DNA animation

We don't know that. Evolution as a result of imperfect copying and the early TNA or RNA strands were probably very unstable would have to converge on a dual purpose autocatalyst that can replicate. Quite probably as a pair with it's own antisense self.

Parts of a modern eukaryote like the mitochondria and chloroplasts were almost certainly free living organisms once upon a time. Somehow they managed to get inside another cell without being lysed and the rest is history. The modern cell was able to thrive and take over.

Just because a modern mammalian eukaryote living cell needs all of its complexity to work doesn't mean that earlier simpler ones did. There are still plenty of simpler prokaryotes like bacteria for us to study.

formatting link

The search is on for the simplest possible canonical cell DNA.

And modest too.

I expect us to get close enough to a workable solution within a few decades now and possibly the same for simulating consciousness.

--
Regards, 
Martin Brown
Reply to
Martin Brown
Loading thread data ...

Oh, come on John: /think/ before you post! Speculate a little :)

The answer to that really isn't difficult.

Reply to
Tom Gardner

DMZ is your term, not science. Every organism that consumes other organisms has the same sort of requirement on other life forms. The fact that the virus does it from the inside doesn't mean it isn't alive.

Virons are not well understood. It's a bit early to say much about their classification. Viruses are much better understood. That's why we say they are life.

--
  Rick C. 

  -++- Get a 1,000 miles of free Supercharging 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Rick C

Sounds equivalent to me.

So how did we evolve such bad eyes?

Of course it's programmed. It systhesizes specific proteins and structures. And viruses.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   precision measurement  
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

Really? Wow.

I wonder how you interpret and infer what data sheets /aren't/ saying.

On second thoughts, it is probably best that you don't write software.

So a grain of sand is programmed to form piles with a half-angle of 35 degrees?

Or maybe you are using the word "programmed" in a way that is unfamiliar to me.

Reply to
Tom Gardner

Most statistics are valid, but not necessarily easily understood.

Most publishers ARE picky, but a 'wrong' conclusion cannot be reached on that basis in any meaningful way. The publishers that are NOT picky, you just have to notice that they're supported by advertisements for whoopie-cushions and X-ray glasses.

Whether reproducible or not, it has to be published to guilde a second study, and that's 'essential', not 'wrong'. It's not smart to believe the first hints of a new phenomenon, but the early reports aren't wrong because later ones give a clearer picture, or a more complete one.

Fakery doesn't qualify as study. At least, those are distinctly different words in my vocabulary, for completely different things.

Reply to
whit3rd

This seems to be showing that qubits are the same as bits in this regard.

Doesn't matter that it works "well". What matters is how fast diffusion can supply bases.

--
  Rick C. 

  -+++ Get a 1,000 miles of free Supercharging 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Rick C

In the absence of a creator, who would communicate the 'better design' to the distant outposts of life? Squid only communicate their design to their offspring.

Reply to
whit3rd

Many of John's points and questions indicate he can't get past the concept that a creator isn't necessary.

Maybe if he read "The Blind Watchmaker", but I doubt it.

Reply to
Tom Gardner

No. It doesn't. You are putting arbitrary constraints on what evolution can and cannot do. Evolution has explored many weird dead ends as well. It basically spans the space of life forms and if there is a niche with no competition eventually something will evolve to exploit it.

A change that is beneficial, neutral or only slightly detrimental to individual survival can persist. Sickle cell anaemia is one such example

- not optimum for the individual but it confers some immunity to deadly malaria not found in those of us with more normal blood cells.

formatting link

The requirement for a novel trait to establish in the population is for the first person with that novel feature to survive and reproduce (and for their offspring to be fertile).

It must have all been done in SuperBasic ;-)

--
Regards, 
Martin Brown
Reply to
Martin Brown

I've maybe done a few hundred K lines of code by now. Lots of realtime systems, instruments, two compilers, three pre-emptive RTOSs.

I wrote one RTOS while staying with a girlfriend in Juneau. I wrote a few pages on paper each day and mailed them back to the factory. People there typed it and assembled it. It had one bug.

I don't program a lot these days; coding is boring. The kids here do a lot of c and Python and VHDL and I mostly do product ideas and architectures and hardware design.

This is SED. Electronic design.

DNA has long sequences of base pairs that direct the synthesis of complex molecules, and physical structures in people, and then more DNA itself. I consider those sets of instructions to be programs, with instruction sets, that are executed by cellular machinery. I don't know who the authors are, but people are now learning how to edit those programs.

The program instructions specify the construction of the machines that execute the programs. That's life, I guess. [1]

I kind of hope that someone left copyright notices.

I guess you object to calling these sequences of base pair instructions "programs" because you are afraid that might sound like creationism. I suspect that fear of the c-word prevents all sorts of things from being discovered. Actually, that effect has been documented.

[1] Steve Jobs once claimed that he used a Cray computer to design one of the Apple machines. Seymour Cray replied that he used an Apple computer to design his Cray machines.
--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   precision measurement  
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

That's true. Given enough even random data, and an open mind about expectations, one can tease out small p-value correlations and publish.

Or by page fees and paid access.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   precision measurement  
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

The best answer is that our eyes aren't actually inferior, given what we use them for. There's no other species on the planet that can out-hunt a human with a gun and some insect repellant.

The "human eyes are badly designed" position is used as an argument against an all-wise Creator. That's dumb, to let an emotional position interfere with reasoning.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   precision measurement  
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

s/program/recipe/ or s/program/instruction/ and I'll be happier.

"Program" implies "programmer", and that's creationism using different terminology.

People are indeed learning how to edit the recipe and create recipes from scratch.

The instructions do that, and it is life (which has multiple definitions :) )

I'm not afraid of it sounding like creationism.

I am afraid of the ignorance associated with creationism, and of some of the social policies promoted by those that espouse creationism.

Reply to
Tom Gardner

Many of the counter-arguments are clearly from people whose reasoning is warped by needing to stay far away from facts that even suggest, or give support to, creationism. So they stick with primordial soup.

I'll get that and read it.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   precision measurement  
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

l that

e

Not an

Sorry, your ideas aren't in line with reality. While any given trait or ev en species can die out, when it formed and spread through a population it p rovided an advantage or at least offered no substantial liability. While a trait can spread through a population over time even without being of much benefit, if it is a liability it will be selected out.

Another assumption on your part. There is nothing to say all niches will b e populated. The basic increment of evolution is random changes. Since th ey are indeed random that does not mean all will be explored. There is als o the fact that for many significant features multiple traits had to develo p before they became significant. So while waiting for one change to devel op and spread through a population another change may die out.

d-off-malaria/

This does not prove your point. Where malaria is prevalent sickle cells pr ovide a benefit and so are established in the population. They are spread more widely only recently since man's other evolutionary changes have made transportation widespread. Give it a few thousand generations and it most likely will be selected out.

And likewise for most subsequent carriers of that trait.

I don't know why Larson has such limited vision. Why he can't understand t hat it all didn't need to be in place at once which is basically the watchm aker's fallacy.

--
  Rick C. 

  +--- Get a 1,000 miles of free Supercharging 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Rick C

Sure is. Next time there's an Ebola outbreak we'll send you in to fight it. How does that sound, bwana?

How does it support creationism???

--
  Rick C. 

  +--+ Get a 1,000 miles of free Supercharging 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Rick C

That's your fear, getting anywhere near creationism. Fear creates avoidance, and avoidance creates blind spots.

That's no reason to look away from possibilities past primordial soup.

Fear disables thought.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   precision measurement  
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

Yes, but "benefit" is not necessarily what we would expect.

The canonical examples are the peacock and the birds of paradise in Papua New Guinea.

Their extravagant tail feathers are a significant liability that make them an easier target for preditors. That is more than compensated for by their attractiveness to females and hence increased change of reproduction.

The selfish gene gains the benefit of the dangerous feathers, even if the individual bird doesn't.

Reply to
Tom Gardner

Please do.

Take the time to appreciate the beautiful prose and the subtle arguments presented. The author avoids some of the histrionics that pervade some of his later books. Try to avoid distractions like the internet :)

It was written a long time ago, and I haven't re-read it recently. Many of the arguments presented are inevitably framed in terms used when written, e.g. the term "intelligent design" hadn't been invented. But that doesn't matter, since the term ID was largely created as a response to the effectiveness of the arguments in The Blind Watchmaker.

Reply to
Tom Gardner

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.