follows

    It didn't.

    <snip>

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

    No is your mantra. Maybe is mine.

    David Brown wasn't using "no" as a mantra. He might have explained
    how you got it wrong in more detail - I did - but since you don't
    read that kind of reaction it would have been a waste of time.


    I could indeed have gone into detail. I was impressed on the density of
    errors in John's claim - mistakes and misunderstandings are common, but
    it's rare to see it taken to such a high level in such a compact statement.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Tue Feb 15 09:35:13 2022
    On 14/02/2022 22:52, John Larkin wrote:
    On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 20:27:03 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 14/02/2022 17:05, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 14:53:43 +0000, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    ..........

    Established church tended to be into burning heretics and their books. >>>> New knowledge conflicting with scripture was viewed as very dangerous by >>>> the authorities. US YEC's still haven't got out of those Dark Ages.


    The "Genesis is a literal description of creation" is a modern idea -
    young earthers, like flat earthers, are not people that never left the
    Dark Ages, they are people who have chosen to re-enter it. Until people
    started finding geological proof that the earth is old, and Darwin and
    others (before and afterwards) began to understand evolution, few people
    really thought about the creation of the earth in any kind of real
    sense. Theologians of the day knew fine that Genesis was not a literal
    record of creation - they could see perfectly well that it contains two
    contradictory accounts and thus literalism cannot possibly make sense.

    But modern science and technology developed mainly in Christian
    countries. The Jesuits have been great scientists and mathematicians.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jesuit_scientists

    Europe was dragged kicking and screaming out of the dark ages by the
    Islamic scholars. India and China were /way/ ahead for a long time.
    But in the past few centuries the west took over.

    The Islamic and Chinese science was not dissiminated, didn't become beneficial technology, like western science did. Partially because we
    printed a lot of books.


    The Chinese were printing books in large quantities many hundreds of
    years before it was even imagined in Europe. Their books were in
    Chinese, for use in China - they did not spread.

    Islamic scholarship and science formed the foundation of Western science
    and technology. As well as their own developments, the Islamic scholars collected, preserved and translated writings from the ancient Greeks and Romans, Jews, Indian scientists and mathematicians, and others.

    European scholarship, outside of insane theological debates, started
    when European scholars visited the Islamic world to learn.

    But you are right that the Gutenberg press meant that the new learning
    could be spread faster in Europe. And Europeans were much better and
    more enthusiastic at turning the science into practical technology for
    killing and oppressing other people that they viewed as inferior.



    However, it was not /because/ of the Christian church, it is mainly
    /despite/ it.


    For a long time, scientists in the west were all
    religious - part of that was that saying anything could get your badly
    burned, literally or at least metaphorically. And since education was
    in the hands of the church, and education is required for real progress
    in science, there was a strong overlap for a while. As long as the
    scientists did not contradict the church (this was Martin's point), that
    was fine.


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


    Yes.

    Science really took off in the west took off after the enlightenment,
    when people started questioning the church teachings a lot more. But
    the church still provided the backbone of higher education for a long
    time. (Not least was the teaching of Latin, giving educated people a
    common language.)

    One reason printing flourished was to print a lot of bibles. One
    reason literacy advanced was so people could read them.


    Literacy rates were much lower in Europe than the Islamic empire. It
    took a long time after the Gutenberg press before literacy became common
    in Europe - in particular, when Bibles became available in common
    languages rather than Latin, the Protestant Church (unlike the Catholic
    Church) encouraged people to read it themselves. Meanwhile, back in the Islamic world, literacy was extremely common - as it had been in Roman
    times prior to the dark ages.

    The collapse of the Western Roman Empire ended of the supply of paper
    from North Africa into Europe, leading to a massive decline in European literacy. It turns out that having cheap stuff to write on was vastly
    more important for literacy than any old book or religion.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Tue Feb 15 08:23:02 2022
    On 14/02/22 21:43, John Larkin wrote:
    Are you a biologist? Do you know one?

    I took a biologist to lunch today.

    My daughter took an electronic engineer to lunch last week.

    This week I hear she is changing profession to electronics design.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to David Brown on Tue Feb 15 11:13:41 2022
    On 15/02/22 10:28, David Brown wrote:
    On 14/02/2022 10:51, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 13/02/2022 17:31, David Brown wrote:
    On 13/02/2022 17:51, Martin Brown wrote:

    You can haggle about whether or not they are truly alive because they
    need to hijack a cell to replicate (at least all the ones I know of do). >>>>
    There are some viruses that are so simple that they can't hijack a
    cell's replication systems - they hijack another virus's hijacking!  In >>> a sense, they are small viruses that infect other large viruses.  Fun
    stuff.

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

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

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

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


    Bacteriophages were a big research area, especially in Russia (as far as
    I have heard) until antibiotics were discovered. Then we all thought we
    had won the war on bacteria, so there was no need to pursue the
    difficult work with phages. But it turns out the victory declaration
    was a little premature, so interest in phages is returning.

    A few years ago a lab in Northern Norway was opened as the first (AFAIK) place mass-producing phages, for treatment of diseases in farmed fish.
    That's a stepping stone towards using them as treatments more generally.

    AIUI, phages are extremely specific. That's great for
    minimising collateral effects, but diagnosing and
    selecting the specific phage takes time - which isn't
    always available in a clinical setting.

    However, for farmed fish and similar, I guess the
    timescale isn't so much of a problem.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Tue Feb 15 11:38:13 2022
    On 15/02/2022 06:02, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 18:00:24 +0000, Tom Gardner

    It /looks/ as David describes it.

    It wouldn't if you listened to and understood the reasons
    other people give you. Instead you either ignore them or
    resort to irrelevant points (e.g. "design something").

    Of course people who don't design things have different attitudes
    towards new ideas. They instinctively don't like them.

    You like to bandy that about as an insult to anyone who tells you when
    you are saying something stupid or ignorant. However, it merely
    re-enforces the impression you give of narcissism combined with a total
    lack of interest in anyone else or anything else around you.

    Spotting when an idea or claim is hopeless does not correlate with being
    bad at designing - on the contrary, it is a /useful/ trait for a
    designer. Posting claims about how much you design stuff does not
    correlate with /actually/ designing stuff more than someone who does not
    make such boasts - on the contrary, people doing real work are more
    likely to keep quiet in a group like this.

    Basically, this is just another of your self-soothing platitudes that
    you spout without any thought or justification, because it makes you
    feel good about yourself and lets you insult people rather than actually learning something or admitting to yourself that you are not as perfect
    as you believe.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to Martin Brown on Tue Feb 15 11:28:06 2022
    On 14/02/2022 10:51, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 13/02/2022 17:31, David Brown wrote:
    On 13/02/2022 17:51, Martin Brown wrote:

    You can haggle about whether or not they are truly alive because they
    need to hijack a cell to replicate (at least all the ones I know of do). >>>
    There are some viruses that are so simple that they can't hijack a
    cell's replication systems - they hijack another virus's hijacking!  In
    a sense, they are small viruses that infect other large viruses.  Fun
    stuff.

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

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

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

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


    Bacteriophages were a big research area, especially in Russia (as far as
    I have heard) until antibiotics were discovered. Then we all thought we
    had won the war on bacteria, so there was no need to pursue the
    difficult work with phages. But it turns out the victory declaration
    was a little premature, so interest in phages is returning.

    A few years ago a lab in Northern Norway was opened as the first (AFAIK)
    place mass-producing phages, for treatment of diseases in farmed fish.
    That's a stepping stone towards using them as treatments more generally.


    Virophages are a bit too specialised to be practical for treatment of
    viral diseases.

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virophage>


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


    There is a /huge/ variety of viruses today. The genome size ranges from
    about 7 kbp to 1.4 Mbp. For comparison, bacteria range from about 130
    kbp to 14 Mbp. (A qualitative term like "simpler" doesn't translate
    directly to genome length, but it is perhaps the best we can do.)

    I think it is also fair to suppose that a lot of viruses have become
    simpler over time when they have specialised in particular hosts and environments, as well as viruses that have become more complex and sophisticated over the eons.

    If you are referring to the hypothesis that viruses pre-dated bacteria
    in the timeline of life, then such viruses would be simpler in some ways
    (being few steps beyond non-biological chemicals), but would likely have additional features that have since been lost as they no longer need
    their own replication machinery.

    Tardigrades only go back about about half a billion years. They haven't changed all that much - they are good enough to beat most things in
    terms of staying alive (if only just) in very hostile environments.

    https://www.americanscientist.org/article/tardigrades


    One of the things I find most fascinating about tardigrades is that each species has the same number of cells all its life (after hatching).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to david.brown@hesbynett.no on Tue Feb 15 05:04:46 2022
    On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 09:08:33 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 14/02/2022 22:43, John Larkin wrote:

    I took a biologist to lunch today.


    And you think that means you know biology?

    You're not a biologist, and furthermore you weren't there.

    We talked about DNA and Thai food and stuff.

    You're not an electronic designer either. Your profession seems to be
    "nasty."



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk on Tue Feb 15 05:06:58 2022
    On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 08:23:02 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 14/02/22 21:43, John Larkin wrote:
    Are you a biologist? Do you know one?

    I took a biologist to lunch today.

    My daughter took an electronic engineer to lunch last week.

    This week I hear she is changing profession to electronics design.

    Well (I say modestly) we do tend to be charismatic and inspirational.

    Good choice on her part.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to david.brown@hesbynett.no on Tue Feb 15 05:08:07 2022
    On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 09:11:02 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 15/02/2022 02:59, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 2:52:14 AM UTC+11,
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 18:24:13 +0100, David Brown
    <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
    On 13/02/2022 16:50, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 07:19:58 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    On a sunny day (Sat, 12 Feb 2022 15:19:00 -0800 (PST)) it
    happened Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote in
    <fb8fcd39-787c-4c26...@googlegroups.com>:

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

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


    Cool.

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

    It follows

    It didn't.

    <snip>

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

    No is your mantra. Maybe is mine.

    David Brown wasn't using "no" as a mantra. He might have explained
    how you got it wrong in more detail - I did - but since you don't
    read that kind of reaction it would have been a waste of time.


    I could indeed have gone into detail. I was impressed on the density of >errors in John's claim - mistakes and misunderstandings are common, but
    it's rare to see it taken to such a high level in such a compact statement.

    Sloman and Brown. Soul mates.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Tue Feb 15 13:10:26 2022
    On 15/02/22 13:08, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 09:11:02 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 15/02/2022 02:59, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 2:52:14 AM UTC+11,
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 18:24:13 +0100, David Brown
    <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
    On 13/02/2022 16:50, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 07:19:58 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    On a sunny day (Sat, 12 Feb 2022 15:19:00 -0800 (PST)) it
    happened Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote in
    <fb8fcd39-787c-4c26...@googlegroups.com>:

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

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


    Cool.

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

    It follows

    It didn't.

    <snip>

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

    No is your mantra. Maybe is mine.

    David Brown wasn't using "no" as a mantra. He might have explained
    how you got it wrong in more detail - I did - but since you don't
    read that kind of reaction it would have been a waste of time.


    I could indeed have gone into detail. I was impressed on the density of
    errors in John's claim - mistakes and misunderstandings are common, but
    it's rare to see it taken to such a high level in such a compact statement.

    Sloman and Brown. Soul mates.

    Of maybe "great minds think alike"?

    There's a proverb for anything and everything

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Tue Feb 15 05:31:34 2022
    On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 12:08:21 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 09:11:02 +0100, David Brown
    <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 15/02/2022 02:59, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 2:52:14 AM UTC+11,
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 18:24:13 +0100, David Brown
    <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
    On 13/02/2022 16:50, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 07:19:58 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    On a sunny day (Sat, 12 Feb 2022 15:19:00 -0800 (PST)) it
    happened Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote in
    <fb8fcd39-787c-4c26...@googlegroups.com>:

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

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


    Cool.

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

    It follows

    It didn't.

    <snip>

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

    No is your mantra. Maybe is mine.

    David Brown wasn't using "no" as a mantra. He might have explained
    how you got it wrong in more detail - I did - but since you don't
    read that kind of reaction it would have been a waste of time.

    I could indeed have gone into detail. I was impressed on the density of >errors in John's claim - mistakes and misunderstandings are common, but >it's rare to see it taken to such a high level in such a compact statement.

    Sloman and Brown. Soul mates.

    Similarly competent? Picking up where you've gone wrong on biological questions isn't exactly difficult.

    It doesn't mean that our opinions are all that well aligned - just not as far off the wall as yours are.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to david.brown@hesbynett.no on Tue Feb 15 05:30:08 2022
    On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 09:35:13 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 14/02/2022 22:52, John Larkin wrote:
    On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 20:27:03 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 14/02/2022 17:05, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 14:53:43 +0000, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    ..........

    Established church tended to be into burning heretics and their books. >>>>> New knowledge conflicting with scripture was viewed as very dangerous by >>>>> the authorities. US YEC's still haven't got out of those Dark Ages.


    The "Genesis is a literal description of creation" is a modern idea -
    young earthers, like flat earthers, are not people that never left the
    Dark Ages, they are people who have chosen to re-enter it. Until people >>> started finding geological proof that the earth is old, and Darwin and
    others (before and afterwards) began to understand evolution, few people >>> really thought about the creation of the earth in any kind of real
    sense. Theologians of the day knew fine that Genesis was not a literal
    record of creation - they could see perfectly well that it contains two
    contradictory accounts and thus literalism cannot possibly make sense.

    But modern science and technology developed mainly in Christian
    countries. The Jesuits have been great scientists and mathematicians.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jesuit_scientists

    Europe was dragged kicking and screaming out of the dark ages by the
    Islamic scholars. India and China were /way/ ahead for a long time.
    But in the past few centuries the west took over.

    The Islamic and Chinese science was not dissiminated, didn't become
    beneficial technology, like western science did. Partially because we
    printed a lot of books.


    The Chinese were printing books in large quantities many hundreds of
    years before it was even imagined in Europe. Their books were in
    Chinese, for use in China - they did not spread.

    Islamic scholarship and science formed the foundation of Western science
    and technology. As well as their own developments, the Islamic scholars >collected, preserved and translated writings from the ancient Greeks and >Romans, Jews, Indian scientists and mathematicians, and others.

    European scholarship, outside of insane theological debates, started
    when European scholars visited the Islamic world to learn.

    But you are right that the Gutenberg press meant that the new learning
    could be spread faster in Europe. And Europeans were much better and
    more enthusiastic at turning the science into practical technology for >killing and oppressing other people that they viewed as inferior.



    However, it was not /because/ of the Christian church, it is mainly
    /despite/ it.


    For a long time, scientists in the west were all
    religious - part of that was that saying anything could get your badly
    burned, literally or at least metaphorically. And since education was
    in the hands of the church, and education is required for real progress
    in science, there was a strong overlap for a while. As long as the
    scientists did not contradict the church (this was Martin's point), that >>> was fine.


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


    Yes.

    Science really took off in the west took off after the enlightenment,
    when people started questioning the church teachings a lot more. But
    the church still provided the backbone of higher education for a long
    time. (Not least was the teaching of Latin, giving educated people a
    common language.)

    One reason printing flourished was to print a lot of bibles. One
    reason literacy advanced was so people could read them.


    Literacy rates were much lower in Europe than the Islamic empire. It
    took a long time after the Gutenberg press before literacy became common
    in Europe - in particular, when Bibles became available in common
    languages rather than Latin, the Protestant Church (unlike the Catholic >Church) encouraged people to read it themselves. Meanwhile, back in the >Islamic world, literacy was extremely common - as it had been in Roman
    times prior to the dark ages.

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

    (not that those numbers are entirely believable. 100% is impossible.)


    The collapse of the Western Roman Empire ended of the supply of paper
    from North Africa into Europe, leading to a massive decline in European >literacy. It turns out that having cheap stuff to write on was vastly
    more important for literacy than any old book or religion.

    There's no dispute that things were bad once everywhere. The
    remarkable point is that western culture basically invented progress.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnVAq9k85gI

    Google Street View is cool. Towns and cities all over the world look
    like Dallas and its burbs, paved streets with SUVs and power poles and
    boring houses and all. Lots of signs in English.

    The biggest change in human history was electrification.

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1610397495

    Then electronics.





    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to '''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk on Tue Feb 15 05:43:19 2022
    On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:51:29 +0000, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    On 13/02/2022 17:31, David Brown wrote:
    On 13/02/2022 17:51, Martin Brown wrote:

    You can haggle about whether or not they are truly alive because they
    need to hijack a cell to replicate (at least all the ones I know of do). >>>
    There are some viruses that are so simple that they can't hijack a
    cell's replication systems - they hijack another virus's hijacking! In
    a sense, they are small viruses that infect other large viruses. Fun stuff.

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

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

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

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

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

    Is there evidence for that?



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to '''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk on Tue Feb 15 05:40:57 2022
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:51:40 +0000, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:





    Is there any RNA life around now, independent of DNA? Where did it go?

    Yes. It didn't go away. Plenty of common viruses are RNA based.

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

    No. RNA viruses are manufactured by DNA.


    That is bare RNA usually loop based infective agents mainly cause
    trouble for plants though. Animals have better counter measures.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus_classification#Subviral_agents

    Isn't a bad layman's introduction. We have been over this same ground
    many times before. About the simplest viroids are an RNA loop containing
    just enough info to self replicate in a host and very little else.

    In a host.


    You can haggle about whether or not they are truly alive because they
    need to hijack a cell to replicate (at least all the ones I know of do).

    It is possible that someone will cook up an RNA world in the lab or a >computer simulation before too much longer. They are getting closer.

    That would of course be intelligent design. The next step would be to demonstrate how the same situation might have happened naturally.


    The coronavirus giving us so much trouble, flu and common colds too are
    all RNA viruses. That is why they evolve so rapidly. Their replication
    isn't entirely reliable. Covid actually has better error checking on its >transcription phase then most so it changes more slowly than influenza.

    Some lab jock should invent some.

    No need they are already present in nature and some still cause trouble
    for important commercial crops from time to time. This one attacks
    avocados but other viroids target other specific hosts.

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

    There are even simpler things that can only replicate if the plant they >infect is also infected with another independent virus.

    People have been making designer RNA sequences for ages.

    People. Designer. Not soup.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Tue Feb 15 05:50:26 2022
    On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 12:30:23 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 09:35:13 +0100, David Brown<david...@hesbynett.no> wrote: >On 14/02/2022 22:52, John Larkin wrote:
    On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 20:27:03 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
    On 14/02/2022 17:05, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 14:53:43 +0000, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    <snip>

    Science really took off in the west took off after the enlightenment,
    when people started questioning the church teachings a lot more. But
    the church still provided the backbone of higher education for a long
    time. (Not least was the teaching of Latin, giving educated people a
    common language.)

    One reason printing flourished was to print a lot of bibles. One
    reason literacy advanced was so people could read them.


    Literacy rates were much lower in Europe than the Islamic empire. It
    took a long time after the Gutenberg press before literacy became common
    in Europe - in particular, when Bibles became available in common
    languages rather than Latin, the Protestant Church (unlike the Catholic >Church) encouraged people to read it themselves. Meanwhile, back in the >Islamic world, literacy was extremely common - as it had been in Roman >times prior to the dark ages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate

    (not that those numbers are entirely believable. 100% is impossible.)

    The collapse of the Western Roman Empire ended of the supply of paper
    from North Africa into Europe, leading to a massive decline in European >literacy. It turns out that having cheap stuff to write on was vastly
    more important for literacy than any old book or religion.

    There's no dispute that things were bad once everywhere. The
    remarkable point is that western culture basically invented progress.

    They produced the agricultural revolution, which less a smaller proportion of the population feed the rest, which made universal education possible.
    Then they produced the industrial revolution, where the redundant agricultural labourers were put to work in factories.

    <snipped Thomas Sowell getting it wrong>

    It wasn't exactly western culture as whole that did this - the scientific method played a significant role.

    Google Street View is cool. Towns and cities all over the world look like Dallas and its burbs, paved streets with SUVs and power poles and boring houses and all. Lots of signs in English.

    So what?

    The biggest change in human history was electrification.

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1610397495

    Not exactly. The big change was the move away from muscle power. Electrification is a neat way of moving power from where it is generated to where people want to use it, but generating the power is the crucial element.

    Then electronics.

    Again, not exactly. Electronics gave us computers and rapid high volume communications, which have changed society a great deal. Electronics was a vital part of that, but not the whole of it by any means.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to david.brown@hesbynett.no on Tue Feb 15 06:07:25 2022
    On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 11:38:13 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 15/02/2022 06:02, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 18:00:24 +0000, Tom Gardner

    It /looks/ as David describes it.

    It wouldn't if you listened to and understood the reasons
    other people give you. Instead you either ignore them or
    resort to irrelevant points (e.g. "design something").

    Of course people who don't design things have different attitudes
    towards new ideas. They instinctively don't like them.

    You like to bandy that about as an insult to anyone who tells you when
    you are saying something stupid or ignorant.

    Precisely. Especially in response to people who are neither designers
    nor biologists; people unqualified (and rude enough) to call
    reasonable suggestions stupid and ignorant.

    Face it: most people let their emotions whiplash their thinking.


    However, it merely
    re-enforces the impression you give of narcissism combined with a total
    lack of interest in anyone else or anything else around you.

    I'm enormously interested in all sorts of things. Curiousity is a
    basic component of invention. I have to donate boxes of books to make
    room for more.

    Right now I'm reading Wilson's classic On Human Nature. That guy could
    sure think.


    Spotting when an idea or claim is hopeless does not correlate with being
    bad at designing - on the contrary, it is a /useful/ trait for a
    designer. Posting claims about how much you design stuff does not
    correlate with /actually/ designing stuff more than someone who does not
    make such boasts - on the contrary, people doing real work are more
    likely to keep quiet in a group like this.

    Basically, this is just another of your self-soothing platitudes that
    you spout without any thought or justification, because it makes you
    feel good about yourself and lets you insult people rather than actually >learning something or admitting to yourself that you are not as perfect
    as you believe.

    I sometimes make suggestions about physical reality, with no personal
    content, and get in response not serious criticism or alternate ideas,
    but barrages of insults from admitted amateurs. I try to be friendly
    and helpful to anyone who asks questions where I can help.

    This ain't Facebook, but most people here who don't design electronics
    want to my-o-my about personalities. Especially mine, which is a weird
    waste of peoples time. Don't you have anything more interesting to do?





    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Tue Feb 15 06:07:48 2022
    On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 12:41:12 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:51:40 +0000, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    Is there any RNA life around now, independent of DNA? Where did it go?

    Yes. It didn't go away. Plenty of common viruses are RNA based.

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

    No. RNA viruses are manufactured by DNA.

    Wrong. The Covid-19 has it's own replicator enzyme, encoded in it's RNA genome. It infects cells in a DNA- based life-form (us) but uses the resources lying around inside the cell infects to manufacture new copies of itself, starting off by churning out
    it's replicator enzyme.

    That is bare RNA usually loop based infective agents mainly cause
    trouble for plants though. Animals have better counter measures.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus_classification#Subviral_agents

    Isn't a bad layman's introduction. We have been over this same ground
    many times before. About the simplest viroids are an RNA loop containing >just enough info to self replicate in a host and very little else.

    In a host.

    The host provides the raw materials. It doesn't manufacture the new copies of the virus - the virus does that for itself.

    You can haggle about whether or not they are truly alive because they
    need to hijack a cell to replicate (at least all the ones I know of do).

    It is possible that someone will cook up an RNA world in the lab or a >computer simulation before too much longer. They are getting closer.

    That would of course be intelligent design. The next step would be to demonstrate how the same situation might have happened naturally.

    Probably not. You've got to put energy into the system somehow, and the easiest way of doing it in the lab isn't all that likely to be one might show up in n

    ature.

    The coronavirus giving us so much trouble, flu and common colds too are >all RNA viruses. That is why they evolve so rapidly. Their replication >isn't entirely reliable. Covid actually has better error checking on its >transcription phase then most so it changes more slowly than influenza.

    Some lab jock should invent some.

    No need they are already present in nature and some still cause trouble >for important commercial crops from time to time. This one attacks >avocados but other viroids target other specific hosts.

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

    There are even simpler things that can only replicate if the plant they >infect is also infected with another independent virus.

    People have been making designer RNA sequences for ages.

    People. Designer. Not soup.

    You said that some lab jock should invent some, so you needed to be told that it had been done.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Tue Feb 15 15:42:11 2022
    On 15/02/2022 14:30, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 09:35:13 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 14/02/2022 22:52, John Larkin wrote:
    On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 20:27:03 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 14/02/2022 17:05, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 14:53:43 +0000, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    ..........

    Established church tended to be into burning heretics and their books. >>>>>> New knowledge conflicting with scripture was viewed as very dangerous by >>>>>> the authorities. US YEC's still haven't got out of those Dark Ages. >>>>>

    The "Genesis is a literal description of creation" is a modern idea -
    young earthers, like flat earthers, are not people that never left the >>>> Dark Ages, they are people who have chosen to re-enter it. Until people >>>> started finding geological proof that the earth is old, and Darwin and >>>> others (before and afterwards) began to understand evolution, few people >>>> really thought about the creation of the earth in any kind of real
    sense. Theologians of the day knew fine that Genesis was not a literal >>>> record of creation - they could see perfectly well that it contains two >>>> contradictory accounts and thus literalism cannot possibly make sense. >>>>
    But modern science and technology developed mainly in Christian
    countries. The Jesuits have been great scientists and mathematicians. >>>>>
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jesuit_scientists

    Europe was dragged kicking and screaming out of the dark ages by the
    Islamic scholars. India and China were /way/ ahead for a long time.
    But in the past few centuries the west took over.

    The Islamic and Chinese science was not dissiminated, didn't become
    beneficial technology, like western science did. Partially because we
    printed a lot of books.


    The Chinese were printing books in large quantities many hundreds of
    years before it was even imagined in Europe. Their books were in
    Chinese, for use in China - they did not spread.

    Islamic scholarship and science formed the foundation of Western science
    and technology. As well as their own developments, the Islamic scholars
    collected, preserved and translated writings from the ancient Greeks and
    Romans, Jews, Indian scientists and mathematicians, and others.

    European scholarship, outside of insane theological debates, started
    when European scholars visited the Islamic world to learn.

    But you are right that the Gutenberg press meant that the new learning
    could be spread faster in Europe. And Europeans were much better and
    more enthusiastic at turning the science into practical technology for
    killing and oppressing other people that they viewed as inferior.



    However, it was not /because/ of the Christian church, it is mainly
    /despite/ it.


    For a long time, scientists in the west were all
    religious - part of that was that saying anything could get your badly >>>> burned, literally or at least metaphorically. And since education was >>>> in the hands of the church, and education is required for real progress >>>> in science, there was a strong overlap for a while. As long as the
    scientists did not contradict the church (this was Martin's point), that >>>> was fine.


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


    Yes.

    Science really took off in the west took off after the enlightenment,
    when people started questioning the church teachings a lot more. But
    the church still provided the backbone of higher education for a long
    time. (Not least was the teaching of Latin, giving educated people a
    common language.)

    One reason printing flourished was to print a lot of bibles. One
    reason literacy advanced was so people could read them.


    Literacy rates were much lower in Europe than the Islamic empire. It
    took a long time after the Gutenberg press before literacy became common
    in Europe - in particular, when Bibles became available in common
    languages rather than Latin, the Protestant Church (unlike the Catholic
    Church) encouraged people to read it themselves. Meanwhile, back in the
    Islamic world, literacy was extremely common - as it had been in Roman
    times prior to the dark ages.

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


    That does not include historical rates, which would be the interesting
    figures.

    (not that those numbers are entirely believable. 100% is impossible.)


    You can come very close. But often it depends on how the counting is
    done, and countries vary in that respect (despite UN attempts at standardising). A certain proportion of the population will be unable
    to learn to read and write competently, due to handicaps, very low intelligence, or extreme dyslexia. You will get closer to 100% if you
    only count people who should be able to read and write, omitting these
    groups - or if you are a country like North Korea where such people just "disappear" and the state denies they ever existed.


    The collapse of the Western Roman Empire ended of the supply of paper
    from North Africa into Europe, leading to a massive decline in European
    literacy. It turns out that having cheap stuff to write on was vastly
    more important for literacy than any old book or religion.

    There's no dispute that things were bad once everywhere. The
    remarkable point is that western culture basically invented progress.


    Pure and utter nonsense.

    There's no doubt that Western culture has lead science and technology
    for the past few hundred years, and that the pace has increased during
    that time. Equally, there is no doubt that "progress" has been made
    ever since the first person thought it would be a good idea to help food
    plants grow in one place rather than moving around all the time.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnVAq9k85gI

    (I haven't looked at that - perhaps I will later.)


    Google Street View is cool. Towns and cities all over the world look
    like Dallas and its burbs, paved streets with SUVs and power poles and
    boring houses and all. Lots of signs in English.

    The biggest change in human history was electrification.


    The turning point for the west was /steam/, not electricity. If you are
    going to make a list of the most important game-changing technologies
    and inventions for human civilisation, then electricity would be on it
    (as would electronics). But they would not could as "the biggest", not
    by a long way.

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1610397495

    (I don't follow advert links.)


    Then electronics.


    Ha!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Tue Feb 15 06:36:54 2022
    On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 1:07:39 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 11:38:13 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
    On 15/02/2022 06:02, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 18:00:24 +0000, Tom Gardner

    It /looks/ as David describes it.

    It wouldn't if you listened to and understood the reasons
    other people give you. Instead you either ignore them or
    resort to irrelevant points (e.g. "design something").

    Of course people who don't design things have different attitudes
    towards new ideas. They instinctively don't like them.

    You like to bandy that about as an insult to anyone who tells you when
    you are saying something stupid or ignorant.

    Precisely. Especially in response to people who are neither designers
    nor biologists; people unqualified (and rude enough) to call
    reasonable suggestions stupid and ignorant.

    Your ideas about biology are incoherent enough that what I learned in first year biology in 1960 is enough to clue me into the stupidity of ignorance of your posts in the area. I've read quite a lot about biology since then, and you don't seem to have
    done any reading in the area at all at all. The intelligent design crap that shows up in your output may be from creationist propaganda, so you may think you have done some reading, but it clearly hasn't been from reliable sources.

    Face it: most people let their emotions whiplash their thinking.

    You certainly do.

    However, it merely
    re-enforces the impression you give of narcissism combined with a total >lack of interest in anyone else or anything else around you.

    I'm enormously interested in all sorts of things. Curiousity is a
    basic component of invention. I have to donate boxes of books to make
    room for more.

    But you get your ideas about global warming from Anthony Watts. It's easier and cheaper to get access to self-serving propaganda than it is to get reliable information from reliable sources.

    Right now I'm reading Wilson's classic On Human Nature. That guy could sure think.

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

    Whether you will get the right message from it is uncertain. Flyguy has remarkable habit of citing stuff that doesn't support his bizarre points of view at all, and claiming that it does.

    Spotting when an idea or claim is hopeless does not correlate with being >bad at designing - on the contrary, it is a /useful/ trait for a
    designer. Posting claims about how much you design stuff does not >correlate with /actually/ designing stuff more than someone who does not >make such boasts - on the contrary, people doing real work are more
    likely to keep quiet in a group like this.

    Basically, this is just another of your self-soothing platitudes that
    you spout without any thought or justification, because it makes you
    feel good about yourself and lets you insult people rather than actually >learning something or admitting to yourself that you are not as perfect
    as you believe.

    I sometimes make suggestions about physical reality, with no personal content, and get in response not serious criticism or alternate ideas, but barrages of insults from admitted amateurs.

    The formulation is usually "I don't know much about X but I do know enough to know that John Larkin's suggestion is flat-out wrong"
    That doesn't make them an "admitted amateur".

    I try to be friendly and helpful to anyone who asks questions where I can help.

    I can't say I can recall an example.

    This ain't Facebook, but most people here who don't design electronics want to my-o-my about personalities.

    You do have funny ideas about what constitutes electronic design, and tend to take criticism (or insufficient admiration) very personally.

    Especially mine, which is a weird waste of peoples time.

    For years you posted a lot more than anybody else. That makes your personality interesting

    Don't you have anything more interesting to do?

    That's the question we ask ourselves quite often.

    --
    Bill Sloman,. Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Tue Feb 15 15:24:56 2022
    On 15/02/2022 14:04, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 09:08:33 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 14/02/2022 22:43, John Larkin wrote:

    I took a biologist to lunch today.


    And you think that means you know biology?

    You're not a biologist, and furthermore you weren't there.

    We talked about DNA and Thai food and stuff.

    I have no idea how much or how little you know about Thai food. You
    could be an excellent Thai cook or food critic for all I know (or care).

    Everyone here realises that you have many major gaps and faults in your understanding of evolution and DNA. I don't need to be a biologist to
    know that, nor do I need to have been at your lunch to know that it's
    highly unlikely that you realised your deep-grained mistakes in just one
    lunch. (But if you did, or made progress, then great.)


    You're not an electronic designer either. Your profession seems to be "nasty."


    Yes, that makes sense because those are the only two professions.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Tue Feb 15 14:43:09 2022
    On 15/02/22 14:07, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    Face it: most people let their emotions whiplash their thinking.

    I think that is what the psychologists term "projection". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Tue Feb 15 16:08:43 2022
    On 15/02/2022 14:40, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:51:40 +0000, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:





    Is there any RNA life around now, independent of DNA? Where did it go?

    Yes. It didn't go away. Plenty of common viruses are RNA based.

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

    No. RNA viruses are manufactured by DNA.

    Retroviruses insert their genes into the cell's DNA, and thus use DNA as
    an intermediary. Other RNA viruses do not - the RNA is copied directly
    using RNA enzymes supplied by the virus itself. The animo acids,
    lipids, RNA bases, etc., that are used as raw material are created by
    the DNA-based host, but that doesn't matter. The virus doesn't care if
    they were made by a DNA-based host, an RNA-based host, or an alien robot.

    We have not found any organisms alive today that are not DNA-based. RNA viruses are the nearest we have (and there are lots of them), but
    viruses have no metabolism. (Some biologists classify viruses as
    "living organisms", but most do not - it's a matter of your choice of definition.)

    It is reasonable to hypothesise that RNA-based lifeforms existed in the
    past. The move from RNA to DNA in metabolising organisms is
    evolutionarily plausible, and the DNA-based organisms would quickly
    outcompete the RNA-based ones. The pros and cons of RNA vs. DNA give a different balance in viruses, so we have both types today.



    That is bare RNA usually loop based infective agents mainly cause
    trouble for plants though. Animals have better counter measures.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus_classification#Subviral_agents

    Isn't a bad layman's introduction. We have been over this same ground
    many times before. About the simplest viroids are an RNA loop containing
    just enough info to self replicate in a host and very little else.

    In a host.


    We all have to live somewhere.


    You can haggle about whether or not they are truly alive because they
    need to hijack a cell to replicate (at least all the ones I know of do).

    It is possible that someone will cook up an RNA world in the lab or a
    computer simulation before too much longer. They are getting closer.

    That would of course be intelligent design. The next step would be to demonstrate how the same situation might have happened naturally.


    Sure. But it was what you asked for.

    Lab-made organisms (or chemical precursors) do not prove that a
    particular development path happened in the early history of life on
    earth. But if the lab conditions mimic reasonable estimates of what
    might have been around at the time, then they can show that particular
    pathways were plausible - without the need of any kind of "intelligent
    design".


    The coronavirus giving us so much trouble, flu and common colds too are
    all RNA viruses. That is why they evolve so rapidly. Their replication
    isn't entirely reliable. Covid actually has better error checking on its
    transcription phase then most so it changes more slowly than influenza.

    Some lab jock should invent some.

    No need they are already present in nature and some still cause trouble
    for important commercial crops from time to time. This one attacks
    avocados but other viroids target other specific hosts.

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

    There are even simpler things that can only replicate if the plant they
    infect is also infected with another independent virus.

    People have been making designer RNA sequences for ages.

    People. Designer. Not soup.


    "Soup" - real, natural abiogenesis - takes a planet-sized experiment
    running for a hundred million years or so. (It might take longer on
    average - we only have the one sample point, and perhaps the earth got
    lucky early on.) So scientists cheat a little to save time.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to david.brown@hesbynett.no on Tue Feb 15 07:37:22 2022
    On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 15:24:56 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 15/02/2022 14:04, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 09:08:33 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 14/02/2022 22:43, John Larkin wrote:

    I took a biologist to lunch today.


    And you think that means you know biology?

    You're not a biologist, and furthermore you weren't there.

    We talked about DNA and Thai food and stuff.

    I have no idea how much or how little you know about Thai food. You
    could be an excellent Thai cook or food critic for all I know (or care).

    Everyone here realises that you have many major gaps and faults in your >understanding of evolution and DNA.

    Major gaps! Good grief, nobody understands how DNA life originated. Or
    how cells or brains work. But it's all encoded in DNA.

    DNA is encoded in DNA.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9ArIJWYZHI



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Tue Feb 15 16:25:08 2022
    On 15/02/2022 15:07, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 11:38:13 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 15/02/2022 06:02, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 18:00:24 +0000, Tom Gardner

    It /looks/ as David describes it.

    It wouldn't if you listened to and understood the reasons
    other people give you. Instead you either ignore them or
    resort to irrelevant points (e.g. "design something").

    Of course people who don't design things have different attitudes
    towards new ideas. They instinctively don't like them.

    You like to bandy that about as an insult to anyone who tells you when
    you are saying something stupid or ignorant.

    Precisely. Especially in response to people who are neither designers
    nor biologists; people unqualified (and rude enough) to call
    reasonable suggestions stupid and ignorant.


    I don't see people calling reasonable suggestions stupid and ignorant in
    this thread. I see people calling stupid and ignorant suggestions
    stupid and ignorant.

    (Perhaps that's because I have filtered out some of the most unpleasant characters in this group, or perhaps they are not interested in threads
    like this one.)


    I don't believe that anyone here is a trained biologist. That does not
    mean there isn't a range of levels of knowledge, with many here being interested amateurs with a fair grasp of a lot of the points in
    question. (And much of the contention is about basic scientific
    principles, rather than the specifics of the topic being discussed.)

    Face it: most people let their emotions whiplash their thinking.


    I don't think that is true. But some people certainly post without
    letting rational thought get much involved, especially in subjects they
    know little about.



    However, it merely
    re-enforces the impression you give of narcissism combined with a total
    lack of interest in anyone else or anything else around you.

    I'm enormously interested in all sorts of things. Curiousity is a
    basic component of invention. I have to donate boxes of books to make
    room for more.


    Curiosity is a good thing, and I think many here read or learn about a
    wide range of subjects. You are not outstanding in that regard by any
    means. But for a guy who claims to read a lot about evolution, you have
    failed to grasp the critical foundations.

    Right now I'm reading Wilson's classic On Human Nature. That guy could
    sure think.

    You might be better finding something that covers basic scientific
    principles - something that will help you understand the need for
    evidence, consistency, rational justification, predictions, testability, falsification, etc., in science. Maybe then you'll see why people laugh
    at you when you make stuff up out of thin air.



    Spotting when an idea or claim is hopeless does not correlate with being
    bad at designing - on the contrary, it is a /useful/ trait for a
    designer. Posting claims about how much you design stuff does not
    correlate with /actually/ designing stuff more than someone who does not
    make such boasts - on the contrary, people doing real work are more
    likely to keep quiet in a group like this.

    Basically, this is just another of your self-soothing platitudes that
    you spout without any thought or justification, because it makes you
    feel good about yourself and lets you insult people rather than actually
    learning something or admitting to yourself that you are not as perfect
    as you believe.

    I sometimes make suggestions about physical reality, with no personal content, and get in response not serious criticism or alternate ideas,
    but barrages of insults from admitted amateurs. I try to be friendly
    and helpful to anyone who asks questions where I can help.


    You have had /countless/ explanations and help, with advice,
    corrections, references, and facts. But you respond to these by whining
    that we don't like "ideas", or are not "designers". You could take the
    biology threads in this group over the years and edit it into a book
    about evolution - and pretty much all of it has been written to try to
    help /you/ understand.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to david.brown@hesbynett.no on Tue Feb 15 07:48:57 2022
    On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 15:42:11 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 15/02/2022 14:30, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 09:35:13 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 14/02/2022 22:52, John Larkin wrote:
    On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 20:27:03 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 14/02/2022 17:05, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 14:53:43 +0000, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    ..........

    Established church tended to be into burning heretics and their books. >>>>>>> New knowledge conflicting with scripture was viewed as very dangerous by
    the authorities. US YEC's still haven't got out of those Dark Ages. >>>>>>

    The "Genesis is a literal description of creation" is a modern idea - >>>>> young earthers, like flat earthers, are not people that never left the >>>>> Dark Ages, they are people who have chosen to re-enter it. Until people >>>>> started finding geological proof that the earth is old, and Darwin and >>>>> others (before and afterwards) began to understand evolution, few people >>>>> really thought about the creation of the earth in any kind of real
    sense. Theologians of the day knew fine that Genesis was not a literal >>>>> record of creation - they could see perfectly well that it contains two >>>>> contradictory accounts and thus literalism cannot possibly make sense. >>>>>
    But modern science and technology developed mainly in Christian
    countries. The Jesuits have been great scientists and mathematicians. >>>>>>
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jesuit_scientists

    Europe was dragged kicking and screaming out of the dark ages by the >>>>> Islamic scholars. India and China were /way/ ahead for a long time. >>>>> But in the past few centuries the west took over.

    The Islamic and Chinese science was not dissiminated, didn't become
    beneficial technology, like western science did. Partially because we
    printed a lot of books.


    The Chinese were printing books in large quantities many hundreds of
    years before it was even imagined in Europe. Their books were in
    Chinese, for use in China - they did not spread.

    Islamic scholarship and science formed the foundation of Western science >>> and technology. As well as their own developments, the Islamic scholars >>> collected, preserved and translated writings from the ancient Greeks and >>> Romans, Jews, Indian scientists and mathematicians, and others.

    European scholarship, outside of insane theological debates, started
    when European scholars visited the Islamic world to learn.

    But you are right that the Gutenberg press meant that the new learning
    could be spread faster in Europe. And Europeans were much better and
    more enthusiastic at turning the science into practical technology for
    killing and oppressing other people that they viewed as inferior.



    However, it was not /because/ of the Christian church, it is mainly
    /despite/ it.


    For a long time, scientists in the west were all
    religious - part of that was that saying anything could get your badly >>>>> burned, literally or at least metaphorically. And since education was >>>>> in the hands of the church, and education is required for real progress >>>>> in science, there was a strong overlap for a while. As long as the
    scientists did not contradict the church (this was Martin's point), that >>>>> was fine.


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


    Yes.

    Science really took off in the west took off after the enlightenment, >>>>> when people started questioning the church teachings a lot more. But >>>>> the church still provided the backbone of higher education for a long >>>>> time. (Not least was the teaching of Latin, giving educated people a >>>>> common language.)

    One reason printing flourished was to print a lot of bibles. One
    reason literacy advanced was so people could read them.


    Literacy rates were much lower in Europe than the Islamic empire. It
    took a long time after the Gutenberg press before literacy became common >>> in Europe - in particular, when Bibles became available in common
    languages rather than Latin, the Protestant Church (unlike the Catholic
    Church) encouraged people to read it themselves. Meanwhile, back in the >>> Islamic world, literacy was extremely common - as it had been in Roman
    times prior to the dark ages.

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


    That does not include historical rates, which would be the interesting >figures.

    (not that those numbers are entirely believable. 100% is impossible.)


    You can come very close. But often it depends on how the counting is
    done, and countries vary in that respect (despite UN attempts at >standardising). A certain proportion of the population will be unable
    to learn to read and write competently, due to handicaps, very low >intelligence, or extreme dyslexia. You will get closer to 100% if you
    only count people who should be able to read and write, omitting these
    groups - or if you are a country like North Korea where such people just >"disappear" and the state denies they ever existed.


    The collapse of the Western Roman Empire ended of the supply of paper >>>from North Africa into Europe, leading to a massive decline in European
    literacy. It turns out that having cheap stuff to write on was vastly
    more important for literacy than any old book or religion.

    There's no dispute that things were bad once everywhere. The
    remarkable point is that western culture basically invented progress.


    Pure and utter nonsense.

    There's no doubt that Western culture has lead science and technology
    for the past few hundred years, and that the pace has increased during
    that time. Equally, there is no doubt that "progress" has been made
    ever since the first person thought it would be a good idea to help food >plants grow in one place rather than moving around all the time.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnVAq9k85gI

    (I haven't looked at that - perhaps I will later.)


    Google Street View is cool. Towns and cities all over the world look
    like Dallas and its burbs, paved streets with SUVs and power poles and
    boring houses and all. Lots of signs in English.

    The biggest change in human history was electrification.


    The turning point for the west was /steam/, not electricity.

    Steam didn't power washing machines or lights or anything in common
    residences. Electricity distributes energy to the population, whether
    it comes from steam or hydro or solar cells.

    Big factories abandoned steam as soon as they could get electricity.
    Steam doesn't distribute well.

    Electric washing machines made an enormous difference to women. It
    freed them from hours of nasty labor per day.

    The giant factor that brings people out of extreme poverty is
    electrification.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to david.brown@hesbynett.no on Tue Feb 15 07:58:03 2022
    On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 16:08:43 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 15/02/2022 14:40, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:51:40 +0000, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:





    Is there any RNA life around now, independent of DNA? Where did it go?

    Yes. It didn't go away. Plenty of common viruses are RNA based.

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

    No. RNA viruses are manufactured by DNA.

    Retroviruses insert their genes into the cell's DNA, and thus use DNA as
    an intermediary. Other RNA viruses do not - the RNA is copied directly
    using RNA enzymes supplied by the virus itself. The animo acids,
    lipids, RNA bases, etc., that are used as raw material are created by
    the DNA-based host, but that doesn't matter. The virus doesn't care if
    they were made by a DNA-based host, an RNA-based host, or an alien robot.

    We have not found any organisms alive today that are not DNA-based. RNA >viruses are the nearest we have (and there are lots of them), but
    viruses have no metabolism. (Some biologists classify viruses as
    "living organisms", but most do not - it's a matter of your choice of >definition.)

    It is reasonable to hypothesise that RNA-based lifeforms existed in the
    past.

    I don't call your unproven and unlikely conjectures stupid or
    ignorant. So why do you call mine stupid and ignorant?

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

    That not much crazier than the primordial soup thing.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to david.brown@hesbynett.no on Tue Feb 15 08:51:21 2022
    On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 16:25:08 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 15/02/2022 15:07, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 11:38:13 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 15/02/2022 06:02, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 18:00:24 +0000, Tom Gardner

    It /looks/ as David describes it.

    It wouldn't if you listened to and understood the reasons
    other people give you. Instead you either ignore them or
    resort to irrelevant points (e.g. "design something").

    Of course people who don't design things have different attitudes
    towards new ideas. They instinctively don't like them.

    You like to bandy that about as an insult to anyone who tells you when
    you are saying something stupid or ignorant.

    Precisely. Especially in response to people who are neither designers
    nor biologists; people unqualified (and rude enough) to call
    reasonable suggestions stupid and ignorant.


    I don't see people calling reasonable suggestions stupid and ignorant in
    this thread. I see people calling stupid and ignorant suggestions
    stupid and ignorant.

    (Perhaps that's because I have filtered out some of the most unpleasant >characters in this group, or perhaps they are not interested in threads
    like this one.)


    I don't believe that anyone here is a trained biologist. That does not
    mean there isn't a range of levels of knowledge, with many here being >interested amateurs with a fair grasp of a lot of the points in
    question. (And much of the contention is about basic scientific
    principles, rather than the specifics of the topic being discussed.)

    Face it: most people let their emotions whiplash their thinking.


    I don't think that is true. But some people certainly post without
    letting rational thought get much involved, especially in subjects they
    know little about.



    However, it merely
    re-enforces the impression you give of narcissism combined with a total
    lack of interest in anyone else or anything else around you.

    I'm enormously interested in all sorts of things. Curiousity is a
    basic component of invention. I have to donate boxes of books to make
    room for more.


    Curiosity is a good thing, and I think many here read or learn about a
    wide range of subjects. You are not outstanding in that regard by any
    means. But for a guy who claims to read a lot about evolution, you have >failed to grasp the critical foundations.

    Right now I'm reading Wilson's classic On Human Nature. That guy could
    sure think.

    You might be better finding something that covers basic scientific
    principles - something that will help you understand the need for
    evidence, consistency, rational justification, predictions, testability, >falsification, etc., in science. Maybe then you'll see why people laugh
    at you when you make stuff up out of thin air.



    Spotting when an idea or claim is hopeless does not correlate with being >>> bad at designing - on the contrary, it is a /useful/ trait for a
    designer. Posting claims about how much you design stuff does not
    correlate with /actually/ designing stuff more than someone who does not >>> make such boasts - on the contrary, people doing real work are more
    likely to keep quiet in a group like this.

    Basically, this is just another of your self-soothing platitudes that
    you spout without any thought or justification, because it makes you
    feel good about yourself and lets you insult people rather than actually >>> learning something or admitting to yourself that you are not as perfect
    as you believe.

    I sometimes make suggestions about physical reality, with no personal
    content, and get in response not serious criticism or alternate ideas,
    but barrages of insults from admitted amateurs. I try to be friendly
    and helpful to anyone who asks questions where I can help.


    You have had /countless/ explanations and help, with advice,
    corrections, references, and facts. But you respond to these by whining
    that we don't like "ideas", or are not "designers". You could take the >biology threads in this group over the years and edit it into a book
    about evolution - and pretty much all of it has been written to try to
    help /you/ understand.

    Nobody understands where DNA came from or how it creates people.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Tue Feb 15 17:41:55 2022
    On 15/02/22 15:48, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 15:42:11 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 15/02/2022 14:30, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 09:35:13 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 14/02/2022 22:52, John Larkin wrote:
    On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 20:27:03 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 14/02/2022 17:05, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 14:53:43 +0000, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    ..........

    Established church tended to be into burning heretics and their books. >>>>>>>> New knowledge conflicting with scripture was viewed as very dangerous by
    the authorities. US YEC's still haven't got out of those Dark Ages. >>>>>>>

    The "Genesis is a literal description of creation" is a modern idea - >>>>>> young earthers, like flat earthers, are not people that never left the >>>>>> Dark Ages, they are people who have chosen to re-enter it. Until people >>>>>> started finding geological proof that the earth is old, and Darwin and >>>>>> others (before and afterwards) began to understand evolution, few people >>>>>> really thought about the creation of the earth in any kind of real >>>>>> sense. Theologians of the day knew fine that Genesis was not a literal >>>>>> record of creation - they could see perfectly well that it contains two >>>>>> contradictory accounts and thus literalism cannot possibly make sense. >>>>>>
    But modern science and technology developed mainly in Christian
    countries. The Jesuits have been great scientists and mathematicians. >>>>>>>
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jesuit_scientists

    Europe was dragged kicking and screaming out of the dark ages by the >>>>>> Islamic scholars. India and China were /way/ ahead for a long time. >>>>>> But in the past few centuries the west took over.

    The Islamic and Chinese science was not dissiminated, didn't become
    beneficial technology, like western science did. Partially because we >>>>> printed a lot of books.


    The Chinese were printing books in large quantities many hundreds of
    years before it was even imagined in Europe. Their books were in
    Chinese, for use in China - they did not spread.

    Islamic scholarship and science formed the foundation of Western science >>>> and technology. As well as their own developments, the Islamic scholars >>>> collected, preserved and translated writings from the ancient Greeks and >>>> Romans, Jews, Indian scientists and mathematicians, and others.

    European scholarship, outside of insane theological debates, started
    when European scholars visited the Islamic world to learn.

    But you are right that the Gutenberg press meant that the new learning >>>> could be spread faster in Europe. And Europeans were much better and
    more enthusiastic at turning the science into practical technology for >>>> killing and oppressing other people that they viewed as inferior.



    However, it was not /because/ of the Christian church, it is mainly >>>>>> /despite/ it.


    For a long time, scientists in the west were all
    religious - part of that was that saying anything could get your badly >>>>>> burned, literally or at least metaphorically. And since education was >>>>>> in the hands of the church, and education is required for real progress >>>>>> in science, there was a strong overlap for a while. As long as the >>>>>> scientists did not contradict the church (this was Martin's point), that >>>>>> was fine.


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


    Yes.

    Science really took off in the west took off after the enlightenment, >>>>>> when people started questioning the church teachings a lot more. But >>>>>> the church still provided the backbone of higher education for a long >>>>>> time. (Not least was the teaching of Latin, giving educated people a >>>>>> common language.)

    One reason printing flourished was to print a lot of bibles. One
    reason literacy advanced was so people could read them.


    Literacy rates were much lower in Europe than the Islamic empire. It
    took a long time after the Gutenberg press before literacy became common >>>> in Europe - in particular, when Bibles became available in common
    languages rather than Latin, the Protestant Church (unlike the Catholic >>>> Church) encouraged people to read it themselves. Meanwhile, back in the >>>> Islamic world, literacy was extremely common - as it had been in Roman >>>> times prior to the dark ages.

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


    That does not include historical rates, which would be the interesting
    figures.

    (not that those numbers are entirely believable. 100% is impossible.)


    You can come very close. But often it depends on how the counting is
    done, and countries vary in that respect (despite UN attempts at
    standardising). A certain proportion of the population will be unable
    to learn to read and write competently, due to handicaps, very low
    intelligence, or extreme dyslexia. You will get closer to 100% if you
    only count people who should be able to read and write, omitting these
    groups - or if you are a country like North Korea where such people just
    "disappear" and the state denies they ever existed.


    The collapse of the Western Roman Empire ended of the supply of paper
    from North Africa into Europe, leading to a massive decline in European >>>> literacy. It turns out that having cheap stuff to write on was vastly >>>> more important for literacy than any old book or religion.

    There's no dispute that things were bad once everywhere. The
    remarkable point is that western culture basically invented progress.


    Pure and utter nonsense.

    There's no doubt that Western culture has lead science and technology
    for the past few hundred years, and that the pace has increased during
    that time. Equally, there is no doubt that "progress" has been made
    ever since the first person thought it would be a good idea to help food
    plants grow in one place rather than moving around all the time.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnVAq9k85gI

    (I haven't looked at that - perhaps I will later.)


    Google Street View is cool. Towns and cities all over the world look
    like Dallas and its burbs, paved streets with SUVs and power poles and
    boring houses and all. Lots of signs in English.

    The biggest change in human history was electrification.


    The turning point for the west was /steam/, not electricity.

    Steam didn't power washing machines or lights or anything in common residences. Electricity distributes energy to the population, whether
    it comes from steam or hydro or solar cells.

    Ah. The "No true Scotsman" argument.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk on Tue Feb 15 10:01:34 2022
    On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 13:10:26 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 15/02/22 13:08, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 09:11:02 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 15/02/2022 02:59, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 2:52:14 AM UTC+11,
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 18:24:13 +0100, David Brown
    <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
    On 13/02/2022 16:50, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 07:19:58 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    On a sunny day (Sat, 12 Feb 2022 15:19:00 -0800 (PST)) it
    happened Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote in
    <fb8fcd39-787c-4c26...@googlegroups.com>:

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

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


    Cool.

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

    It follows

    It didn't.

    <snip>

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

    No is your mantra. Maybe is mine.

    David Brown wasn't using "no" as a mantra. He might have explained
    how you got it wrong in more detail - I did - but since you don't
    read that kind of reaction it would have been a waste of time.


    I could indeed have gone into detail. I was impressed on the density of >>> errors in John's claim - mistakes and misunderstandings are common, but
    it's rare to see it taken to such a high level in such a compact statement. >>
    Sloman and Brown. Soul mates.

    Of maybe "great minds think alike"?


    The "no" team.

    --

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to David Brown on Tue Feb 15 18:25:56 2022
    David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote in news:sufn22$avo$1@dont-email.me:

    On 14/02/2022 22:43, John Larkin wrote:

    I took a biologist to lunch today.


    And you think that means you know biology? The many years of
    education, experience, understanding and interest leapt out of
    your lunch companion's head and into yours while waiting for your
    order to arrive?

    That reminds me of someone who claimed to have a "natural ability"
    for science because his uncle is a "super genius professor". Any
    guesses who that might have been?


    Had he only stayed at a Holiday Inn Express the night before...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Tue Feb 15 18:36:20 2022
    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in news:719n0h1neb4luq2lrifescc1fdsk6bgu1f@4ax.com:

    On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 09:08:33 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 14/02/2022 22:43, John Larkin wrote:

    I took a biologist to lunch today.


    And you think that means you know biology?

    You're not a biologist, and furthermore you weren't there.

    We talked about DNA and Thai food and stuff.

    You're not an electronic designer either. Your profession seems to be "nasty."

    Wow... tapped in to the all knowing judge and jury mind, eh, child?

    You have a TrumpTainted PhD in ignorance.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to Tom Gardner on Tue Feb 15 18:32:43 2022
    Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in news:sufnt6$edi$1 @dont-email.me:

    On 14/02/22 21:43, John Larkin wrote:
    Are you a biologist? Do you know one?

    I took a biologist to lunch today.

    My daughter took an electronic engineer to lunch last week.

    This week I hear she is changing profession to electronics design.


    I have a friend who has employed me several times over the years.

    BOTH of his daughters are renowned PhDs. One here in the US, and
    one over at Oxford. Both of their husbands as well.

    Both are extremely hot (or were before the babies started)

    The US girl got her PhD in electrical Engineering at MIT and was
    one of the prinary inventors of the FinFET. They would not guve her
    husband tenure there, so she went to Perdue, where they immediately
    gave her tenure and after only about half a decade, she is now the
    deputy dean there.

    They are way smart, and that is a feat, because their dad is (was)
    one of the top RF engineerins in the world. It is truly an amazing
    family.
    His wife worked for IBM for decades and retired and they still begged
    work out of her for another five years.

    The MIT PhD started out wanting to do Cosmology, then switched to
    Dad's field. She excelled!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Tue Feb 15 18:40:41 2022
    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in news:up9n0ht43732eccf8v3mfhc02p2l83b4rj@4ax.com:

    The biggest change in human history was electrification.


    I would say "fire" was and is to this day bigger.

    Just ask those frozen Texans... oh wait... you can't becasue

    Cruz and Abbott let them die.

    Because fire led to the bronze age and the iron age and the
    industrial age and is even essential to the electrical and electronics
    age.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to Tom Gardner on Tue Feb 15 18:55:14 2022
    Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in news:suge5t$pbl$2 @dont-email.me:

    On 15/02/22 14:07, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    Face it: most people let their emotions whiplash their thinking.

    I think that is what the psychologists term "projection". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection


    I perform multiple rail bank shots and do the math instantaneously
    with no numbers. I just "see" the shot angles.

    Then I pondered just how we can hit that specific spot on a ball
    with another ball carrying the right spin to do a shot so precisely.

    Then I saw Ronnie O'Sullivan shoot tiny snooker balls on a 12 foot
    table with astounding precision. He is better than Efren Reyes IMO.
    Just WOW!

    Then I remembered seeing Howard Cosell way back in the '70s talking
    with Meadowlark Lemon at half court with his back to the hoop, and he
    tosses the ball over his shoulder for a swish shot.

    I have sinced dubbed the capacity for someone to drum up their
    muscle memory and experience 'expertise' as "The Harlem Globe Trotter
    Effect".

    Do it long enough and you get good at it... real good.

    I can shoot without even touching the table. But still I got
    nothing on Reyes or Ronnie O. Or many others for that matter.
    But I am pretty good.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Tue Feb 15 18:37:12 2022
    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in news:hc9n0hl5cgfbp7v7vj0g5e01nfu2i03etr@4ax.com:

    Sloman and Brown. Soul mates.


    Larkin is on an insult rant this year, eh?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Tue Feb 15 18:42:56 2022
    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in news:kebn0hd47qajbq8kak8t92grg4mah4nfp8@4ax.com:

    Is there evidence for that?



    Yes, did you spend your entire education with blinders on?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Tue Feb 15 20:12:49 2022
    On 2022-02-15 14:43, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:51:29 +0000, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    On 13/02/2022 17:31, David Brown wrote:
    On 13/02/2022 17:51, Martin Brown wrote:

    You can haggle about whether or not they are truly alive because they
    need to hijack a cell to replicate (at least all the ones I know of do). >>>>
    There are some viruses that are so simple that they can't hijack a
    cell's replication systems - they hijack another virus's hijacking! In
    a sense, they are small viruses that infect other large viruses. Fun stuff.

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

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

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

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

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

    Is there evidence for that?

    Are you denying evolution???

    Jeroen Belleman

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Tue Feb 15 18:57:22 2022
    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in news:6ain0hhtrj269j98spv695e8kj3po28urd@4ax.com:

    Big factories abandoned steam as soon as they could get electricity.
    Steam doesn't distribute well.

    Idiot. That electricity was generated by steam.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to jeroen@nospam.please on Tue Feb 15 12:48:58 2022
    On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 20:12:49 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 2022-02-15 14:43, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:51:29 +0000, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    On 13/02/2022 17:31, David Brown wrote:
    On 13/02/2022 17:51, Martin Brown wrote:

    You can haggle about whether or not they are truly alive because they >>>>> need to hijack a cell to replicate (at least all the ones I know of do). >>>>>
    There are some viruses that are so simple that they can't hijack a
    cell's replication systems - they hijack another virus's hijacking! In >>>> a sense, they are small viruses that infect other large viruses. Fun stuff.

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

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

    Viral phages that attack bacteria are also quite interesting and some of >>> them may yet have therapeutic value. Progress in this field is slow but
    steady as the various pieces are found and understood.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01880-6

    The viruses that we see today have co-evolved with their hosts for many
    billions of years. The earliest ones would have been much much simpler.

    Is there evidence for that?

    Are you denying evolution???

    No, just asking for evidence to support an opinion.

    I believe in evolution more than most people.


    Jeroen Belleman
    --

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Tue Feb 15 18:13:38 2022
    On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 2:37:37 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 15:24:56 +0100, David Brown
    <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 15/02/2022 14:04, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 09:08:33 +0100, David Brown
    <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 14/02/2022 22:43, John Larkin wrote:

    I took a biologist to lunch today.


    And you think that means you know biology?

    You're not a biologist, and furthermore you weren't there.

    We talked about DNA and Thai food and stuff.

    I have no idea how much or how little you know about Thai food. You
    could be an excellent Thai cook or food critic for all I know (or care).

    Everyone here realises that you have many major gaps and faults in your >understanding of evolution and DNA.

    Major gaps! Good grief, nobody understands how DNA life originated. Or how cells or brains work. But it's all encoded in DNA.

    Nobody understands exactly how DNA-based life originated, but - looking at the way it works today - it looks very much as if it evolved from RNA-based life, which acquired the capacity to transfer RNA-sequences into the corresponding DNA-sequences, and
    transfer them back out again.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_dogma_of_molecular_biology

    DNA is encoded in DNA.

    <snipped irrelevant video>

    I wonder what John thought that might mean. The mechanisms that translate DNA into a RNA are encoded in DNA as part of the genomes of all the cells that do it, but that's implicit in the mechanism that allows life as we know it to propagate.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Tue Feb 15 18:31:47 2022
    On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 5:01:51 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
    On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 13:10:26 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
    On 15/02/22 13:08, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 09:11:02 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
    On 15/02/2022 02:59, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 2:52:14 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 18:24:13 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
    On 13/02/2022 16:50, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 07:19:58 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    On a sunny day (Sat, 12 Feb 2022 15:19:00 -0800 (PST)) it
    happened Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote in <fb8fcd39-787c-4c26...@googlegroups.com>:

    I could indeed have gone into detail. I was impressed on the density of >>> errors in John's claim - mistakes and misunderstandings are common, but >>> it's rare to see it taken to such a high level in such a compact statement.

    Sloman and Brown. Soul mates.

    Of maybe "great minds think alike"?

    The "no" team.

    There's no team effort involved in pointing out that John Larkin has posted ill-informed nonsense. Plenty of people here will point when anybody has posted ill-informed nonsense. John Larkin posts a lot of ill-informed nonsense and seems unwilling to
    undertake the constructive reaction of getting better informed, and prefers to resent the disrespect which he has earned while staying just as ignorant as he has always been.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Tue Feb 15 18:22:52 2022
    On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 3:51:35 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 16:25:08 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
    On 15/02/2022 15:07, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 11:38:13 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
    On 15/02/2022 06:02, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 18:00:24 +0000, Tom Gardner

    You have had /countless/ explanations and help, with advice,
    corrections, references, and facts. But you respond to these by whining >that we don't like "ideas", or are not "designers". You could take the >biology threads in this group over the years and edit it into a book
    about evolution - and pretty much all of it has been written to try to >help /you/ understand.

    Nobody understands where DNA came from or how it creates people.

    Nobody knows exactly where DNA came from, but it;s fairly clear that the DNA-to-RNA process that we have now got added on to a basic RNA system fairly early on it the process of evolving life as we know it.

    The DNA that creates people is built into every human egg and sperm, and we know exactly how these two haploid cells combine to form the single cell that developed into each of us. About 30% of those single cells don't develop very far at all and become
    early miss-carriages in the first trimester of pregnancy, which is a bit depressing.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Tue Feb 15 18:39:32 2022
    On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 7:49:15 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
    On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 20:12:49 +0100, Jeroen Belleman <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
    On 2022-02-15 14:43, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:51:29 +0000, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
    On 13/02/2022 17:31, David Brown wrote:
    On 13/02/2022 17:51, Martin Brown wrote:

    <snip>

    Are you denying evolution???

    No, just asking for evidence to support an opinion.

    I believe in evolution more than most people.

    Sadly, John Larkin doesn't understand what evolution is, and what he believes in isn't the process that most people describe as evolution.

    He seems to have much the same problem with the phrase "electronic design".

    "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
    "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
    "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Wed Feb 16 09:07:20 2022
    On 15/02/22 18:01, John Larkin wrote:
    On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 13:10:26 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 15/02/22 13:08, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 09:11:02 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 15/02/2022 02:59, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 2:52:14 AM UTC+11,
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 18:24:13 +0100, David Brown
    <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
    On 13/02/2022 16:50, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 07:19:58 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    On a sunny day (Sat, 12 Feb 2022 15:19:00 -0800 (PST)) it
    happened Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote in >>>>>>>>> <fb8fcd39-787c-4c26...@googlegroups.com>:

    Why evolution didn't come up with error-detecting and
    -correcting codes as well (or instead) is an even more
    interesting question.

    Actually it did
    https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-replication-and-causes-of-mutation-409/


    Cool.

    It is. Maybe you should read the article to see how cool.

    It follows

    It didn't.

    <snip>

    Perhaps you should read the article to see what is going on.
    Small local errors - the most common ones - are usually fixed
    before they lead to big errors. That's all. It's useful, and is
    part of why life is stable and can support the kind of
    reproduction seen in many eukaryotes. But there is nothing
    calculating about it, nothing that predicts useful or dangerous
    effects.

    No is your mantra. Maybe is mine.

    David Brown wasn't using "no" as a mantra. He might have explained
    how you got it wrong in more detail - I did - but since you don't
    read that kind of reaction it would have been a waste of time.


    I could indeed have gone into detail. I was impressed on the density of >>>> errors in John's claim - mistakes and misunderstandings are common, but >>>> it's rare to see it taken to such a high level in such a compact statement.

    Sloman and Brown. Soul mates.

    Of maybe "great minds think alike"?


    The "no" team.

    Er, no. That's tinfoil hat territory :)

    We don't act as a team and correct/argue with each other
    when we disagree. It just so happens that we (mostly) agree
    on this topic.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Wed Feb 16 10:04:03 2022
    On 15/02/2022 13:43, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:51:29 +0000, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    On 13/02/2022 17:31, David Brown wrote:
    On 13/02/2022 17:51, Martin Brown wrote:

    You can haggle about whether or not they are truly alive because they
    need to hijack a cell to replicate (at least all the ones I know of do). >>>>
    There are some viruses that are so simple that they can't hijack a
    cell's replication systems - they hijack another virus's hijacking! In
    a sense, they are small viruses that infect other large viruses. Fun stuff.

    And little fleas have lesser fleas upon their backs to bite 'em.

    Eventually in a quantised world they get too small to be viable.

    Viral phages that attack bacteria are also quite interesting and some of
    them may yet have therapeutic value. Progress in this field is slow but
    steady as the various pieces are found and understood.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01880-6

    The viruses that we see today have co-evolved with their hosts for many
    billions of years. The earliest ones would have been much much simpler.

    Is there evidence for that?

    Synthetic RNA in the lab is getting close to understanding what the very
    first self replicating RNA systems might have looked like. They have
    made working examples that are capable of most of the required steps.

    This article in Nature might clear up some of your misconceptions iff
    you can be bothered to read it (free access).

    https://www.nature.com/articles/35053176

    Most of this detailed stuff is behind a paywall unless you have
    university credentials or a subscription to nature:

    https://www.nature.com/articles/321089a0

    The first self replicating molecule only really has to occur once to
    take over a lot of territory if the raw materials are present. After
    that competition for resources and the inaccuracy of RNA copying allows
    it to evolve to respond to environmental constraints.

    There are also surprisingly a few examples of likely throwbacks from the
    late RNA world stage that include some extremely large complicated RNA
    only viruses that mostly parasitise amoeba now but which were
    misclassified for a long time as unculturable bacteria because they
    couldn't get them to multiply in the lab (and they were "obviously" too
    big to be viruses). Pithoviruses and Pandoravirus being examples:

    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/140716-giant-viruses-science-life-evolution-origins

    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/130718-viruses-pandoraviruses-science-biology-evolution

    They still have most of the bits present that would be needed in a fully functioning RNA based cell independent of a host.

    There may well be some more smoking guns for RNA world lying around.

    Biologists have really only just begin to recognise them. They were only noticed as something very unusual when a virus specialist looked at an
    electron micrograph of an infected amoeba!


    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Wed Feb 16 11:03:10 2022
    On 14/02/2022 16:05, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 14:53:43 +0000, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    ..........

    Established church tended to be into burning heretics and their books.
    New knowledge conflicting with scripture was viewed as very dangerous by
    the authorities. US YEC's still haven't got out of those Dark Ages.

    But modern science and technology developed mainly in Christian
    countries. The Jesuits have been great scientists and mathematicians.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jesuit_scientists

    The real point is that, as the Enlightenment and modern science
    advanced, the church stepped aside.

    They were indeed and had full access to the heretical knowledge that
    they deprived the rest form seeing. We know a remarkable amount about
    medeival engineering and technology through one Jesuit Father Verbeist
    who helped convert a Chinese Emperor to Christianity (and arguably built
    the worlds first steam powered car). The Chinese documented just about everything he did in meticulous detail in wood block prints and some
    prints and some wood blocks survive to this day. A cannon with "Verbiest
    Fecit" came to light in a wreck off the coast of Japan when I lived
    there. I knew the guy who did the research on these prints. He led a
    very interesting life and suffered a fair amount during his initial
    fight with the resident Chinese astronomers.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Verbiest

    https://mhs.web.ox.ac.uk/collections-online#/item/hsm-catalogue-14977

    ...........

    Le Sage doesn't really work, but there is no point in arguing with you
    about this since you don't actually understand relativity at all. That
    seems to be a big failing in many electrical engineering courses.

    I think that all EEs take a couple of physics courses. I took two, but
    they didn't get to QM and relativity. That's not a "failing", as
    relativity is not used much in electronic design.

    The ones I knew got thrown a couple of relativistic transform formulae
    and told to apply them. I never saw the relevance myself either. It
    explains why the electronics engineers on early GPS birds insisted on
    having a defeat switch on the relativistically corrected orbital clocks!

    The big failing in modern EE courses is too much easily-forgotten mathematical rigor and too little development of electrical instincts.

    I'm not convinced that at least some of the mathematical rigour isn't
    necessary if you are going to design things that will work well. I think
    much more important is knowing when and how to make approximations that
    will be good enough for engineering purposes. I have a small collection
    of very cute ones that make otherwise intractable problems into
    something you can solve approximately with at most a cubic equation.

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc on Wed Feb 16 12:12:03 2022
    DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote in news:sugs38$1t33$4@gioia.aioe.org:

    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in news:up9n0ht43732eccf8v3mfhc02p2l83b4rj@4ax.com:

    The biggest change in human history was electrification.


    I would say "fire" was and is to this day bigger.

    Just ask those frozen Texans... oh wait... you can't becasue

    Cruz and Abbott let them die.

    Because fire led to the bronze age and the iron age and the
    industrial age and is even essential to the electrical and
    electronics age.


    Y'all do not know how to debate.

    Larkin spouts off and you respond to him.

    Here is my choice but I get only crickets.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to Martin Brown on Wed Feb 16 12:50:45 2022
    On 16/02/22 11:03, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 14/02/2022 16:05, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    The big failing in modern EE courses is too much easily-forgotten
    mathematical rigor and too little development of electrical instincts.

    I'm not convinced that at least some of the mathematical rigour isn't necessary
    if you are going to design things that will work well. I think much more important is knowing when and how to make approximations that will be good enough for engineering purposes. I have a small collection of very cute ones that make otherwise intractable problems into something you can solve approximately with at most a cubic equation.

    You need sufficient rigour to understand the presumptions and
    limitations. After that, the old saying applies: the best
    result of mathematics is that you don't need to use it.

    As for approximations, yes they are extremely valuable. You
    can get considerable practical insight from them, even if
    you resort to number crunching for detailed analysis.

    That's another version of the old quip:
    - when I was a schoolkid/undergrad I used a 12" slide rule
    - when I was a graduate I used a helical 13m slide rule
    - when I was a professor I used a 6" slide rule

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to Tom Gardner on Wed Feb 16 15:07:05 2022
    On 16/02/2022 10:07, Tom Gardner wrote:
    On 15/02/22 18:01, John Larkin wrote:
    On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 13:10:26 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:


    Of maybe "great minds think alike"?


    The "no" team.

    Er, no. That's tinfoil hat territory :)

    We don't act as a team and correct/argue with each other
    when we disagree. It just so happens that we (mostly) agree
    on this topic.

    Yes, we are all individuals (except me).

    <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QereR0CViMY>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Billy Build@21:1/5 to DecadentLinux...@decadence.org on Wed Feb 16 06:28:03 2022
    On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 6:23:03 AM UTC-8, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
    Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in news:suirv5$oe9$2...@dont-email.me:
    On 16/02/22 11:03, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 14/02/2022 16:05, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    The big failing in modern EE courses is too much
    easily-forgotten mathematical rigor and too little development
    of electrical instincts.

    I'm not convinced that at least some of the mathematical rigour
    isn't necessary if you are going to design things that will work
    well. I think much more important is knowing when and how to make
    approximations that will be good enough for engineering purposes.
    I have a small collection of very cute ones that make otherwise
    intractable problems into something you can solve approximately
    with at most a cubic equation.

    You need sufficient rigour to understand the presumptions and
    limitations. After that, the old saying applies: the best
    result of mathematics is that you don't need to use it.

    As for approximations, yes they are extremely valuable. You
    can get considerable practical insight from them, even if
    you resort to number crunching for detailed analysis.

    That's another version of the old quip:
    - when I was a schoolkid/undergrad I used a 12" slide rule
    - when I was a graduate I used a helical 13m slide rule
    - when I was a professor I used a 6" slide rule

    And now as an old man, I use a Hadron collider ring...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Wed Feb 16 15:20:14 2022
    On 15/02/2022 16:58, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 16:08:43 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 15/02/2022 14:40, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:51:40 +0000, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:





    Is there any RNA life around now, independent of DNA? Where did it go? >>>>
    Yes. It didn't go away. Plenty of common viruses are RNA based.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_virus

    No. RNA viruses are manufactured by DNA.

    Retroviruses insert their genes into the cell's DNA, and thus use DNA as
    an intermediary. Other RNA viruses do not - the RNA is copied directly
    using RNA enzymes supplied by the virus itself. The animo acids,
    lipids, RNA bases, etc., that are used as raw material are created by
    the DNA-based host, but that doesn't matter. The virus doesn't care if
    they were made by a DNA-based host, an RNA-based host, or an alien robot.

    We have not found any organisms alive today that are not DNA-based. RNA
    viruses are the nearest we have (and there are lots of them), but
    viruses have no metabolism. (Some biologists classify viruses as
    "living organisms", but most do not - it's a matter of your choice of
    definition.)

    It is reasonable to hypothesise that RNA-based lifeforms existed in the
    past.

    I don't call your unproven and unlikely conjectures stupid or
    ignorant. So why do you call mine stupid and ignorant?

    If I write something clearly stupid, I expect others to call it stupid.
    If I write something demonstrating ignorance, I expect people to
    correct me. If I disagree with them, then it is up to me to justify my
    claims. I might do that, or I might accept the correction and thank
    people, or I might try to sneak away quietly and hope people forget I
    have been stupid.

    Fortunately for me, there are decent, helpful and knowledgable people in
    this group who are willing to provide such corrections and information
    when someone gets things wrong, and not just people like you who prefer mistakes to stand unchallenged.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed_panspermia

    That not much crazier than the primordial soup thing.


    And that is your opinion based on, what, gut feeling? Your advanced
    scientific knowledge gathered over a lunch?

    Did you read the article? Would you like to give a summary of it here
    to prove that, and show how it is appropriate to compare it to "the
    primordial soup thing" like this?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to Tom Gardner on Wed Feb 16 14:22:56 2022
    Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in news:suirv5$oe9$2@dont-email.me:

    On 16/02/22 11:03, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 14/02/2022 16:05, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    The big failing in modern EE courses is too much
    easily-forgotten mathematical rigor and too little development
    of electrical instincts.

    I'm not convinced that at least some of the mathematical rigour
    isn't necessary if you are going to design things that will work
    well. I think much more important is knowing when and how to make
    approximations that will be good enough for engineering purposes.
    I have a small collection of very cute ones that make otherwise
    intractable problems into something you can solve approximately
    with at most a cubic equation.

    You need sufficient rigour to understand the presumptions and
    limitations. After that, the old saying applies: the best
    result of mathematics is that you don't need to use it.

    As for approximations, yes they are extremely valuable. You
    can get considerable practical insight from them, even if
    you resort to number crunching for detailed analysis.

    That's another version of the old quip:
    - when I was a schoolkid/undergrad I used a 12" slide rule
    - when I was a graduate I used a helical 13m slide rule
    - when I was a professor I used a 6" slide rule


    And now as an old man, I use a Hadron collider ring...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to '''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk on Wed Feb 16 07:56:34 2022
    On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 11:03:10 +0000, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    On 14/02/2022 16:05, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 14:53:43 +0000, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    ..........

    Established church tended to be into burning heretics and their books.
    New knowledge conflicting with scripture was viewed as very dangerous by >>> the authorities. US YEC's still haven't got out of those Dark Ages.

    But modern science and technology developed mainly in Christian
    countries. The Jesuits have been great scientists and mathematicians.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jesuit_scientists

    The real point is that, as the Enlightenment and modern science
    advanced, the church stepped aside.

    They were indeed and had full access to the heretical knowledge that
    they deprived the rest form seeing. We know a remarkable amount about >medeival engineering and technology through one Jesuit Father Verbeist
    who helped convert a Chinese Emperor to Christianity (and arguably built
    the worlds first steam powered car). The Chinese documented just about >everything he did in meticulous detail in wood block prints and some
    prints and some wood blocks survive to this day. A cannon with "Verbiest >Fecit" came to light in a wreck off the coast of Japan when I lived
    there. I knew the guy who did the research on these prints. He led a
    very interesting life and suffered a fair amount during his initial
    fight with the resident Chinese astronomers.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Verbiest

    https://mhs.web.ox.ac.uk/collections-online#/item/hsm-catalogue-14977

    ...........

    Le Sage doesn't really work, but there is no point in arguing with you
    about this since you don't actually understand relativity at all. That
    seems to be a big failing in many electrical engineering courses.

    I think that all EEs take a couple of physics courses. I took two, but
    they didn't get to QM and relativity. That's not a "failing", as
    relativity is not used much in electronic design.

    The ones I knew got thrown a couple of relativistic transform formulae
    and told to apply them. I never saw the relevance myself either. It
    explains why the electronics engineers on early GPS birds insisted on
    having a defeat switch on the relativistically corrected orbital clocks!

    The big failing in modern EE courses is too much easily-forgotten
    mathematical rigor and too little development of electrical instincts.

    I'm not convinced that at least some of the mathematical rigour isn't >necessary if you are going to design things that will work well. I think
    much more important is knowing when and how to make approximations that
    will be good enough for engineering purposes. I have a small collection
    of very cute ones that make otherwise intractable problems into
    something you can solve approximately with at most a cubic equation.

    I think that the math should be immediately connected to lab
    experiments. Kids should solve the differential equations and
    immediately see the solutions on oscilloscopes, from circuits that
    they build themselves.

    Nobody that I know actually solves differential equations or computes
    Fourier series. The interesting de's are nonlinear anyhow. We should
    *feel* the equations. You can feel the solution to a nonlinear de a
    lot faster than you can solve it.

    We actually simulate everything. The design methodology becomes
    instinct and simulation, and the kids aren't getting much instinct
    these days.

    But then many kids are getting EE degrees these days.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk on Wed Feb 16 08:01:51 2022
    On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:50:45 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 16/02/22 11:03, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 14/02/2022 16:05, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    The big failing in modern EE courses is too much easily-forgotten
    mathematical rigor and too little development of electrical instincts.

    I'm not convinced that at least some of the mathematical rigour isn't necessary
    if you are going to design things that will work well. I think much more
    important is knowing when and how to make approximations that will be good >> enough for engineering purposes. I have a small collection of very cute ones >> that make otherwise intractable problems into something you can solve
    approximately with at most a cubic equation.

    You need sufficient rigour to understand the presumptions and
    limitations. After that, the old saying applies: the best
    result of mathematics is that you don't need to use it.

    As for approximations, yes they are extremely valuable. You
    can get considerable practical insight from them, even if
    you resort to number crunching for detailed analysis.

    That's another version of the old quip:
    - when I was a schoolkid/undergrad I used a 12" slide rule
    - when I was a graduate I used a helical 13m slide rule
    - when I was a professor I used a 6" slide rule

    Sloppy slide ruling slinging was great for plotting "lab" results with
    a nice scatter of experimental error.

    We went to afternoon EE lab.

    Dr Seto, the lab instructor, left after 5 minutes

    We left after 6 minutes

    The night before all the lab results were due, we faked them.

    We and only we got all A's.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to '''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk on Wed Feb 16 08:05:25 2022
    On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 10:04:03 +0000, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    On 15/02/2022 13:43, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:51:29 +0000, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    On 13/02/2022 17:31, David Brown wrote:
    On 13/02/2022 17:51, Martin Brown wrote:

    You can haggle about whether or not they are truly alive because they >>>>> need to hijack a cell to replicate (at least all the ones I know of do). >>>>>
    There are some viruses that are so simple that they can't hijack a
    cell's replication systems - they hijack another virus's hijacking! In >>>> a sense, they are small viruses that infect other large viruses. Fun stuff.

    And little fleas have lesser fleas upon their backs to bite 'em.

    Eventually in a quantised world they get too small to be viable.

    Viral phages that attack bacteria are also quite interesting and some of >>> them may yet have therapeutic value. Progress in this field is slow but
    steady as the various pieces are found and understood.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01880-6

    The viruses that we see today have co-evolved with their hosts for many
    billions of years. The earliest ones would have been much much simpler.

    Is there evidence for that?

    Synthetic RNA in the lab is getting close to understanding what the very >first self replicating RNA systems might have looked like. They have
    made working examples that are capable of most of the required steps.

    This article in Nature might clear up some of your misconceptions iff
    you can be bothered to read it (free access).


    All you want to do is insult. Jerk.





    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to david.brown@hesbynett.no on Wed Feb 16 08:11:38 2022
    On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 15:20:14 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 15/02/2022 16:58, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 16:08:43 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 15/02/2022 14:40, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:51:40 +0000, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:





    Is there any RNA life around now, independent of DNA? Where did it go? >>>>>
    Yes. It didn't go away. Plenty of common viruses are RNA based.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_virus

    No. RNA viruses are manufactured by DNA.

    Retroviruses insert their genes into the cell's DNA, and thus use DNA as >>> an intermediary. Other RNA viruses do not - the RNA is copied directly
    using RNA enzymes supplied by the virus itself. The animo acids,
    lipids, RNA bases, etc., that are used as raw material are created by
    the DNA-based host, but that doesn't matter. The virus doesn't care if
    they were made by a DNA-based host, an RNA-based host, or an alien robot. >>>
    We have not found any organisms alive today that are not DNA-based. RNA >>> viruses are the nearest we have (and there are lots of them), but
    viruses have no metabolism. (Some biologists classify viruses as
    "living organisms", but most do not - it's a matter of your choice of
    definition.)

    It is reasonable to hypothesise that RNA-based lifeforms existed in the
    past.

    I don't call your unproven and unlikely conjectures stupid or
    ignorant. So why do you call mine stupid and ignorant?

    If I write something clearly stupid, I expect others to call it stupid.
    If I write something demonstrating ignorance, I expect people to
    correct me. If I disagree with them, then it is up to me to justify my >claims. I might do that, or I might accept the correction and thank
    people, or I might try to sneak away quietly and hope people forget I
    have been stupid.

    So you know everything (including electronic design and biology) and
    you're always right and you have no tolerance for non-standard ideas.
    You supress your own ideas, if any, for fear of being shown to be
    wrong.

    Great, I can compete with that.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Wed Feb 16 17:21:53 2022
    On 16/02/2022 17:11, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 15:20:14 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 15/02/2022 16:58, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 16:08:43 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 15/02/2022 14:40, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:51:40 +0000, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:





    Is there any RNA life around now, independent of DNA? Where did it go? >>>>>>
    Yes. It didn't go away. Plenty of common viruses are RNA based.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_virus

    No. RNA viruses are manufactured by DNA.

    Retroviruses insert their genes into the cell's DNA, and thus use DNA as >>>> an intermediary. Other RNA viruses do not - the RNA is copied directly >>>> using RNA enzymes supplied by the virus itself. The animo acids,
    lipids, RNA bases, etc., that are used as raw material are created by
    the DNA-based host, but that doesn't matter. The virus doesn't care if >>>> they were made by a DNA-based host, an RNA-based host, or an alien robot. >>>>
    We have not found any organisms alive today that are not DNA-based. RNA >>>> viruses are the nearest we have (and there are lots of them), but
    viruses have no metabolism. (Some biologists classify viruses as
    "living organisms", but most do not - it's a matter of your choice of
    definition.)

    It is reasonable to hypothesise that RNA-based lifeforms existed in the >>>> past.

    I don't call your unproven and unlikely conjectures stupid or
    ignorant. So why do you call mine stupid and ignorant?

    If I write something clearly stupid, I expect others to call it stupid.
    If I write something demonstrating ignorance, I expect people to
    correct me. If I disagree with them, then it is up to me to justify my
    claims. I might do that, or I might accept the correction and thank
    people, or I might try to sneak away quietly and hope people forget I
    have been stupid.

    So you know everything (including electronic design and biology) and
    you're always right and you have no tolerance for non-standard ideas.

    What kind of misreading could lead you to that conclusion? Do you
    bother paying any attention at all to things people write? You
    apparently don't read posts here, nor do you read any articles on the
    web (even the ones you link to yourself). I think you just skim posts
    looking for trigger words or phrases so that you can tell people how
    wonderful you are and how bad others are.

    You supress your own ideas, if any, for fear of being shown to be
    wrong.

    Read again. If you are having difficulty, find a grandkid to help with
    the big words.


    Great, I can compete with that.


    Compete at what? This is a Usenet group, not a competition.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Wed Feb 16 16:44:29 2022
    On 16/02/2022 16:05, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 10:04:03 +0000, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    On 15/02/2022 13:43, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:51:29 +0000, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    On 13/02/2022 17:31, David Brown wrote:
    On 13/02/2022 17:51, Martin Brown wrote:

    You can haggle about whether or not they are truly alive because they >>>>>> need to hijack a cell to replicate (at least all the ones I know of do). >>>>>>
    There are some viruses that are so simple that they can't hijack a
    cell's replication systems - they hijack another virus's hijacking! In >>>>> a sense, they are small viruses that infect other large viruses. Fun stuff.

    And little fleas have lesser fleas upon their backs to bite 'em.

    Eventually in a quantised world they get too small to be viable.

    Viral phages that attack bacteria are also quite interesting and some of >>>> them may yet have therapeutic value. Progress in this field is slow but >>>> steady as the various pieces are found and understood.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01880-6

    The viruses that we see today have co-evolved with their hosts for many >>>> billions of years. The earliest ones would have been much much simpler. >>>
    Is there evidence for that?

    Synthetic RNA in the lab is getting close to understanding what the very
    first self replicating RNA systems might have looked like. They have
    made working examples that are capable of most of the required steps.

    This article in Nature might clear up some of your misconceptions iff
    you can be bothered to read it (free access).


    All you want to do is insult. Jerk.

    I take that means you prefer to wallow in your ignorance.

    What a surprise!

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to David Brown on Wed Feb 16 16:48:54 2022
    On 16/02/22 16:21, David Brown wrote:
    On 16/02/2022 17:11, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 15:20:14 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 15/02/2022 16:58, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 16:08:43 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 15/02/2022 14:40, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:51:40 +0000, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:





    Is there any RNA life around now, independent of DNA? Where did it go? >>>>>>>
    Yes. It didn't go away. Plenty of common viruses are RNA based.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_virus

    No. RNA viruses are manufactured by DNA.

    Retroviruses insert their genes into the cell's DNA, and thus use DNA as >>>>> an intermediary. Other RNA viruses do not - the RNA is copied directly >>>>> using RNA enzymes supplied by the virus itself. The animo acids,
    lipids, RNA bases, etc., that are used as raw material are created by >>>>> the DNA-based host, but that doesn't matter. The virus doesn't care if >>>>> they were made by a DNA-based host, an RNA-based host, or an alien robot. >>>>>
    We have not found any organisms alive today that are not DNA-based. RNA >>>>> viruses are the nearest we have (and there are lots of them), but
    viruses have no metabolism. (Some biologists classify viruses as
    "living organisms", but most do not - it's a matter of your choice of >>>>> definition.)

    It is reasonable to hypothesise that RNA-based lifeforms existed in the >>>>> past.

    I don't call your unproven and unlikely conjectures stupid or
    ignorant. So why do you call mine stupid and ignorant?

    If I write something clearly stupid, I expect others to call it stupid.
    If I write something demonstrating ignorance, I expect people to
    correct me. If I disagree with them, then it is up to me to justify my
    claims. I might do that, or I might accept the correction and thank
    people, or I might try to sneak away quietly and hope people forget I
    have been stupid.

    So you know everything (including electronic design and biology) and
    you're always right and you have no tolerance for non-standard ideas.

    What kind of misreading could lead you to that conclusion? Do you
    bother paying any attention at all to things people write? You
    apparently don't read posts here, nor do you read any articles on the
    web (even the ones you link to yourself). I think you just skim posts looking for trigger words or phrases so that you can tell people how wonderful you are and how bad others are.

    I used to think Bill's (automated?) comments were OTT and unjust.

    Having seen John's responses recently, the "skim looking for
    trigger phrases" concept does appear to be accurate.

    Shame.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to '''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk on Wed Feb 16 09:04:50 2022
    On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 16:44:29 +0000, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    On 16/02/2022 16:05, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 10:04:03 +0000, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    On 15/02/2022 13:43, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:51:29 +0000, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    On 13/02/2022 17:31, David Brown wrote:
    On 13/02/2022 17:51, Martin Brown wrote:

    You can haggle about whether or not they are truly alive because they >>>>>>> need to hijack a cell to replicate (at least all the ones I know of do).

    There are some viruses that are so simple that they can't hijack a >>>>>> cell's replication systems - they hijack another virus's hijacking! In >>>>>> a sense, they are small viruses that infect other large viruses. Fun stuff.

    And little fleas have lesser fleas upon their backs to bite 'em.

    Eventually in a quantised world they get too small to be viable.

    Viral phages that attack bacteria are also quite interesting and some of >>>>> them may yet have therapeutic value. Progress in this field is slow but >>>>> steady as the various pieces are found and understood.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01880-6

    The viruses that we see today have co-evolved with their hosts for many >>>>> billions of years. The earliest ones would have been much much simpler. >>>>
    Is there evidence for that?

    Synthetic RNA in the lab is getting close to understanding what the very >>> first self replicating RNA systems might have looked like. They have
    made working examples that are capable of most of the required steps.

    This article in Nature might clear up some of your misconceptions iff
    you can be bothered to read it (free access).


    All you want to do is insult. Jerk.

    I take that means you prefer to wallow in your ignorance.

    What a surprise!

    Where did you take your PhD in biology?



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to david.brown@hesbynett.no on Wed Feb 16 09:07:42 2022
    On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 17:21:53 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 16/02/2022 17:11, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 15:20:14 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 15/02/2022 16:58, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 16:08:43 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 15/02/2022 14:40, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:51:40 +0000, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:





    Is there any RNA life around now, independent of DNA? Where did it go? >>>>>>>
    Yes. It didn't go away. Plenty of common viruses are RNA based.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_virus

    No. RNA viruses are manufactured by DNA.

    Retroviruses insert their genes into the cell's DNA, and thus use DNA as >>>>> an intermediary. Other RNA viruses do not - the RNA is copied directly >>>>> using RNA enzymes supplied by the virus itself. The animo acids,
    lipids, RNA bases, etc., that are used as raw material are created by >>>>> the DNA-based host, but that doesn't matter. The virus doesn't care if >>>>> they were made by a DNA-based host, an RNA-based host, or an alien robot. >>>>>
    We have not found any organisms alive today that are not DNA-based. RNA >>>>> viruses are the nearest we have (and there are lots of them), but
    viruses have no metabolism. (Some biologists classify viruses as
    "living organisms", but most do not - it's a matter of your choice of >>>>> definition.)

    It is reasonable to hypothesise that RNA-based lifeforms existed in the >>>>> past.

    I don't call your unproven and unlikely conjectures stupid or
    ignorant. So why do you call mine stupid and ignorant?

    If I write something clearly stupid, I expect others to call it stupid.
    If I write something demonstrating ignorance, I expect people to
    correct me. If I disagree with them, then it is up to me to justify my
    claims. I might do that, or I might accept the correction and thank
    people, or I might try to sneak away quietly and hope people forget I
    have been stupid.

    So you know everything (including electronic design and biology) and
    you're always right and you have no tolerance for non-standard ideas.

    What kind of misreading could lead you to that conclusion? Do you
    bother paying any attention at all to things people write? You
    apparently don't read posts here, nor do you read any articles on the
    web (even the ones you link to yourself). I think you just skim posts >looking for trigger words or phrases so that you can tell people how >wonderful you are and how bad others are.

    You supress your own ideas, if any, for fear of being shown to be
    wrong.

    Read again. If you are having difficulty, find a grandkid to help with
    the big words.


    Great, I can compete with that.


    Compete at what? This is a Usenet group, not a competition.

    Good point. I design electronics and you don't.

    All your insults are of course made with the best of intent.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk on Wed Feb 16 09:10:17 2022
    On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 16:48:54 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 16/02/22 16:21, David Brown wrote:
    On 16/02/2022 17:11, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 15:20:14 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 15/02/2022 16:58, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 16:08:43 +0100, David Brown
    <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 15/02/2022 14:40, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:51:40 +0000, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:





    Is there any RNA life around now, independent of DNA? Where did it go?

    Yes. It didn't go away. Plenty of common viruses are RNA based. >>>>>>>>
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_virus

    No. RNA viruses are manufactured by DNA.

    Retroviruses insert their genes into the cell's DNA, and thus use DNA as >>>>>> an intermediary. Other RNA viruses do not - the RNA is copied directly >>>>>> using RNA enzymes supplied by the virus itself. The animo acids,
    lipids, RNA bases, etc., that are used as raw material are created by >>>>>> the DNA-based host, but that doesn't matter. The virus doesn't care if >>>>>> they were made by a DNA-based host, an RNA-based host, or an alien robot.

    We have not found any organisms alive today that are not DNA-based. RNA >>>>>> viruses are the nearest we have (and there are lots of them), but
    viruses have no metabolism. (Some biologists classify viruses as
    "living organisms", but most do not - it's a matter of your choice of >>>>>> definition.)

    It is reasonable to hypothesise that RNA-based lifeforms existed in the >>>>>> past.

    I don't call your unproven and unlikely conjectures stupid or
    ignorant. So why do you call mine stupid and ignorant?

    If I write something clearly stupid, I expect others to call it stupid. >>>> If I write something demonstrating ignorance, I expect people to
    correct me. If I disagree with them, then it is up to me to justify my >>>> claims. I might do that, or I might accept the correction and thank
    people, or I might try to sneak away quietly and hope people forget I
    have been stupid.

    So you know everything (including electronic design and biology) and
    you're always right and you have no tolerance for non-standard ideas.

    What kind of misreading could lead you to that conclusion? Do you
    bother paying any attention at all to things people write? You
    apparently don't read posts here, nor do you read any articles on the
    web (even the ones you link to yourself). I think you just skim posts
    looking for trigger words or phrases so that you can tell people how
    wonderful you are and how bad others are.

    I used to think Bill's (automated?) comments were OTT and unjust.

    Is Bill still being Bill? I don't read his posts.


    Having seen John's responses recently, the "skim looking for
    trigger phrases" concept does appear to be accurate.

    Shame.

    Well, it is easy to spot "wrong" and "stupid" and "ignorant" on a few
    screens of off-topic text.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Wed Feb 16 12:06:49 2022
    On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 6:07:39 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    I sometimes make suggestions about physical reality, with no personal content, and get in response not serious criticism or alternate ideas,
    but barrages of insults from admitted amateurs.

    What a crock! Suggestions about physical reality are everyone's business, there can be no 'admitted amateurs' on such topics.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joe Gwinn@21:1/5 to '''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk on Wed Feb 16 18:01:25 2022
    On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 10:04:03 +0000, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    On 15/02/2022 13:43, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:51:29 +0000, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    On 13/02/2022 17:31, David Brown wrote:
    On 13/02/2022 17:51, Martin Brown wrote:

    You can haggle about whether or not they are truly alive because they >>>>> need to hijack a cell to replicate (at least all the ones I know of do). >>>>>
    There are some viruses that are so simple that they can't hijack a
    cell's replication systems - they hijack another virus's hijacking! In >>>> a sense, they are small viruses that infect other large viruses. Fun stuff.

    And little fleas have lesser fleas upon their backs to bite 'em.

    Eventually in a quantised world they get too small to be viable.

    Viral phages that attack bacteria are also quite interesting and some of >>> them may yet have therapeutic value. Progress in this field is slow but
    steady as the various pieces are found and understood.

    <https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01880-6>

    The viruses that we see today have co-evolved with their hosts for many
    billions of years. The earliest ones would have been much much simpler.

    Is there evidence for that?

    Synthetic RNA in the lab is getting close to understanding what the very >first self replicating RNA systems might have looked like. They have
    made working examples that are capable of most of the required steps.

    This article in Nature might clear up some of your misconceptions iff
    you can be bothered to read it (free access).

    <https://www.nature.com/articles/35053176>

    Most of this detailed stuff is behind a paywall unless you have
    university credentials or a subscription to nature:

    <https://www.nature.com/articles/321089a0>

    The first self replicating molecule only really has to occur once to
    take over a lot of territory if the raw materials are present. After
    that competition for resources and the inaccuracy of RNA copying allows
    it to evolve to respond to environmental constraints.

    There are also surprisingly a few examples of likely throwbacks from the
    late RNA world stage that include some extremely large complicated RNA
    only viruses that mostly parasitise amoeba now but which were
    misclassified for a long time as unculturable bacteria because they
    couldn't get them to multiply in the lab (and they were "obviously" too
    big to be viruses). Pithoviruses and Pandoravirus being examples:

    <https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/140716-giant-viruses-science-life-evolution-origins>

    <https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/130718-viruses-pandoraviruses-science-biology-evolution>

    They still have most of the bits present that would be needed in a fully >functioning RNA based cell independent of a host.

    There may well be some more smoking guns for RNA world lying around.

    Biologists have really only just begin to recognise them. They were only >noticed as something very unusual when a virus specialist looked at an >electron micrograph of an infected amoeba!

    The above articles are very interesting.

    But I'd suggest that everybody drop the ad hominem arguments and
    passing digs - it prevents persuasion of both opponent and audience.
    Not effective.

    Joe Gwinn

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Clifford Heath@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Thu Feb 17 12:01:41 2022
    On 17/2/22 3:01 am, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:50:45 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 16/02/22 11:03, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 14/02/2022 16:05, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    The big failing in modern EE courses is too much easily-forgotten
    mathematical rigor and too little development of electrical instincts.

    I'm not convinced that at least some of the mathematical rigour isn't necessary
    if you are going to design things that will work well. I think much more >>> important is knowing when and how to make approximations that will be good >>> enough for engineering purposes. I have a small collection of very cute ones
    that make otherwise intractable problems into something you can solve
    approximately with at most a cubic equation.

    You need sufficient rigour to understand the presumptions and
    limitations. After that, the old saying applies: the best
    result of mathematics is that you don't need to use it.

    As for approximations, yes they are extremely valuable. You
    can get considerable practical insight from them, even if
    you resort to number crunching for detailed analysis.

    That's another version of the old quip:
    - when I was a schoolkid/undergrad I used a 12" slide rule
    - when I was a graduate I used a helical 13m slide rule
    - when I was a professor I used a 6" slide rule

    Sloppy slide ruling slinging was great for plotting "lab" results with
    a nice scatter of experimental error.

    We went to afternoon EE lab.

    Dr Seto, the lab instructor, left after 5 minutes

    We left after 6 minutes

    The night before all the lab results were due, we faked them.


    I sense a continued pattern here. Playing loose with facts is a lifelong
    habit of yours.


    We and only we got all A's.

    "But then how many kids are getting EE degrees these days"

    Well, I dunno.

    How many of the kids in your days got EE degrees without earning them?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to no.spam@please.net on Wed Feb 16 17:59:28 2022
    On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 12:01:41 +1100, Clifford Heath
    <no.spam@please.net> wrote:

    On 17/2/22 3:01 am, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:50:45 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 16/02/22 11:03, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 14/02/2022 16:05, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    The big failing in modern EE courses is too much easily-forgotten
    mathematical rigor and too little development of electrical instincts. >>>>
    I'm not convinced that at least some of the mathematical rigour isn't necessary
    if you are going to design things that will work well. I think much more >>>> important is knowing when and how to make approximations that will be good >>>> enough for engineering purposes. I have a small collection of very cute ones
    that make otherwise intractable problems into something you can solve
    approximately with at most a cubic equation.

    You need sufficient rigour to understand the presumptions and
    limitations. After that, the old saying applies: the best
    result of mathematics is that you don't need to use it.

    As for approximations, yes they are extremely valuable. You
    can get considerable practical insight from them, even if
    you resort to number crunching for detailed analysis.

    That's another version of the old quip:
    - when I was a schoolkid/undergrad I used a 12" slide rule
    - when I was a graduate I used a helical 13m slide rule
    - when I was a professor I used a 6" slide rule

    Sloppy slide ruling slinging was great for plotting "lab" results with
    a nice scatter of experimental error.

    We went to afternoon EE lab.

    Dr Seto, the lab instructor, left after 5 minutes

    We left after 6 minutes

    The night before all the lab results were due, we faked them.


    I sense a continued pattern here. Playing loose with facts is a lifelong >habit of yours.

    Getting stuff done, actually.



    We and only we got all A's.

    "But then how many kids are getting EE degrees these days"

    Well, I dunno.

    How many of the kids in your days got EE degrees without earning them?

    We earned ours. Faking the data required more understanding of the
    circuits than taking actual data.

    The lab equipment was terrible. The shared B+ power supply had 50
    volts p-p ripple, which made for the other guys getting some
    interesting frequency response graphs using their voltmeters.

    I noticed the strange, flat amplifier frequency response immediately,
    so checked it on an oscilloscope.

    --

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Wed Feb 16 19:26:40 2022
    On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 4:07:55 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 17:21:53 +0100, David Brown
    <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 16/02/2022 17:11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 15:20:14 +0100, David Brown
    <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 15/02/2022 16:58, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 16:08:43 +0100, David Brown
    <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:

    On 15/02/2022 14:40, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:51:40 +0000, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:





    Is there any RNA life around now, independent of DNA? Where did it go?

    Yes. It didn't go away. Plenty of common viruses are RNA based. >>>>>>>
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_virus

    No. RNA viruses are manufactured by DNA.

    Retroviruses insert their genes into the cell's DNA, and thus use DNA as
    an intermediary. Other RNA viruses do not - the RNA is copied directly >>>>> using RNA enzymes supplied by the virus itself. The animo acids,
    lipids, RNA bases, etc., that are used as raw material are created by >>>>> the DNA-based host, but that doesn't matter. The virus doesn't care if >>>>> they were made by a DNA-based host, an RNA-based host, or an alien robot.

    We have not found any organisms alive today that are not DNA-based. RNA >>>>> viruses are the nearest we have (and there are lots of them), but
    viruses have no metabolism. (Some biologists classify viruses as
    "living organisms", but most do not - it's a matter of your choice of >>>>> definition.)

    It is reasonable to hypothesise that RNA-based lifeforms existed in the >>>>> past.

    I don't call your unproven and unlikely conjectures stupid or
    ignorant. So why do you call mine stupid and ignorant?

    If I write something clearly stupid, I expect others to call it stupid. >>> If I write something demonstrating ignorance, I expect people to
    correct me. If I disagree with them, then it is up to me to justify my >>> claims. I might do that, or I might accept the correction and thank
    people, or I might try to sneak away quietly and hope people forget I
    have been stupid.

    So you know everything (including electronic design and biology) and
    you're always right and you have no tolerance for non-standard ideas.

    What kind of misreading could lead you to that conclusion? Do you
    bother paying any attention at all to things people write? You
    apparently don't read posts here, nor do you read any articles on the
    web (even the ones you link to yourself). I think you just skim posts >looking for trigger words or phrases so that you can tell people how >wonderful you are and how bad others are.

    You supress your own ideas, if any, for fear of being shown to be
    wrong.

    Read again. If you are having difficulty, find a grandkid to help with
    the big words.

    Great, I can compete with that.


    Compete at what? This is a Usenet group, not a competition.

    It is an arena where people compete for readers, and reactions from readers. You compete harder than most - and you have to because you don't have much to say that it actually useful.

    Good point. I design electronics and you don't.

    John Larkin imagines that his approach to developing new circuits is a form of design. He hasn't posted anything here that makes that any kind of plausible claim.

    All your insults are of course made with the best of intent.

    They aren't designed to be insults. For someone who looks for - and seems to expect - fulsome flattery, they would be disappointing.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Wed Feb 16 19:38:22 2022
    On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 12:59:42 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 12:01:41 +1100, Clifford Heath <no....@please.net> wrote:
    On 17/2/22 3:01 am, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:50:45 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
    On 16/02/22 11:03, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 14/02/2022 16:05, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    Sloppy slide ruling slinging was great for plotting "lab" results with
    a nice scatter of experimental error.

    We went to afternoon EE lab.

    Dr Seto, the lab instructor, left after 5 minutes

    We left after 6 minutes

    The night before all the lab results were due, we faked them.

    I sense a continued pattern here. Playing loose with facts is a lifelong habit of yours.

    It's normally called lying and cheating.

    Getting stuff done, actually.

    It's actually creating the impression that you did get stuff done, which isn't quite the same thing.

    We and only we got all A's.

    Then your instructors were criminally incompetent.

    "But then how many kids are getting EE degrees these days"

    Well, I dunno.

    How many of the kids in your days got EE degrees without earning them?

    We earned ours. Faking the data required more understanding of the circuits than taking actual data.

    Clearly true. That doesn't mean that you earned your degree, and it clearly means that it wasn't worth having - not that potential employers would be aware of that.

    The lab equipment was terrible. The shared B+ power supply had 50 volts p-p ripple, which made for the other guys getting some interesting frequency response graphs using their voltmeters.

    It does look as if your instructors really were criminally incompetent.

    I noticed the strange, flat amplifier frequency response immediately, so checked it on an oscilloscope.

    The correct response is to fix the lab equipment, rather than fake the results. If your instructors really were criminally incompetent this might not have played out well, but it is still the correct response.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Tom Gardner on Wed Feb 16 23:24:03 2022
    On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 3:49:05 AM UTC+11, Tom Gardner wrote:
    On 16/02/22 16:21, David Brown wrote:
    On 16/02/2022 17:11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 15:20:14 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
    On 15/02/2022 16:58, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 16:08:43 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
    On 15/02/2022 14:40, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:51:40 +0000, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    <snip>

    So you know everything (including electronic design and biology) and
    you're always right and you have no tolerance for non-standard ideas.

    What kind of misreading could lead you to that conclusion? Do you
    bother paying any attention at all to things people write? You
    apparently don't read posts here, nor do you read any articles on the
    web (even the ones you link to yourself). I think you just skim posts looking for trigger words or phrases so that you can tell people how wonderful you are and how bad others are.

    I used to think Bill's (automated?) comments were OTT and unjust.

    They aren't automated, but John and I have been posting here for some twenty five years now, and John keeps on posting the same kind of nonsense, so my responses are well-practiced. I do look for ways of varying them a bit, but the information content
    has remained depressingly constant.

    Having seen John's responses recently, the "skim looking for
    trigger phrases" concept does appear to be accurate.

    Shame.

    I think "gullible twit" covers more of John Larkin's output.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to Anthony William Sloman on Thu Feb 17 11:09:22 2022
    On 17/02/22 07:24, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 3:49:05 AM UTC+11, Tom Gardner wrote:
    On 16/02/22 16:21, David Brown wrote:
    On 16/02/2022 17:11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 15:20:14 +0100, David Brown
    <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
    On 15/02/2022 16:58, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 16:08:43 +0100, David Brown
    <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
    On 15/02/2022 14:40, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:51:40 +0000, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    <snip>

    So you know everything (including electronic design and biology) and
    you're always right and you have no tolerance for non-standard ideas.

    What kind of misreading could lead you to that conclusion? Do you bother >>> paying any attention at all to things people write? You apparently don't >>> read posts here, nor do you read any articles on the web (even the ones
    you link to yourself). I think you just skim posts looking for trigger
    words or phrases so that you can tell people how wonderful you are and
    how bad others are.

    I used to think Bill's (automated?) comments were OTT and unjust.

    They aren't automated, but John and I have been posting here for some twenty five years now, and John keeps on posting the same kind of nonsense, so my responses are well-practiced. I do look for ways of varying them a bit, but the information content has remained depressingly constant.

    Arthur C Clarke accused Hollywood PR droids of having
    a single key that generated "never in the history of
    motion pictures". That's the level of "automation" I
    had in mind.

    Having said that, your ripostes are sometimes amusing,
    the content usually refers to the previous content.
    Not all posters manage to achieve that.


    Having seen John's responses recently, the "skim looking for trigger
    phrases" concept does appear to be accurate.

    Shame.

    I think "gullible twit" covers more of John Larkin's output.

    That's would be the consequence of skimming and reacting
    to phrases. "Confirmatory bias" springs to mind.

    I find that nowadays there is too much /stuff/ competing
    for our eyeballs, and that encourages skimming. In that
    sense it was better a few decades ago, when you devoured
    any data you could get your hands on to extract useful
    information.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk on Thu Feb 17 07:35:22 2022
    On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 11:09:22 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 17/02/22 07:24, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 3:49:05 AM UTC+11, Tom Gardner wrote:
    On 16/02/22 16:21, David Brown wrote:
    On 16/02/2022 17:11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 15:20:14 +0100, David Brown
    <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
    On 15/02/2022 16:58, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 16:08:43 +0100, David Brown
    <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
    On 15/02/2022 14:40, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:51:40 +0000, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    <snip>

    So you know everything (including electronic design and biology) and >>>>> you're always right and you have no tolerance for non-standard ideas. >>>>
    What kind of misreading could lead you to that conclusion? Do you bother >>>> paying any attention at all to things people write? You apparently don't >>>> read posts here, nor do you read any articles on the web (even the ones >>>> you link to yourself). I think you just skim posts looking for trigger >>>> words or phrases so that you can tell people how wonderful you are and >>>> how bad others are.

    I used to think Bill's (automated?) comments were OTT and unjust.

    They aren't automated, but John and I have been posting here for some twenty >> five years now, and John keeps on posting the same kind of nonsense, so my >> responses are well-practiced. I do look for ways of varying them a bit, but >> the information content has remained depressingly constant.

    Arthur C Clarke accused Hollywood PR droids of having
    a single key that generated "never in the history of
    motion pictures". That's the level of "automation" I
    had in mind.

    Having said that, your ripostes are sometimes amusing,
    the content usually refers to the previous content.
    Not all posters manage to achieve that.


    Having seen John's responses recently, the "skim looking for trigger
    phrases" concept does appear to be accurate.

    Shame.

    I think "gullible twit" covers more of John Larkin's output.

    That's would be the consequence of skimming and reacting
    to phrases. "Confirmatory bias" springs to mind.

    I find that nowadays there is too much /stuff/ competing
    for our eyeballs, and that encourages skimming. In that
    sense it was better a few decades ago, when you devoured
    any data you could get your hands on to extract useful
    information.

    I've been thinking about torque motors, which are beautiful and
    interesting gadgets, and specifically about simulating them to a
    FADEC. Being lazy, I do my hard thinking while I'm asleep. Coffee and
    a shower provoke delivery.

    I can't build a reasonable board that would absorb energy during
    acceleration and return it during deceleration, but most customers
    wouldn't demand that. But we could simulate the system moment of
    inertia and loading and compute angular position and report that and
    then simulate an encoder.

    We can have programmable coil resistances too. Programmable inductance
    is a whole nother issue.

    COE is a PITA.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to All on Thu Feb 17 09:39:53 2022
    On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:35:22 -0800, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
    wrote:


    I've been thinking about torque motors, which are beautiful and
    interesting gadgets, and specifically about simulating them to a
    FADEC. Being lazy, I do my hard thinking while I'm asleep. Coffee and
    a shower provoke delivery.

    I can't build a reasonable board that would absorb energy during
    acceleration and return it during deceleration,

    Actually, we could. It would be a pain, so I hope my customers don't
    find that feature appealing.




    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Thu Feb 17 11:32:43 2022
    On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:40:06 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:35:22 -0800, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com
    wrote:

    I can't build a reasonable board that would absorb energy during >acceleration and return it during deceleration,

    Actually, we could. It would be a pain, so I hope my customers don't
    find that feature appealing.

    To absorb energy during acceleration, a flywheel. To return energy during deceleration... a flywheel.

    Not sure why electronics would be involved. Mass would be my first go-to solution.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to All on Thu Feb 17 11:58:55 2022
    On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 11:32:43 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:40:06 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:35:22 -0800, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com
    wrote:

    I can't build a reasonable board that would absorb energy during
    acceleration and return it during deceleration,

    Actually, we could. It would be a pain, so I hope my customers don't
    find that feature appealing.

    To absorb energy during acceleration, a flywheel. To return energy during >deceleration... a flywheel.

    Not sure why electronics would be involved. Mass would be my first go-to solution.

    It wouldn't fit on a PC board. And we want all the parameters to be programmable.

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/8ubv5if7cbnsjzn/P940-8_front.jpg?raw=1

    The torque motor simulator (or several) would go on one of those
    plugin boards.

    During acceleration, we could dissipate the customer's drive power,
    blow hot air out the back of the box. During decel, we could push back
    power from our main kilowatt power supply. Giant hassle, but no energy
    storage would be required.

    A big spinning mass can store a lot of energy.

    People who test things like engine control computers sometimes use a
    "wet cell" or an "iron bird" that has real motors and gearboxes and
    sometimes real jet engines. But they'd rather not. They generally
    prefer a programmable process simulator.

    --

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Thu Feb 17 17:52:20 2022
    On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 2:56:47 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 11:03:10 +0000, Martin Brown<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
    On 14/02/2022 16:05, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 14:53:43 +0000, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    <snip>

    The big failing in modern EE courses is too much easily-forgotten
    mathematical rigor and too little development of electrical instincts.

    I'm not convinced that at least some of the mathematical rigour isn't >necessary if you are going to design things that will work well. I think >much more important is knowing when and how to make approximations that >will be good enough for engineering purposes. I have a small collection
    of very cute ones that make otherwise intractable problems into
    something you can solve approximately with at most a cubic equation.

    I think that the math should be immediately connected to lab
    experiments. Kids should solve the differential equations and
    immediately see the solutions on oscilloscopes, from circuits that
    they build themselves.

    Nobody that I know actually solves differential equations or computes Fourier series.

    Phil Hobbs would be able to do both if he needed to, but that makes him more competent than you are, and you don't like to think about that.

    The interesting de's are nonlinear anyhow. We should *feel* the equations. You can feel the solution to a nonlinear de a lot faster than you can solve it.

    That might might be true for you, since your skill set clearly doesn't include "solving " non-linear differential equations.

    It probably isn't true for people who paid more attention during their university education, or for people who learned to get educated by reading the literature.

    We actually simulate everything. The design methodology becomes instinct and simulation, and the kids aren't getting much instinct these days.

    Instincts can't be taught. What you actually means is that you don't like thinking about what you are doing and leave the processing to your subconscious.

    But then many kids are getting EE degrees these days.

    And you haven't got a clue what they are being taught, and would resent it if they told you that there was an easier and more reliable way of getting the results that you insist of getting by running lots of simulations (where you don't seem to be too
    picky about specifying all the parameters of the parts you are simulating - as in inductors without parallel capacitance).

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Thu Feb 17 19:06:14 2022
    On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 11:59:12 AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 11:32:43 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:40:06 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:35:22 -0800, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com
    wrote:

    I can't build a reasonable board that would absorb energy during
    acceleration and return it during deceleration,

    Actually, we could. It would be a pain, so I hope my customers don't
    find that feature appealing.

    To absorb energy during acceleration, a flywheel. To return energy during >deceleration... a flywheel.

    Not sure why electronics would be involved. Mass would be my first go-to solution.
    It wouldn't fit on a PC board. And we want all the parameters to be programmable.

    Oh, it's a simulator. So, the reaction against which the motive power is exerted
    includes the equivilant of m*a, which is d/dt (angular momentum). It'd be a poor
    model for motor startup if it didn't have current surges then. If there's any switchmode
    character to the power source, the reaction is also important in preventing spurious
    ultrasound responses to high frequency parts of the drive signal. You'll probably
    want to have a programmable load subroutine for things like rotor mass, and velocity-squared
    drag if there's a fan cooling the motor. These are internal 'force' elements, just as real as
    usable external torque.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to whit3rd@gmail.com on Fri Feb 18 03:55:07 2022
    whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in news:7045ece3-cdfe-4320-a5f9-7e2b4b3bf037n@googlegroups.com:

    On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:40:06 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:35:22 -0800,
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    I can't build a reasonable board that would absorb energy during
    acceleration and return it during deceleration,

    Actually, we could. It would be a pain, so I hope my customers
    don't find that feature appealing.

    To absorb energy during acceleration, a flywheel. To return
    energy during deceleration... a flywheel.

    Not sure why electronics would be involved. Mass would be my
    first go-to solution.


    That flywheel is the battery. Regenerative braking systems dump
    energy into the battery charging it up some. No need to spool up a
    flywheel. Trains do it into big resistor banks because they do not
    care about getting the juice back.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to All on Thu Feb 17 19:56:02 2022
    On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 19:06:14 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 11:59:12 AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 11:32:43 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:40:06 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:35:22 -0800, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com
    wrote:

    I can't build a reasonable board that would absorb energy during
    acceleration and return it during deceleration,

    Actually, we could. It would be a pain, so I hope my customers don't
    find that feature appealing.

    To absorb energy during acceleration, a flywheel. To return energy during >> >deceleration... a flywheel.

    Not sure why electronics would be involved. Mass would be my first go-to solution.
    It wouldn't fit on a PC board. And we want all the parameters to be
    programmable.

    Oh, it's a simulator. So, the reaction against which the motive power is exerted
    includes the equivilant of m*a, which is d/dt (angular momentum). It'd be a poor
    model for motor startup if it didn't have current surges then.

    Torque motors act like three-phase steppers.

    If there's any switchmode
    character to the power source,

    The drivers are usually three pwm half-bridges, chopping in the 10 to
    maybe 30 KHz range.

    the reaction is also important in preventing spurious
    ultrasound responses to high frequency parts of the drive signal. You'll probably
    want to have a programmable load subroutine for things like rotor mass, and velocity-squared
    drag if there's a fan cooling the motor. These are internal 'force' elements, just as real as
    usable external torque.

    What's cool is that after 238 hen-clucky off-topic posts in this
    thread, a single mention of real electronics silences the coop.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology. on Fri Feb 18 06:10:55 2022
    On a sunny day (Thu, 17 Feb 2022 11:58:55 -0800) it happened John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in <vf9t0hlme1baqj9vru53dlgdvoanjsa6q4@4ax.com>:

    On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 11:32:43 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:40:06 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:35:22 -0800, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com
    wrote:

    I can't build a reasonable board that would absorb energy during
    acceleration and return it during deceleration,

    Actually, we could. It would be a pain, so I hope my customers don't
    find that feature appealing.

    To absorb energy during acceleration, a flywheel. To return energy during >>deceleration... a flywheel.

    Not sure why electronics would be involved. Mass would be my first go-to solution.

    It wouldn't fit on a PC board. And we want all the parameters to be >programmable.

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/8ubv5if7cbnsjzn/P940-8_front.jpg?raw=1

    The torque motor simulator (or several) would go on one of those
    plugin boards.

    During acceleration, we could dissipate the customer's drive power,
    blow hot air out the back of the box. During decel, we could push back
    power from our main kilowatt power supply. Giant hassle, but no energy >storage would be required.

    What is wrong with some big battery pack for storage and reclaim?
    I have 250Ah 12V lifepo4 sitting in a waterproof housing here:
    http://panteltje.com/pub/250_Ah_12V_to_230V_sinewave_IXXIMG_0796.JPG
    No energy wasted.

    The thing on top is a 2kW 12V to 230V pure sinewave converter.
    It is actully for a boat, but served me well during a power outage here last week
    Works much longer than the UPS:-)
    Big storm coming now here, no more trains even.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Thu Feb 17 21:28:36 2022
    On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 2:56:14 PM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 19:06:14 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 11:59:12 AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
    On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 11:32:43 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:40:06 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:35:22 -0800, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    I can't build a reasonable board that would absorb energy during
    acceleration and return it during deceleration,

    Actually, we could. It would be a pain, so I hope my customers don't >> >> find that feature appealing.

    To absorb energy during acceleration, a flywheel. To return energy during
    deceleration... a flywheel.

    Not sure why electronics would be involved. Mass would be my first go-to solution.

    It wouldn't fit on a PC board. And we want all the parameters to be
    programmable.

    Oh, it's a simulator. So, the reaction against which the motive power is exerted
    includes the equivilant of m*a, which is d/dt (angular momentum). It'd be a poor
    model for motor startup if it didn't have current surges then.

    Torque motors act like three-phase steppers.

    Three phase steppers are just one more form of synchronous motor. More coils just let you smooth out the torque as the shaft rotates across the coils.

    If there's any switchmode character to the power source,

    The drivers are usually three pwm half-bridges, chopping in the 10 to maybe 30 KHz range.

    The reaction is also important in preventing spurious ultrasound responses to high frequency parts of the drive signal. You'll probably want to have a programmable load subroutine for things like rotor mass, and velocity-squared drag if there's a fan
    cooling the motor. These are internal 'force' elements, just as real as usable external torque.

    What's cool is that after 238 hen-clucky off-topic posts in this thread, a single mention of real electronics silences the coop.

    Since the "real electronics" was totally irrelevant to the subject line, this shouldn't come as a surprise. The more relevant posts probably did come across as "hen-clucking" to you, since you don't know enough about the subject to make sense of them,
    and consequently produced a lot of clucks about DNA which looks as if it was grafted on to what started off as a system where all the program data was held as RNA sequences.

    It may look "cool" to you, but your point of view is predicated on finding situations where your rather limited comprehension might get admired.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)