On 23/03/2022 15:39, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 07:34:20 +0000, Tom Gardner
> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 23/03/22 00:50, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 00:19:51 +0000, Tom Gardner
>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 22/03/22 22:48, John Larkin wrote:

>>>>> There may be things that we will never understand. The origin of the
>>>>> universe. The origin of life.
>>>>
>>>> Saying "God created it", or anything equivalent, is
>>>> not understanding. It is avoiding understanding.
>>>
>>> I never said that.
>>
>> Several people have pointed out that you have repeatedly
>> said thing that /are/ *equivalent*. They have given
>> reasons for the equivalence.
>
> Cite a statement where I said that God created life on earth.
>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On 23/03/22 14:39, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 07:34:20 +0000, Tom Gardner
> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 23/03/22 00:50, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 00:19:51 +0000, Tom Gardner
>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 22/03/22 22:48, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 22:13:21 +0000, Tom Gardner
>>>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 22/03/22 19:02, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 16:13:27 +0000, Tom Gardner
>>>>>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 21/03/22 23:01, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Our cells are "irreducibly complex."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's a meaningless phrase and concept.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It says and means exactly that a mechanism is complex and simpler
>>>>>>> subsets don't work. It's a common concept.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you know of a cell replication mechanism that is simpler than the
>>>>>>> one we have, please tell us about it. I especially like that 10,000
>>>>>>> RPM DNA unwinder thing, and the bit that copies one strand in segmemts
>>>>>>> in reverse. And the funny things that walk around carrying things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ah. You mean the cellular reproduction mechanism is
>>>>>> irreducibly complex.
>>>>>
>>>>> That too.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is as vacuous as the concept we saw as kid, that
>>>>>>>> the key living part of the cell is "protoplasm".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You should have more faith in mankind's intellect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You should be more polite.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You should have more faith in mankind's intellect.
>>>>>> It exceeds yours (and mine).
>>>>>
>>>>> There may be things that we will never understand. The origin of the
>>>>> universe. The origin of life.
>>>>
>>>> Saying "God created it", or anything equivalent, is
>>>> not understanding. It is avoiding understanding.
>>>
>>> I never said that.
>>
>> Several people have pointed out that you have repeatedly
>> said thing that /are/ *equivalent*. They have given
>> reasons for the equivalence.
>
> Cite a statement where I said that God created life on earth.
>
> And "several people" ? That's your call to authority? Several people
> on usenet!

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

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

On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 16:34:55 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

>On 22/03/2022 17:18, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 16:54:27 +0100, David Brown
>> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>
>>> On 22/03/2022 00:01, John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 21:18:31 +0100, David Brown
>>>> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 21/03/2022 20:47, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 19:45:04 +0100, David Brown
>>>>>> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 21/03/2022 17:01, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Right - so when you say "Darwinism is hand-waving. It's just another
>>>>> anti-faith faith", you weren't actually dismissing it?
>>>>
>>>> It's possible but unlikely that our DNA life evolved that way.
>>>
>>> You have no basis for determining the probabilities here.
>>
>> I read books authored by biochemists. Their numbers look reasonable.
>>
>> A protein is a string of amino acids, typically a chain of 30 or more.
>> There are 20 available amino acids used to build proteins.
>>
>> A cell needs thousands of proteins to work and reproduce. Many have no
>> conceivable incremental evolutionary path to work; subsections are
>> useless.
>>
>> Do the math.
>>
>
>What the *bleep* are you talking about? Only the "God did it" lot think
>scientific abiogenesis hypothesis suggest that a modern day cell turned
>up fully functional, by chance in a slime pool. I keep telling you that
>you have /no/ idea what the RNA World hypothesis is, or any other aspect
>of abiogenesis research, or how basic science works. You think it's an
>insult - it's simple fact, and you prove it again and again.

OK, you can't do math.

--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

On 23/03/2022 17:02, Tom Gardner wrote:
> On 23/03/22 14:43, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 06:13:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>> <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On a sunny day (Tue, 22 Mar 2022 15:48:30 -0700) it happened John Larkin
>>> <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
>>> <h7kk3hht887bu7jotdp2a7q4punnbounve@4ax.com>:
>>>
>>>> There may be things that we will never understand. The origin of the
>>>> universe. The origin of life. Where consciousness comes from.
>>>>
>>>> Certainly nobody understands them now, so reasonable open-mindedness
>>>> is not a failing to be mocked.
>>>
>>> As to evolution, would you ever expect that an ape-like colony as we are
>>> would self evolve to produce microchips? Communicate via radio?
>>> It is the same mechanism at work!
>>
>> Darwinian incremental evolution happens in plain sight, although it is
>> surely more efficient than random mutation and natural selection.
>
> What do you think Darwinian evolution is, if not random mutation
> plus natural selection?
>

You are making an unwarranted assumption here, by your use of the word
"think" in the question.

>
>> The big unknown is how the first, incredibly complex, reproducing
>> DNA-based cells came to be, and survived.
>
> That key question is currently not well answered, but several
> plausible natural mechanisms have been suggested.
>
> I have faith that mankind will continue to refine both
> understanding and questions about that topic.
>
>
>> That couldn't have been an incremental process.
>
> Why not?
>

Because John says it couldn't - because he read a book once that said
DNA-based cells are "irreducibly complex". He doesn't know what the
phrase means, but it sounded right to him - after all, it was an "idea",
and all ideas are holy.

Of course you and I and the world of science knows that is bollocks.
The article linked at the start of this thread showed reproducing
interacting RNA, and the Darwinian evolution of DNA-based cells from
RNA-based cells is quite easy to imagine.

On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 17:02:43 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

>On 23/03/2022 15:39, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 07:34:20 +0000, Tom Gardner
>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 23/03/22 00:50, John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 00:19:51 +0000, Tom Gardner
>>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 22/03/22 22:48, John Larkin wrote:
>
>>>>>> There may be things that we will never understand. The origin of the
>>>>>> universe. The origin of life.
>>>>>
>>>>> Saying "God created it", or anything equivalent, is
>>>>> not understanding. It is avoiding understanding.
>>>>
>>>> I never said that.
>>>
>>> Several people have pointed out that you have repeatedly
>>> said thing that /are/ *equivalent*. They have given
>>> reasons for the equivalence.
>>
>> Cite a statement where I said that God created life on earth.
>>
>
><https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Didit_fallacy>

OK, you can't cite any such thing that I said. Maybe because I never
said it.

>
>Saying aliens might have created life on earth, or robots from space, or
>some kind of god, "intelligent design", or that DNA designed itself -
>it's all the same pointless non-argument. As Tom says, its trying to
>avoid understanding - avoiding thought, learning, experimentation.

Tell us about your biology experiments.

I think you are just another twitter-level flamer. Do you still work?

--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 16:02:14 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>On 23/03/22 14:43, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 06:13:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>> <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On a sunny day (Tue, 22 Mar 2022 15:48:30 -0700) it happened John Larkin
>>> <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
>>> <h7kk3hht887bu7jotdp2a7q4punnbounve@4ax.com>:
>>>
>>>> There may be things that we will never understand. The origin of the
>>>> universe. The origin of life. Where consciousness comes from.
>>>>
>>>> Certainly nobody understands them now, so reasonable open-mindedness
>>>> is not a failing to be mocked.
>>>
>>> As to evolution, would you ever expect that an ape-like colony as we are
>>> would self evolve to produce microchips? Communicate via radio?
>>> It is the same mechanism at work!
>>
>> Darwinian incremental evolution happens in plain sight, although it is
>> surely more efficient than random mutation and natural selection.
>
>What do you think Darwinian evolution is, if not random mutation
>plus natural selection?

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

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

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

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

>
>
>> The big unknown is how the first, incredibly complex, reproducing
>> DNA-based cells came to be, and survived.
>
>That key question is currently not well answered, but several
>plausible natural mechanisms have been suggested.

But not demonstrated. And other suggestions are mocked.

>
>I have faith that mankind will continue to refine both
>understanding and questions about that topic.
>
>
>> That couldn't have been an incremental process.
>
>Why not?
>

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

--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

On 23/03/22 16:09, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 16:34:55 +0100, David Brown
> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>
>> On 22/03/2022 17:18, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 16:54:27 +0100, David Brown
>>> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 22/03/2022 00:01, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 21:18:31 +0100, David Brown
>>>>> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 21/03/2022 20:47, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 19:45:04 +0100, David Brown
>>>>>>> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 21/03/2022 17:01, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right - so when you say "Darwinism is hand-waving. It's just another
>>>>>> anti-faith faith", you weren't actually dismissing it?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's possible but unlikely that our DNA life evolved that way.
>>>>
>>>> You have no basis for determining the probabilities here.
>>>
>>> I read books authored by biochemists. Their numbers look reasonable.
>>>
>>> A protein is a string of amino acids, typically a chain of 30 or more.
>>> There are 20 available amino acids used to build proteins.
>>>
>>> A cell needs thousands of proteins to work and reproduce. Many have no
>>> conceivable incremental evolutionary path to work; subsections are
>>> useless.
>>>
>>> Do the math.
>>>
>>
>> What the *bleep* are you talking about? Only the "God did it" lot think
>> scientific abiogenesis hypothesis suggest that a modern day cell turned
>> up fully functional, by chance in a slime pool. I keep telling you that
>> you have /no/ idea what the RNA World hypothesis is, or any other aspect
>> of abiogenesis research, or how basic science works. You think it's an
>> insult - it's simple fact, and you prove it again and again.
>
> OK, you can't do math.

Your arithmetic is probably right, but it is incorrect maths.
Correct maths starts with formulating the relevant model.

On 23/03/22 16:13, David Brown wrote:
> On 23/03/2022 17:02, Tom Gardner wrote:
>> On 23/03/22 14:43, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 06:13:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>>> <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On a sunny day (Tue, 22 Mar 2022 15:48:30 -0700) it happened John Larkin
>>>> <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
>>>> <h7kk3hht887bu7jotdp2a7q4punnbounve@4ax.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> There may be things that we will never understand. The origin of the
>>>>> universe. The origin of life. Where consciousness comes from.
>>>>>
>>>>> Certainly nobody understands them now, so reasonable open-mindedness
>>>>> is not a failing to be mocked.
>>>>
>>>> As to evolution, would you ever expect that an ape-like colony as we are
>>>> would self evolve to produce microchips? Communicate via radio?
>>>> It is the same mechanism at work!
>>>
>>> Darwinian incremental evolution happens in plain sight, although it is
>>> surely more efficient than random mutation and natural selection.
>>
>> What do you think Darwinian evolution is, if not random mutation
>> plus natural selection?
>>
>
> You are making an unwarranted assumption here, by your use of the word
> "think" in the question.

Oh, I think "think" was apposite; "reason" wouldn't have been.

Even those in insane asylums "think".

>>> The big unknown is how the first, incredibly complex, reproducing
>>> DNA-based cells came to be, and survived.
>>
>> That key question is currently not well answered, but several
>> plausible natural mechanisms have been suggested.
>>
>> I have faith that mankind will continue to refine both
>> understanding and questions about that topic.
>>
>>
>>> That couldn't have been an incremental process.
>>
>> Why not?
>>
>
> Because John says it couldn't - because he read a book once that said
> DNA-based cells are "irreducibly complex". He doesn't know what the
> phrase means, but it sounded right to him - after all, it was an "idea",
> and all ideas are holy.

Yeah, he does tend to fall back on "argument by personal
incredulity", which most of us find unsatisfying and try
to avoid.

> Of course you and I and the world of science knows that is bollocks.
> The article linked at the start of this thread showed reproducing
> interacting RNA, and the Darwinian evolution of DNA-based cells from
> RNA-based cells is quite easy to imagine.

Which can, of course, be compared and contrasted with Larkin's
beliefs that none of us have imagination and new ideas.

On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 16:05:18 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>On 23/03/22 14:39, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 07:34:20 +0000, Tom Gardner
>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 23/03/22 00:50, John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 00:19:51 +0000, Tom Gardner
>>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 22/03/22 22:48, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 22:13:21 +0000, Tom Gardner
>>>>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 22/03/22 19:02, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 16:13:27 +0000, Tom Gardner
>>>>>>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 21/03/22 23:01, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Our cells are "irreducibly complex."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's a meaningless phrase and concept.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It says and means exactly that a mechanism is complex and simpler
>>>>>>>> subsets don't work. It's a common concept.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you know of a cell replication mechanism that is simpler than the
>>>>>>>> one we have, please tell us about it. I especially like that 10,000
>>>>>>>> RPM DNA unwinder thing, and the bit that copies one strand in segmemts
>>>>>>>> in reverse. And the funny things that walk around carrying things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ah. You mean the cellular reproduction mechanism is
>>>>>>> irreducibly complex.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is as vacuous as the concept we saw as kid, that
>>>>>>>>> the key living part of the cell is "protoplasm".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You should have more faith in mankind's intellect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You should be more polite.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You should have more faith in mankind's intellect.
>>>>>>> It exceeds yours (and mine).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There may be things that we will never understand. The origin of the
>>>>>> universe. The origin of life.
>>>>>
>>>>> Saying "God created it", or anything equivalent, is
>>>>> not understanding. It is avoiding understanding.
>>>>
>>>> I never said that.
>>>
>>> Several people have pointed out that you have repeatedly
>>> said thing that /are/ *equivalent*. They have given
>>> reasons for the equivalence.
>>
>> Cite a statement where I said that God created life on earth.
>>
>> And "several people" ? That's your call to authority? Several people
>> on usenet!
>
>No "authority" is required, merely reading your posts
>is sufficient.
>
>"Several people" merely serves to show that my reading
>of your posts isn't completely wrong, no more.

It shows that you are not the only clicking old hen in SED who doesn't
design electronics.

All sorts of people can find buddies. It takes no skill.

SED is dying. People who are good at electronic design are repulsed by
the squabbling hens who can't.

--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

On 23/03/22 16:30, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 16:02:14 +0000, Tom Gardner
> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 23/03/22 14:43, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 06:13:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>>> <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On a sunny day (Tue, 22 Mar 2022 15:48:30 -0700) it happened John Larkin
>>>> <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
>>>> <h7kk3hht887bu7jotdp2a7q4punnbounve@4ax.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> There may be things that we will never understand. The origin of the
>>>>> universe. The origin of life. Where consciousness comes from.
>>>>>
>>>>> Certainly nobody understands them now, so reasonable open-mindedness
>>>>> is not a failing to be mocked.
>>>>
>>>> As to evolution, would you ever expect that an ape-like colony as we are
>>>> would self evolve to produce microchips? Communicate via radio?
>>>> It is the same mechanism at work!
>>>
>>> Darwinian incremental evolution happens in plain sight, although it is
>>> surely more efficient than random mutation and natural selection.
>>
>> What do you think Darwinian evolution is, if not random mutation
>> plus natural selection?
>
> Probably something more like AI, prototyping more complex things than
> random base-pair damage.
>
> If some programmers can claim they have AI after a few years of
> coding, imagine what a planet full of cells can invent in a few
> billion years.
>
> A folded, squirming protein sounds like a pretty good
> cross-correlation machine. Looking for viable protein sequences could
> be done by some better way than seeing if random mistakes help
> offspring survive.
>
> In other words, evolution evolves, even if neo-Darwinists don't want
> it to.

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

Darwinian evolution /is/ random mutation plus natural selection.

>>> The big unknown is how the first, incredibly complex, reproducing
>>> DNA-based cells came to be, and survived.
>>
>> That key question is currently not well answered, but several
>> plausible natural mechanisms have been suggested.
>
> But not demonstrated. And other suggestions are mocked.
>
>>
>> I have faith that mankind will continue to refine both
>> understanding and questions about that topic.
>>
>>
>>> That couldn't have been an incremental process.
>>
>> Why not?
>>
>
> Because a minimal DNA reproduction mechanism needs complex-programmed
> DNA surrounded by complex support mechanisms. None of that is useful
> until it all works.

The "intelligent designer" fraternity used to claim that
about eyes, livers, etc.

We know better now.

On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Mar 2022 08:22:36 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Anthony
William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
<3b39ce8a-366c-4514-8f2c-394a97485365n@googlegroups.com>:

>The RNA-world hypothesis says that RNA-based cells came first, and DNA got grafted on later. The silicon that replaced to the
>RNA-germanium, or the DNA hard disk that replaced the RNA floppy.
>
>The first cells won't have been incredibly complex.
>
>https://www.wired.com/2016/03/mystery-minimal-cell-craig-venters-new-synthetic-life-form/
>Craig Venter got his "minimal" cells down to 473 genes (we've got about 20,000), but we don't know what 149 of them do. Seventy
>of them sort of make sense, but the last 79 are a mystery, at least at the moment.

There is actually a 2021 update to that, they added 19 genes back to the cell, 7 of which are needed for normal cel division.
from NIST:
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2021/03/scientists-create-simple-synthetic-cell-grows-and-divides-normally
still have only figured out what 2 of those 7 added genes do..

On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 16:39:50 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>On 23/03/22 16:30, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 16:02:14 +0000, Tom Gardner
>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 23/03/22 14:43, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 06:13:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>>>> <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On a sunny day (Tue, 22 Mar 2022 15:48:30 -0700) it happened John Larkin
>>>>> <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
>>>>> <h7kk3hht887bu7jotdp2a7q4punnbounve@4ax.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> There may be things that we will never understand. The origin of the
>>>>>> universe. The origin of life. Where consciousness comes from.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Certainly nobody understands them now, so reasonable open-mindedness
>>>>>> is not a failing to be mocked.
>>>>>
>>>>> As to evolution, would you ever expect that an ape-like colony as we are
>>>>> would self evolve to produce microchips? Communicate via radio?
>>>>> It is the same mechanism at work!
>>>>
>>>> Darwinian incremental evolution happens in plain sight, although it is
>>>> surely more efficient than random mutation and natural selection.
>>>
>>> What do you think Darwinian evolution is, if not random mutation
>>> plus natural selection?
>>
>> Probably something more like AI, prototyping more complex things than
>> random base-pair damage.
>>
>> If some programmers can claim they have AI after a few years of
>> coding, imagine what a planet full of cells can invent in a few
>> billion years.
>>
>> A folded, squirming protein sounds like a pretty good
>> cross-correlation machine. Looking for viable protein sequences could
>> be done by some better way than seeing if random mistakes help
>> offspring survive.
>>
>> In other words, evolution evolves, even if neo-Darwinists don't want
>> it to.
>
>That might be a form of evolution, but it isn't Darwinian evolution.
>
>Darwinian evolution /is/ random mutation plus natural selection.

Darwin himself didn't know the source of variation. The neo-Darwinists
have insisted that it must be random mutations to genes. They are also
hostile to any Lamarckian effects, which could surely be useful thus
encouraged by evolution.

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

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

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

I need to read this:

https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Neo-Darwinism-Introduction-Evolutionary-Paradigm/dp/012350080X

Just ordered it.

--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

On 23/03/22 17:24, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 16:39:50 +0000, Tom Gardner
> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 23/03/22 16:30, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 16:02:14 +0000, Tom Gardner
>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 23/03/22 14:43, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 06:13:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>>>>> <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On a sunny day (Tue, 22 Mar 2022 15:48:30 -0700) it happened John Larkin
>>>>>> <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
>>>>>> <h7kk3hht887bu7jotdp2a7q4punnbounve@4ax.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There may be things that we will never understand. The origin of the
>>>>>>> universe. The origin of life. Where consciousness comes from.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Certainly nobody understands them now, so reasonable open-mindedness
>>>>>>> is not a failing to be mocked.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As to evolution, would you ever expect that an ape-like colony as we are
>>>>>> would self evolve to produce microchips? Communicate via radio?
>>>>>> It is the same mechanism at work!
>>>>>
>>>>> Darwinian incremental evolution happens in plain sight, although it is
>>>>> surely more efficient than random mutation and natural selection.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think Darwinian evolution is, if not random mutation
>>>> plus natural selection?
>>>
>>> Probably something more like AI, prototyping more complex things than
>>> random base-pair damage.
>>>
>>> If some programmers can claim they have AI after a few years of
>>> coding, imagine what a planet full of cells can invent in a few
>>> billion years.
>>>
>>> A folded, squirming protein sounds like a pretty good
>>> cross-correlation machine. Looking for viable protein sequences could
>>> be done by some better way than seeing if random mistakes help
>>> offspring survive.
>>>
>>> In other words, evolution evolves, even if neo-Darwinists don't want
>>> it to.
>>
>> That might be a form of evolution, but it isn't Darwinian evolution.
>>
>> Darwinian evolution /is/ random mutation plus natural selection.
>
> Darwin himself didn't know the source of variation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Irrelevant.

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

Indeed. But where they are needed to explain effects, they
are acknowledged and used.

> I need to read this:
>
> https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Neo-Darwinism-Introduction-Evolutionary-Paradigm/dp/012350080X
>
> Just ordered it.

You need to persevere with trying to understand the
subtle arguments and refutations in "The Blind Watchmaker".

You already possess it.

On 23/03/2022 17:31, Tom Gardner wrote:
> On 23/03/22 16:09, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 16:34:55 +0100, David Brown
>> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>
>>> On 22/03/2022 17:18, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 16:54:27 +0100, David Brown
>>>> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 22/03/2022 00:01, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 21:18:31 +0100, David Brown
>>>>>> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 21/03/2022 20:47, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 19:45:04 +0100, David Brown
>>>>>>>> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 21/03/2022 17:01, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right - so when you say "Darwinism is hand-waving.  It's just
>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>> anti-faith faith", you weren't actually dismissing it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's possible but unlikely that our DNA life evolved that way.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have no basis for determining the probabilities here.
>>>>
>>>> I read books authored by biochemists. Their numbers look reasonable.
>>>>
>>>> A protein is a string of amino acids, typically a chain of 30 or more.
>>>> There are 20 available amino acids used to build proteins.
>>>>
>>>> A cell needs thousands of proteins to work and reproduce. Many have no
>>>> conceivable incremental evolutionary path to work; subsections are
>>>> useless.
>>>>
>>>> Do the math.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What the *bleep* are you talking about?  Only the "God did it" lot think
>>> scientific abiogenesis hypothesis suggest that a modern day cell turned
>>> up fully functional, by chance in a slime pool.  I keep telling you that
>>> you have /no/ idea what the RNA World hypothesis is, or any other aspect
>>> of abiogenesis research, or how basic science works.  You think it's an
>>> insult - it's simple fact, and you prove it again and again.
>>
>> OK, you can't do math.
>
> Your arithmetic is probably right, but it is incorrect maths.
> Correct maths starts with formulating the relevant model.

That's the key. Pick some irrelevant numbers. Do some irrelevant
calculations with them. Rinse and repeat until you get a number you
like. Call it "math" (since Larkin is American). If reality doesn't
fit Larkin's ideas, that's reality's problem.

On 23/03/2022 17:14, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 17:02:43 +0100, David Brown
> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>
>> On 23/03/2022 15:39, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 07:34:20 +0000, Tom Gardner
>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 23/03/22 00:50, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 00:19:51 +0000, Tom Gardner
>>>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 22/03/22 22:48, John Larkin wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> There may be things that we will never understand. The origin of the
>>>>>>> universe. The origin of life.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Saying "God created it", or anything equivalent, is
>>>>>> not understanding. It is avoiding understanding.
>>>>>
>>>>> I never said that.
>>>>
>>>> Several people have pointed out that you have repeatedly
>>>> said thing that /are/ *equivalent*. They have given
>>>> reasons for the equivalence.
>>>
>>> Cite a statement where I said that God created life on earth.
>>>
>>
>> <https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Didit_fallacy>
>
> OK, you can't cite any such thing that I said. Maybe because I never
> said it.

I haven't bothered trawling the archives for every post of yours citing
"intelligent DNA", "alien robots", and whatever other nonsense you have
said that all amounts to "God did it". (Maybe you didn't read that link
and you still don't see the connection?)

>
>>
>> Saying aliens might have created life on earth, or robots from space, or
>> some kind of god, "intelligent design", or that DNA designed itself -
>> it's all the same pointless non-argument. As Tom says, its trying to
>> avoid understanding - avoiding thought, learning, experimentation.
>
> Tell us about your biology experiments.
>

Tell us about /yours/.

I live and work by scientific principles, I don't work as a professional
scientist. That means I /don't/ do experiments when there are others
who do them better and publish their results. Science works by
cooperation - no one has a hope of ever learning more than a tiny
fraction of scientific knowledge. It is important that experiments are
duplicated to reduce the risk of errors (intentional or unintentional),
but it's rare for people to have much to contribute to research outside
their particular field. That does not hinder people like me from
learning about many fields of science.

> I think you are just another twitter-level flamer. Do you still work?
>

Yes, I work. Have you ever tried it?

On 23/03/2022 17:39, Tom Gardner wrote:
> On 23/03/22 16:30, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

>> Because a minimal DNA reproduction mechanism needs complex-programmed
>> DNA surrounded by complex support mechanisms. None of that is useful
>> until it all works.
>
> The "intelligent designer" fraternity used to claim that
> about eyes, livers, etc.
>
> We know better now.

We knew better before, too. As Darwin himself said:

"""
[R]eason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and
complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to
its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever
so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the
case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful
to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of
believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural
selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be
considered real.
"""

Larkin simply has no imagination.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance>

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

>The Blind Watchmaker

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

Dawkins is a self-admitted agressive atheist. That corrals all his
thinking.

--

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

On 23/03/2022 18:46, Tom Gardner wrote:
> On 23/03/22 17:24, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 16:39:50 +0000, Tom Gardner
>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 23/03/22 16:30, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 16:02:14 +0000, Tom Gardner
>>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 23/03/22 14:43, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 06:13:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>>>>>> <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On a sunny day (Tue, 22 Mar 2022 15:48:30 -0700) it happened John
>>>>>>> Larkin
>>>>>>> <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
>>>>>>> <h7kk3hht887bu7jotdp2a7q4punnbounve@4ax.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There may be things that we will never understand. The origin of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> universe. The origin of life. Where consciousness comes from.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Certainly nobody understands them now, so reasonable
>>>>>>>> open-mindedness
>>>>>>>> is not a failing to be mocked.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As to evolution, would you ever expect that an ape-like colony as
>>>>>>> we are
>>>>>>> would self evolve to produce microchips? Communicate via radio?
>>>>>>> It is the same mechanism at work!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Darwinian incremental evolution happens in plain sight, although
>>>>>> it is
>>>>>> surely more efficient than random mutation and natural selection.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think Darwinian evolution is, if not random mutation
>>>>> plus natural selection?
>>>>
>>>> Probably something more like AI, prototyping more complex things than
>>>> random base-pair damage.
>>>>
>>>> If some programmers can claim they have AI after a few years of
>>>> coding, imagine what a planet full of cells can invent in a few
>>>> billion years.
>>>>
>>>> A folded, squirming protein sounds like a pretty good
>>>> cross-correlation machine. Looking for viable protein sequences could
>>>> be done by some better way than seeing if random mistakes help
>>>> offspring survive.
>>>>
>>>> In other words, evolution evolves, even if neo-Darwinists don't want
>>>> it to.
>>>
>>> That might be a form of evolution, but it isn't Darwinian evolution.
>>>
>>> Darwinian evolution /is/ random mutation plus natural selection.
>>
>> Darwin himself didn't know the source of variation.
>
> Correct - as illustrated by the sentence "Darwinian evolution
> is random mutation plus natural selection".

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

>
>
>> The neo-Darwinists
>> have insisted that it must be random mutations to genes.
>
> We have subsequently discovered genes (and more) as the
> mechanism of heredity. Random changes are a /sufficient/
> mechanism for Darwinian evolution, even though "intelligent
> designer" fraternity can't get their heads around it.
>
>
>> They are also
>> hostile to any Lamarckian effects, which could surely be useful thus
>> encouraged by evolution.
>
> No mechanism has been discovered, and it is not /necessary/
> for Darwinian evolution.
>

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

>
>> Part of the hostility to alternate ideas is the need to not be accused
>> of even slightly trending in the direction of causation or even
>> complexity. That's a barbed-wire fence against unpermitted thinking.
>
> The hostility is against alternate ideas that have already
> been considered in detail, and found wanting.
>

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

> Alternate ideas - when they make predict and explain new
> effects - are sought after, since they can lead to reward
> and recognition.
>
> Having said that, they may take a generation to become
> established wisdom, and that's no bad thing.
>
>
>> Being in the design business, I am fascinated by how common is
>> hostility to playing with ideas.
>
> Irrelevant.

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

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

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

>
> Indeed. But where they are needed to explain effects, they
> are acknowledged and used.
>
>
>
>> I need to read this:
>>
>> https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Neo-Darwinism-Introduction-Evolutionary-Paradigm/dp/012350080X
>>
>>
>> Just ordered it.

I had a quick check - it is edited by Mae-Wan Ho:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mae-Wan_Ho>

She's even famous enough to be on RationalWiki:

<https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mae-Wan_Ho>

Cofounder of an "interest" group that publishes "fringe articles" on
climate change, homeopathy, traditional Chinese medicine and "water
memory". Being on the "Quackwatch list of questionable organisations"
is not great credentials.

Now, I'm sure she has also done plenty of good work, and it's good for
society to have people that are openly and actively sceptical to things
like genetic engineering - whether what she says is right or wrong, it's
important to make sure researchers think about and justify the ethics
and risks of what they do and not get carried away in their enthusiasm.

But for a layperson like Larkin, who is missing an understanding of
mainstream science in a field, it is unhelpful to read work by such an
outlier. You need to understand - but not necessarily agree with -
standard viewpoints before it makes sense to consider alternative views.

>
> You need to persevere with trying to understand the
> subtle arguments and refutations in "The Blind Watchmaker".
>
> You already possess it.
>

On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 9:30:45 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 16:02:14 +0000, Tom Gardner
> <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >On 23/03/22 14:43, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

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

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

> But not demonstrated. And other suggestions are mocked.

Mechanisms that aren't 'natural' are ... man-made?
As an origin story for life, 'a man made it' is certain to be
mocked, as it gets cause and effect in the wrong temporal order.

If you ever met your parents, you know part of your origin story.
You may expect never to know ALL of it. When there's billions of
links in a chain, historic records will miss a few recent links,
and many old ones.

> >> That couldn't have been an incremental process.
> >
> >Why not?
> >
> Because a minimal DNA reproduction mechanism needs complex-programmed
> DNA surrounded by complex support mechanisms. None of that is useful
> until it all works.

Why does 'is useful' show up in a chain of random occurrences? By hypothesis,
random variations include nonuseful ones. If they didn't, they wouldn't be random.

On 23/03/22 19:35, David Brown wrote:
> On 23/03/2022 18:46, Tom Gardner wrote:
>> On 23/03/22 17:24, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 16:39:50 +0000, Tom Gardner
>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 23/03/22 16:30, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 16:02:14 +0000, Tom Gardner
>>>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 23/03/22 14:43, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 06:13:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>>>>>>> <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On a sunny day (Tue, 22 Mar 2022 15:48:30 -0700) it happened John
>>>>>>>> Larkin
>>>>>>>> <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>> <h7kk3hht887bu7jotdp2a7q4punnbounve@4ax.com>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There may be things that we will never understand. The origin of
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> universe. The origin of life. Where consciousness comes from.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Certainly nobody understands them now, so reasonable
>>>>>>>>> open-mindedness
>>>>>>>>> is not a failing to be mocked.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As to evolution, would you ever expect that an ape-like colony as
>>>>>>>> we are
>>>>>>>> would self evolve to produce microchips? Communicate via radio?
>>>>>>>> It is the same mechanism at work!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Darwinian incremental evolution happens in plain sight, although
>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>> surely more efficient than random mutation and natural selection.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you think Darwinian evolution is, if not random mutation
>>>>>> plus natural selection?
>>>>>
>>>>> Probably something more like AI, prototyping more complex things than
>>>>> random base-pair damage.
>>>>>
>>>>> If some programmers can claim they have AI after a few years of
>>>>> coding, imagine what a planet full of cells can invent in a few
>>>>> billion years.
>>>>>
>>>>> A folded, squirming protein sounds like a pretty good
>>>>> cross-correlation machine. Looking for viable protein sequences could
>>>>> be done by some better way than seeing if random mistakes help
>>>>> offspring survive.
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, evolution evolves, even if neo-Darwinists don't want
>>>>> it to.
>>>>
>>>> That might be a form of evolution, but it isn't Darwinian evolution.
>>>>
>>>> Darwinian evolution /is/ random mutation plus natural selection.
>>>
>>> Darwin himself didn't know the source of variation.
>>
>> Correct - as illustrated by the sentence "Darwinian evolution
>> is random mutation plus natural selection".
>
> Darwin didn't know how inherited traits were passed on, or how mutations
> occurred. All he knew - and all he needed to know - was that traits
> /were/ inherited, and random mutations /do/ occur.
>
>>
>>
>>> The neo-Darwinists
>>> have insisted that it must be random mutations to genes.
>>
>> We have subsequently discovered genes (and more) as the
>> mechanism of heredity. Random changes are a /sufficient/
>> mechanism for Darwinian evolution, even though "intelligent
>> designer" fraternity can't get their heads around it.
>>
>>
>>> They are also
>>> hostile to any Lamarckian effects, which could surely be useful thus
>>> encouraged by evolution.
>>
>> No mechanism has been discovered, and it is not /necessary/
>> for Darwinian evolution.
>>
>
> That first part is not entirely true. (The second is - Lamarckian
> evolution is not necessary.) In organisms such as humans, where early
> development is within the environment of a parent, epigenetic effects
> occur as do other environmental factors - the lifestyle of the mother
> can affect the expression of genes in the child, and this can be passed
> down. But it is a minor effect, in that it is usually only for the one
> generation (such as the child of a smoking mother often being of poorer
> health than average).

Ach. I never bothered to understand Lamarkian evolution in
detail since it has debunked and superseded by Darwinian
evolution.

My understanding of Lamarkian effects is limited to the
example of a giraffe wanting to grow its neck so it could
reach higher leaves.

>>> Part of the hostility to alternate ideas is the need to not be accused
>>> of even slightly trending in the direction of causation or even
>>> complexity. That's a barbed-wire fence against unpermitted thinking.
>>
>> The hostility is against alternate ideas that have already
>> been considered in detail, and found wanting.
>>
>
> Exactly. Some ideas get rejected on the first pass, others get kept for
> further consideration. If you don't sort your ideas, you get bogged
> down in nonsense that leads nowhere. The hostility here is not towards
> ideas in general, it is towards repeated and pointless obsession with
> worthless ideas that do not match reality.

Life is too short to knowingly consider failed concepts
in detail, other as an interesting curiosity.

I prefer to make /new/ mistakes, not repeat known old
mistakes.

>> Alternate ideas - when they make predict and explain new
>> effects - are sought after, since they can lead to reward
>> and recognition.
>>
>> Having said that, they may take a generation to become
>> established wisdom, and that's no bad thing.
>>
>>
>>> Being in the design business, I am fascinated by how common is
>>> hostility to playing with ideas.
>>
>> Irrelevant.
>
> And given the quality of Larkin's ideas here, unsurprising.
>
>>
>>
>>> Non-Darwinian evolution, jumping genes, epigenetics were not much
>>> welcomed.
>
> Eh? Jumping genes and epigenetics are part of Darwinian evolution.
> They are just additional complications to the mechanisms of biological
> evolution as we have it in life on earth - they fit within standard
> Darwinian evolution. They don't fit neatly within the simple model of
> getting your traits via genes from your parents - but biologists are
> used to things being more complicated when examined more closely.

And, contrary to Larkin's preferences, such mechanisms are
being studied in detail in order to explain effects that
aren't well explained by schoolkid inheritance==genes.

On 23/03/22 19:07, David Brown wrote:
> On 23/03/2022 17:39, Tom Gardner wrote:
>> On 23/03/22 16:30, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>
>>> Because a minimal DNA reproduction mechanism needs complex-programmed
>>> DNA surrounded by complex support mechanisms. None of that is useful
>>> until it all works.
>>
>> The "intelligent designer" fraternity used to claim that
>> about eyes, livers, etc.
>>
>> We know better now.
>
> We knew better before, too. As Darwin himself said:
>
> """
> [R]eason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and
> complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to
> its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever
> so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the
> case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful
> to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of
> believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural
> selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be
> considered real.
> """

That seems like Darwin exercising his imagination, while
acknowledging that he hadn't assembled sufficient hard evidence.

Hard evidence came from later generations.

> Larkin simply has no imagination.
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance>

I'll add
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

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

>On 23/03/2022 18:46, Tom Gardner wrote:
>> On 23/03/22 17:24, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 16:39:50 +0000, Tom Gardner
>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 23/03/22 16:30, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 16:02:14 +0000, Tom Gardner
>>>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 23/03/22 14:43, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 06:13:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>>>>>>> <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On a sunny day (Tue, 22 Mar 2022 15:48:30 -0700) it happened John
>>>>>>>> Larkin
>>>>>>>> <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>> <h7kk3hht887bu7jotdp2a7q4punnbounve@4ax.com>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There may be things that we will never understand. The origin of
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> universe. The origin of life. Where consciousness comes from.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Certainly nobody understands them now, so reasonable
>>>>>>>>> open-mindedness
>>>>>>>>> is not a failing to be mocked.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As to evolution, would you ever expect that an ape-like colony as
>>>>>>>> we are
>>>>>>>> would self evolve to produce microchips? Communicate via radio?
>>>>>>>> It is the same mechanism at work!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Darwinian incremental evolution happens in plain sight, although
>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>> surely more efficient than random mutation and natural selection.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you think Darwinian evolution is, if not random mutation
>>>>>> plus natural selection?
>>>>>
>>>>> Probably something more like AI, prototyping more complex things than
>>>>> random base-pair damage.
>>>>>
>>>>> If some programmers can claim they have AI after a few years of
>>>>> coding, imagine what a planet full of cells can invent in a few
>>>>> billion years.
>>>>>
>>>>> A folded, squirming protein sounds like a pretty good
>>>>> cross-correlation machine. Looking for viable protein sequences could
>>>>> be done by some better way than seeing if random mistakes help
>>>>> offspring survive.
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, evolution evolves, even if neo-Darwinists don't want
>>>>> it to.
>>>>
>>>> That might be a form of evolution, but it isn't Darwinian evolution.
>>>>
>>>> Darwinian evolution /is/ random mutation plus natural selection.
>>>
>>> Darwin himself didn't know the source of variation.
>>
>> Correct - as illustrated by the sentence "Darwinian evolution
>> is random mutation plus natural selection".
>
>Darwin didn't know how inherited traits were passed on, or how mutations
>occurred. All he knew - and all he needed to know - was that traits
>/were/ inherited, and random mutations /do/ occur.
>
>>
>>
>>> The neo-Darwinists
>>> have insisted that it must be random mutations to genes.
>>
>> We have subsequently discovered genes (and more) as the
>> mechanism of heredity. Random changes are a /sufficient/
>> mechanism for Darwinian evolution, even though "intelligent
>> designer" fraternity can't get their heads around it.
>>
>>
>>> They are also
>>> hostile to any Lamarckian effects, which could surely be useful thus
>>> encouraged by evolution.
>>
>> No mechanism has been discovered, and it is not /necessary/
>> for Darwinian evolution.
>>
>
>That first part is not entirely true. (The second is - Lamarckian
>evolution is not necessary.) In organisms such as humans, where early
>development is within the environment of a parent, epigenetic effects
>occur as do other environmental factors - the lifestyle of the mother
>can affect the expression of genes in the child, and this can be passed
>down. But it is a minor effect, in that it is usually only for the one
>generation (such as the child of a smoking mother often being of poorer
>health than average).
>
>>
>>> Part of the hostility to alternate ideas is the need to not be accused
>>> of even slightly trending in the direction of causation or even
>>> complexity. That's a barbed-wire fence against unpermitted thinking.
>>
>> The hostility is against alternate ideas that have already
>> been considered in detail, and found wanting.
>>
>
>Exactly. Some ideas get rejected on the first pass, others get kept for
>further consideration. If you don't sort your ideas, you get bogged
>down in nonsense that leads nowhere. The hostility here is not towards
>ideas in general, it is towards repeated and pointless obsession with
>worthless ideas that do not match reality.
>
>> Alternate ideas - when they make predict and explain new
>> effects - are sought after, since they can lead to reward
>> and recognition.
>>
>> Having said that, they may take a generation to become
>> established wisdom, and that's no bad thing.
>>
>>
>>> Being in the design business, I am fascinated by how common is
>>> hostility to playing with ideas.
>>
>> Irrelevant.
>
>And given the quality of Larkin's ideas here, unsurprising.
>
>>
>>
>>> Non-Darwinian evolution, jumping genes, epigenetics were not much
>>> welcomed.
>
>Eh? Jumping genes and epigenetics are part of Darwinian evolution.
>They are just additional complications to the mechanisms of biological
>evolution as we have it in life on earth - they fit within standard
>Darwinian evolution. They don't fit neatly within the simple model of
>getting your traits via genes from your parents - but biologists are
>used to things being more complicated when examined more closely.
>

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

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

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

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

--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

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

>Evolution doesn't "demand" anything. It just happens. Lamark's fault was to
>suggest that evolutionary changes were goal-directed, which falls down on the
>fact that nothing that evolves has any idea of where it came from or where
>it is going. It can either survive and reproduce, or die before it can
>reproduce.
>
>That's enough to produce a long series of changes that can look goal-directed
>after the event, but each change is merely a random difference that has survived.

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

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

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

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

On 23/03/2022 20:32, John Larkin wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 17:46:28 +0000, Tom Gardner
> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The Blind Watchmaker
>
> I read that, and The Selfish Gene. They were qualitative, repetitious,
> and boring. A few pages could have made all his points. Hardly subtle.
>

And yet you missed all his points.

> Dawkins is a self-admitted agressive atheist.

You make that sound like a bad thing.

> That corrals all his
> thinking.
>

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

On 24/03/2022 04:52, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 20:35:52 +0100, David Brown
> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>
>> On 23/03/2022 18:46, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>> On 23/03/22 17:24, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

>>>
>>>
>>>> Non-Darwinian evolution, jumping genes, epigenetics were not much
>>>> welcomed.
>>
>> Eh? Jumping genes and epigenetics are part of Darwinian evolution.
>> They are just additional complications to the mechanisms of biological
>> evolution as we have it in life on earth - they fit within standard
>> Darwinian evolution. They don't fit neatly within the simple model of
>> getting your traits via genes from your parents - but biologists are
>> used to things being more complicated when examined more closely.
>>
>
> Viruses use reverse transcription to insert their genome into a host's
> DNA, who then builds move viruses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why doesn't the colour blue taste like forgetfulness?

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

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

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

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

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