On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 08:48:33 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

>On 24/03/2022 19:13, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 10:23:14 +0100, David Brown
>> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>
>>> On 24/03/2022 04:52, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 20:35:52 +0100, David Brown
>>>> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 23/03/2022 18:46, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>>>> On 23/03/22 17:24, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Non-Darwinian evolution, jumping genes, epigenetics were not much
>>>>>>> welcomed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Eh? Jumping genes and epigenetics are part of Darwinian evolution.
>>>>> They are just additional complications to the mechanisms of biological
>>>>> evolution as we have it in life on earth - they fit within standard
>>>>> Darwinian evolution. They don't fit neatly within the simple model of
>>>>> getting your traits via genes from your parents - but biologists are
>>>>> used to things being more complicated when examined more closely.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Viruses use reverse transcription to insert their genome into a host's
>>>> DNA, who then builds move viruses.
>>>
>>> Some viruses do that, but most do not. Retroviruses are only a small
>>> proportion of virus families. (The family includes some big names, like
>>> HIV and hepatitis, but it is only one of many different types of virus.)
>>>
>>>> RT is used to make cells produce
>>>> useful products like insulin.
>>>
>>> It is useful in all kinds of artificial genetic modification, as it
>>> provides a pathway for altering the DNA of a cell.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why would we allow RT to work if all it does is enable viruses?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Are you really suggesting that the cells of eukaryotes evolved (or were
>>> "designed") specifically to enable reverse transcription to work,
>>> putting up with some 450 million years of virus infections, just so that
>>> one day humans would evolve and advance enough to be able to use RT to
>>> make insulin?
>>
>> I am suggesting that reverse transcription may be useful, so was not
>> eliminated by evolution.
>
>Let me try to be clear about what you are saying.

Why start now?

--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

On 25/03/22 14:47, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 11:19:49 +0100, David Brown
> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>
>> On 24/03/2022 23:58, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 21:54:53 +0100, David Brown
>>> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 24/03/2022 17:14, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 10:00:26 +0100, David Brown
>>>>> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 23/03/2022 20:32, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 17:46:28 +0000, Tom Gardner
>>>>>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Blind Watchmaker
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I read that, and The Selfish Gene. They were qualitative, repetitious,
>>>>>>> and boring. A few pages could have made all his points. Hardly subtle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And yet you missed all his points.
>>>>>
>>>>> He only had a couple, none original. Maybe you can summarize his many
>>>>> original ideas for us.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have not suggested that he had many ideas. Nor have I suggested that
>>>> any of his ideas are original. (Nor am I suggesting that he /hasn't/
>>>> had many original ideas.)
>>>>
>>>> I merely said you missed his points.
>>>>
>>>> The main point of "The Blind Watchmaker" is that there is no such thing
>>>> as "irreducible complexity" - complex things can evolve from simple
>>>> things. Things that might look "all or nothing" at first sight, can
>>>> develop through evolution. The classic example is the eye.
>>>> "Intelligent design" fans like to claim "there's no use for half an eye,
>>>> therefore the eye could not have evolved" - but they are totally and
>>>> completely wrong, which is easy to demonstrate by looking at the range
>>>> of currently living organisms with sight organs that are at different
>>>> places on the path between light-sensitive chemicals and advanced eyes.
>>>>
>>>> That is definitely /not/ an original Dawkins idea - Darwin considered it
>>>> too, along with every biologist in between.
>>>>
>>>> Apparently, however, it still baffles you.
>>>
>>> There is a clear evolutionary path for an eye, with many actual living
>>> examples along the way.
>>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> It's important to remember that the current living examples show how the
>> current human eye (for example) /might/ have evolved - not how it /did/
>> evolve. We can look at a nautilus with a "pin-hole camera" eye and
>> understand that was a likely stage in the evolution of the lens eye, but
>> we did not evolve from modern-day nautiluses.
>>
>>> The replication mechanism for DNA is not so friendly to incremental
>>> design
>>
>> "Design" is a loaded word here - if you used it to mean "actively
>> designed by something or someone", you're showing that you still don't
>> grok evolution. If you really meant "incremental evolution", then don't
>> write "design". Your reputation for confusion, misunderstanding, and a
>> belief it "God did it" precedes you - if you don't want to provoke
>> mocking, be more accurate in what you write.
>>
>>
>> What makes you say that the current modern mechanism for DNA replication
>> is not "friendly" to incremental evolution? All you can say is that no
>> one has proposed a plausible development pathway so far - or at fact,
>> merely none that /you/ have heard of. (I haven't heard of one either,
>> but I know the sum of human knowledge extends somewhat beyond my own
>> personal knowledge.)
>>
>> There are three big challenges in looking at the evolutionary history
>> here. One is that this is all done at the molecular level and happens
>> fast - it is experimentally extremely challenging to observe what is
>> really happening.
>>
>> Secondly, DNA as a genetic structure is extraordinarily successful. If
>> the RNA World hypothesis is a good approximation of the early life on
>> earth, then once DNA systems evolved they out-competed RNA-based
>> lifeforms so completely that there are no traces left (found so far) in
>> the modern ecosystem. There could have been all sorts of basis for life
>> in the early history of the earth - we only know about the ones that
>> survived.
>>
>> Thirdly, the organisms of that time were very small, and there can be no
>> fossil records as direct evidence. We have a few ancient rocks where
>> certain minerals or patterns in the rocks can reasonably be interpreted
>> as evidence of early microbial life, but that's the best we can get -
>> there is no conceivable way to know if they used DNA or some precursor.
>>
>>
>> We can, however, look at DNA replication mechanisms in different living
>> organisms to get some ideas. Roughly speaking, prokaryote and eukaryote
>> DNS replication has some major differences as well as many similarities.
>> There are also differences between some groups of prokaryotes. This
>> gives a good starting point for the evolution from our common ancestor
>> going forward. We can also look at organisms that have slightly
>> different variations of the usual DNA base pairs (such as some
>> bacteriophages that have an alternative form of the "A" letter). All
>> these variations makes it clear that what we have in our own cells is
>> most certainly not "irreducible complexity" or "all or nothing".
>>
>>
>> So how did DNA replication evolve? The correct answer is we don't know,
>> and probably never will know how it /did/ evolve. But we can work
>> towards better answers for how it /might/ have evolved.
>>
>> Throwing our arms up and saying "it's all so amazing - it must have been
>> a god" is not helpful. (And I don't care if you refer to a Christian
>> god, a Hindu god, an alien robot, intelligent DNA, conscious electrons,
>> or any other super-natural super-powerful super-intelligent
>> super-designer - it's all the same principle with different names and
>> different details.)
>>
>>
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpHaxzroYxg
>>>
>>> Fun stuff at 9:00.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yes, it's amazing stuff, and fun to watch. It does not in any way
>> collaborate your idea.
>
> You're not interested in biology or cool mechanisms or design,
> electronic or other wise. You certainly don't delight in ideas or fun
> machines, or much of anything as far as I can tell.
>
> You hate ideas and speculation.
>
> You seem to delight only in insults. You are just a bitchy old hen.
>
> Maybe you are sick or something. That makes people depressed and
> crabby.

That's mere repetition of your same old tired tropes, indicating
that you are unable and/or unwilling to listen, think, change your
ideas.

Maybe /you/ are sick or something. That makes people depressed and
crabby.

On 25/03/22 14:49, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 08:48:33 +0100, David Brown
> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>
>> On 24/03/2022 19:13, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 10:23:14 +0100, David Brown
>>> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 24/03/2022 04:52, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 20:35:52 +0100, David Brown
>>>>> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 23/03/2022 18:46, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>>>>> On 23/03/22 17:24, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Non-Darwinian evolution, jumping genes, epigenetics were not much
>>>>>>>> welcomed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Eh? Jumping genes and epigenetics are part of Darwinian evolution.
>>>>>> They are just additional complications to the mechanisms of biological
>>>>>> evolution as we have it in life on earth - they fit within standard
>>>>>> Darwinian evolution. They don't fit neatly within the simple model of
>>>>>> getting your traits via genes from your parents - but biologists are
>>>>>> used to things being more complicated when examined more closely.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Viruses use reverse transcription to insert their genome into a host's
>>>>> DNA, who then builds move viruses.
>>>>
>>>> Some viruses do that, but most do not. Retroviruses are only a small
>>>> proportion of virus families. (The family includes some big names, like
>>>> HIV and hepatitis, but it is only one of many different types of virus.)
>>>>
>>>>> RT is used to make cells produce
>>>>> useful products like insulin.
>>>>
>>>> It is useful in all kinds of artificial genetic modification, as it
>>>> provides a pathway for altering the DNA of a cell.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would we allow RT to work if all it does is enable viruses?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are you really suggesting that the cells of eukaryotes evolved (or were
>>>> "designed") specifically to enable reverse transcription to work,
>>>> putting up with some 450 million years of virus infections, just so that
>>>> one day humans would evolve and advance enough to be able to use RT to
>>>> make insulin?
>>>
>>> I am suggesting that reverse transcription may be useful, so was not
>>> eliminated by evolution.
>>
>> Let me try to be clear about what you are saying.
>
> Why start now?

You won't start to try to understand the position he expounds.

He is making a valiant but doomed to attempt to understand your position.

On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 15:12:09 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>On 25/03/22 14:49, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 08:48:33 +0100, David Brown
>> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>
>>> On 24/03/2022 19:13, John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 10:23:14 +0100, David Brown
>>>> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 24/03/2022 04:52, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 20:35:52 +0100, David Brown
>>>>>> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 23/03/2022 18:46, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 23/03/22 17:24, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Non-Darwinian evolution, jumping genes, epigenetics were not much
>>>>>>>>> welcomed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Eh? Jumping genes and epigenetics are part of Darwinian evolution.
>>>>>>> They are just additional complications to the mechanisms of biological
>>>>>>> evolution as we have it in life on earth - they fit within standard
>>>>>>> Darwinian evolution. They don't fit neatly within the simple model of
>>>>>>> getting your traits via genes from your parents - but biologists are
>>>>>>> used to things being more complicated when examined more closely.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Viruses use reverse transcription to insert their genome into a host's
>>>>>> DNA, who then builds move viruses.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some viruses do that, but most do not. Retroviruses are only a small
>>>>> proportion of virus families. (The family includes some big names, like
>>>>> HIV and hepatitis, but it is only one of many different types of virus.)
>>>>>
>>>>>> RT is used to make cells produce
>>>>>> useful products like insulin.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is useful in all kinds of artificial genetic modification, as it
>>>>> provides a pathway for altering the DNA of a cell.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would we allow RT to work if all it does is enable viruses?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you really suggesting that the cells of eukaryotes evolved (or were
>>>>> "designed") specifically to enable reverse transcription to work,
>>>>> putting up with some 450 million years of virus infections, just so that
>>>>> one day humans would evolve and advance enough to be able to use RT to
>>>>> make insulin?
>>>>
>>>> I am suggesting that reverse transcription may be useful, so was not
>>>> eliminated by evolution.
>>>
>>> Let me try to be clear about what you are saying.
>>
>> Why start now?
>
>You won't start to try to understand the position he expounds.

The position he expounds is that I'm ignorant and stupid. I confess
that I don't understand that.

>
>He is making a valiant but doomed to attempt to understand your position.

I see no attempts to understand anything. Just reflex insults.

My position, and my profession, is to be curious about systems and
ideas, and to consider possibilities no matter how whimsical or
apparently improbable, because they might turn out to work, or might
be a path to other ideas, or just because they are fun to think about.

That attitude sure seems to offend you and your buddy. Expert
biologists like you seem to be a dogmatic lot.

--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

On 25/03/2022 15:47, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 11:19:49 +0100, David Brown
> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>
>> On 24/03/2022 23:58, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 21:54:53 +0100, David Brown
>>> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 24/03/2022 17:14, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 10:00:26 +0100, David Brown
>>>>> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 23/03/2022 20:32, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 17:46:28 +0000, Tom Gardner
>>>>>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Blind Watchmaker
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I read that, and The Selfish Gene. They were qualitative, repetitious,
>>>>>>> and boring. A few pages could have made all his points. Hardly subtle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And yet you missed all his points.
>>>>>
>>>>> He only had a couple, none original. Maybe you can summarize his many
>>>>> original ideas for us.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have not suggested that he had many ideas. Nor have I suggested that
>>>> any of his ideas are original. (Nor am I suggesting that he /hasn't/
>>>> had many original ideas.)
>>>>
>>>> I merely said you missed his points.
>>>>
>>>> The main point of "The Blind Watchmaker" is that there is no such thing
>>>> as "irreducible complexity" - complex things can evolve from simple
>>>> things. Things that might look "all or nothing" at first sight, can
>>>> develop through evolution. The classic example is the eye.
>>>> "Intelligent design" fans like to claim "there's no use for half an eye,
>>>> therefore the eye could not have evolved" - but they are totally and
>>>> completely wrong, which is easy to demonstrate by looking at the range
>>>> of currently living organisms with sight organs that are at different
>>>> places on the path between light-sensitive chemicals and advanced eyes.
>>>>
>>>> That is definitely /not/ an original Dawkins idea - Darwin considered it
>>>> too, along with every biologist in between.
>>>>
>>>> Apparently, however, it still baffles you.
>>>
>>> There is a clear evolutionary path for an eye, with many actual living
>>> examples along the way.
>>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> It's important to remember that the current living examples show how the
>> current human eye (for example) /might/ have evolved - not how it /did/
>> evolve. We can look at a nautilus with a "pin-hole camera" eye and
>> understand that was a likely stage in the evolution of the lens eye, but
>> we did not evolve from modern-day nautiluses.
>>
>>> The replication mechanism for DNA is not so friendly to incremental
>>> design
>>
>> "Design" is a loaded word here - if you used it to mean "actively
>> designed by something or someone", you're showing that you still don't
>> grok evolution. If you really meant "incremental evolution", then don't
>> write "design". Your reputation for confusion, misunderstanding, and a
>> belief it "God did it" precedes you - if you don't want to provoke
>> mocking, be more accurate in what you write.
>>
>>
>> What makes you say that the current modern mechanism for DNA replication
>> is not "friendly" to incremental evolution? All you can say is that no
>> one has proposed a plausible development pathway so far - or at fact,
>> merely none that /you/ have heard of. (I haven't heard of one either,
>> but I know the sum of human knowledge extends somewhat beyond my own
>> personal knowledge.)
>>
>> There are three big challenges in looking at the evolutionary history
>> here. One is that this is all done at the molecular level and happens
>> fast - it is experimentally extremely challenging to observe what is
>> really happening.
>>
>> Secondly, DNA as a genetic structure is extraordinarily successful. If
>> the RNA World hypothesis is a good approximation of the early life on
>> earth, then once DNA systems evolved they out-competed RNA-based
>> lifeforms so completely that there are no traces left (found so far) in
>> the modern ecosystem. There could have been all sorts of basis for life
>> in the early history of the earth - we only know about the ones that
>> survived.
>>
>> Thirdly, the organisms of that time were very small, and there can be no
>> fossil records as direct evidence. We have a few ancient rocks where
>> certain minerals or patterns in the rocks can reasonably be interpreted
>> as evidence of early microbial life, but that's the best we can get -
>> there is no conceivable way to know if they used DNA or some precursor.
>>
>>
>> We can, however, look at DNA replication mechanisms in different living
>> organisms to get some ideas. Roughly speaking, prokaryote and eukaryote
>> DNS replication has some major differences as well as many similarities.
>> There are also differences between some groups of prokaryotes. This
>> gives a good starting point for the evolution from our common ancestor
>> going forward. We can also look at organisms that have slightly
>> different variations of the usual DNA base pairs (such as some
>> bacteriophages that have an alternative form of the "A" letter). All
>> these variations makes it clear that what we have in our own cells is
>> most certainly not "irreducible complexity" or "all or nothing".
>>
>>
>> So how did DNA replication evolve? The correct answer is we don't know,
>> and probably never will know how it /did/ evolve. But we can work
>> towards better answers for how it /might/ have evolved.
>>
>> Throwing our arms up and saying "it's all so amazing - it must have been
>> a god" is not helpful. (And I don't care if you refer to a Christian
>> god, a Hindu god, an alien robot, intelligent DNA, conscious electrons,
>> or any other super-natural super-powerful super-intelligent
>> super-designer - it's all the same principle with different names and
>> different details.)
>>
>>
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpHaxzroYxg
>>>
>>> Fun stuff at 9:00.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yes, it's amazing stuff, and fun to watch. It does not in any way
>> collaborate your idea.
>
> You're not interested in biology or cool mechanisms or design,
> electronic or other wise. You certainly don't delight in ideas or fun
> machines, or much of anything as far as I can tell.
>
> You hate ideas and speculation.
>
> You seem to delight only in insults. You are just a bitchy old hen.
>
> Maybe you are sick or something. That makes people depressed and
> crabby.
>

/That/ is your take on my post? I gave a detailed and clear discussion
about DNA replication and where reality differs from your ideas. I
didn't mock, or insult - I explained. I'm trying to /educate/ you, you
silly little excuse for a person. You are pathetic, a hopeless case. I
don't /hate/ you - I /pity/ you.

Get back to us once you finally realise that you are the epitome of the
Dunning-Kruger effect. You can't read, you can't think, you can't
listen - but somewhere along the line you've picked up a load of shite
from the criminals that prey on the weak-minded and gullible, and you
think that makes you an expert whose ideas are holy.

I don't "delight" in insults - but I hope that one day a strong enough
dose of the truth about yourself will make a dent in your ignorant
arrogance, and maybe you'll come to understand that when everyone else
rejects your "ideas", it's not because everyone else hates ideas, but it
is because your ideas are worthless.

On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 09:47:46 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

>On 24/03/2022 22:26, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 21:54:53 +0100, David Brown
>> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>>
>>> I agree - dogma is not good. Scientists don't go in for dogma. They
>>> expect theories to be very well justified with solid evidence,
>>> experiments and theoretical backing before they accept them as
>>> "scientific fact". And even then, it is only as "the current best
>>> theory" which every scientist would love to prove wrong.
>>
>>
>> I beg to disagree - some scientists do issue dogma, by that name:
>>
>> .<https://www.yourgenome.org/facts/what-is-the-central-dogma>
>>
>> .<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_dogma_of_molecular_biology>
>>
>
>To quote from the Wikipedia link
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_dogma_of_molecular_biology#Use_of_the_term_dogma>
>:
>
>"""
>Use of the term dogma
>
>In his autobiography, What Mad Pursuit, Crick wrote about his choice of
>the word dogma and some of the problems it caused him:
>
> "I called this idea the central dogma, for two reasons, I suspect. I
>had already used the obvious word hypothesis in the sequence hypothesis,
>and in addition I wanted to suggest that this new assumption was more
>central and more powerful. ... As it turned out, the use of the word
>dogma caused almost more trouble than it was worth. Many years later
>Jacques Monod pointed out to me that I did not appear to understand the
>correct use of the word dogma, which is a belief that cannot be doubted.
>I did apprehend this in a vague sort of way but since I thought that all
>religious beliefs were without foundation, I used the word the way I
>myself thought about it, not as most of the world does, and simply
>applied it to a grand hypothesis that, however plausible, had little
>direct experimental support."
>
>Similarly, Horace Freeland Judson records in The Eighth Day of Creation:[19]
>
> "My mind was, that a dogma was an idea for which there was no
>reasonable evidence. You see?!" And Crick gave a roar of delight. "I
>just didn't know what dogma meant. And I could just as well have called
>it the 'Central Hypothesis,' or — you know. Which is what I meant to
>say. Dogma was just a catch phrase."
>
>"""
>
>
>Despite the name, it is not "dogma". When it was formed, the authors
>did not have enough nearly evidence to call it a "theory". And like all
>science, it will be changed or replaced as soon as anyone finds clear
>evidence that contradicts it.
>
>It turns out that individual scientists are humans too - they use words
>incorrectly, or where the interpretations could be different. They pick
>names that sound good, even though they are not precise. ("String
>theory" is /very/ far from being a scientific theory.)
>

Heh. As I mentioned elsewhere, calling it the Central Dogma was a
joke, intended to brush back just those above folk. But I'll grant
that maybe the joke worked rather too well.

Sort of like how the Big Bang was named.

..<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#:~:text=English%20astronomer%20Fred%20Hoyle%20is,time%20in%20the%20remote%20past.%22>

Joe Gwinn

On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 15:58:34 -0700, John Larkin
<jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 21:54:53 +0100, David Brown
><david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>
>>On 24/03/2022 17:14, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 10:00:26 +0100, David Brown
>>> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 23/03/2022 20:32, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 17:46:28 +0000, Tom Gardner
>>>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Blind Watchmaker
>>>>>
>>>>> I read that, and The Selfish Gene. They were qualitative, repetitious,
>>>>> and boring. A few pages could have made all his points. Hardly subtle.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And yet you missed all his points.
>>>
>>> He only had a couple, none original. Maybe you can summarize his many
>>> original ideas for us.
>>>
>>
>>I have not suggested that he had many ideas. Nor have I suggested that
>>any of his ideas are original. (Nor am I suggesting that he /hasn't/
>>had many original ideas.)
>>
>>I merely said you missed his points.
>>
>>The main point of "The Blind Watchmaker" is that there is no such thing
>>as "irreducible complexity" - complex things can evolve from simple
>>things. Things that might look "all or nothing" at first sight, can
>>develop through evolution. The classic example is the eye.
>>"Intelligent design" fans like to claim "there's no use for half an eye,
>>therefore the eye could not have evolved" - but they are totally and
>>completely wrong, which is easy to demonstrate by looking at the range
>>of currently living organisms with sight organs that are at different
>>places on the path between light-sensitive chemicals and advanced eyes.
>>
>>That is definitely /not/ an original Dawkins idea - Darwin considered it
>>too, along with every biologist in between.
>>
>>Apparently, however, it still baffles you.
>
>There is a clear evolutionary path for an eye, with many actual living
>examples along the way.
>
>The replication mechanism for DNA is not so friendly to incremental
>design
>
><https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpHaxzroYxg>
>
>Fun stuff at 9:00.
>
>
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Dawkins is a self-admitted agressive atheist.
>>>>
>>>> You make that sound like a bad thing.
>>>
>>> Yes. Strong emotions constrain logical thinking.
>>>
>>
>>Atheism is restricted to logical thinking, precisely because it does not
>>accept illogical and unjustified arguments. (It is happy to accept "we
>>don't know".) If you have ever actually read things he has written, or
>>listened to him talk, or watched a Youtube video of him, you'll notice
>>he does not get emotionally worked up or make unsubstantiated appeals to
>>supposed authority, as some of his debate opponents do.
>>
>>Call Dawkins boring, or repetitive, or unoriginal if you like. But
>>suggesting he can't think logically because of strong emotions is laughable.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> That corrals all his
>>>>> thinking.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It means he /thinks/. People following religious dogma avoid thinking
>>>> by getting their unquestionable answers presented to them. They are
>>>> encouraged /not/ to think too deeply, because then they'd see all the
>>>> inconsistencies and how the answers they've been given don't actually
>>>> match the questions. Atheists, on the other hand, /do/ get to think,
>>>> learn and discover things, because they accept that we don't have all
>>>> the answers.
>>>
>>> Why is anti-religious dogma any better than religious? Both put some
>>> ideas off-limits.
>>
>>I agree - dogma is not good. Scientists don't go in for dogma. They
>>expect theories to be very well justified with solid evidence,
>>experiments and theoretical backing before they accept them as
>>"scientific fact". And even then, it is only as "the current best
>>theory" which every scientist would love to prove wrong.
>
>There is no solid evidence or experiment that shows a path from
>inorganics to DNA based living cells. But RNA World is accepted and
>suggestions that there could be other paths are mocked. Lots of people
>hate their work to be proven wrong. I've been to some scientific
>conferences where people were very unwilling to be wrong. Viciously
>so.
>
>Scientists have emotions too. "Science progresses one funeral at a
>time."

The classic example was Newton's persecution of the fellow that
discovered the achromat lens. Newton had declared chromatic
aberration to be impossible to remedy (which is why he invented the
Newtonian Telescope), only to be refuted by this upstart, whom he
destroyed. This endured until Newton's death. (from the SED thread
"Edison Did Not Invent Light Bulb!" in May 2013.)

Joe Gwinn

On 25/03/2022 21:41, Joe Gwinn wrote:

> Heh. As I mentioned elsewhere, calling it the Central Dogma was a
> joke, intended to brush back just those above folk. But I'll grant
> that maybe the joke worked rather too well.
>
> Sort of like how the Big Bang was named.
>
> .<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#:~:text=English%20astronomer%20Fred%20Hoyle%20is,time%20in%20the%20remote%20past.%22>
>
> Joe Gwinn
>

Or "The God Particle". Scientists can be very naïve in the face of
scientifically-illiterate media looking for a good story, and happy to
take things out of context to get it.

On 26/03/2022 03:21, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 8:03:15 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 15:58:34 -0700, John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:

>>> Scientists have emotions too. "Science progresses one funeral at a
>>> time."
>>
>> The classic example was Newton's persecution of the fellow that
>> discovered the achromat lens. Newton had declared chromatic
>> aberration to be impossible to remedy (which is why he invented the
>> Newtonian Telescope), only to be refuted by this upstart, whom he
>> destroyed. This endured until Newton's death. (from the SED thread
>> "Edison Did Not Invent Light Bulb!" in May 2013.)
>
> Since Newton wasn't a scientist - the word wasn't coined until 1833
>

Of course Newton was a scientist - the dating of the term is irrelevant.
Do you also claim he was not a homo sapien, since that term was coined
in 1758?

But he was also a rather nasty person, possibly somewhat mentally
damaged from all the mercury fumes he inhaled in his alchemy
experiments, and was well-known for using his power and influence to
attack rivals.

On 26/03/2022 14:25, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 9:46:25 PM UTC+11, David Brown wrote:
>> On 26/03/2022 03:21, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>>> On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 8:03:15 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 15:58:34 -0700, John Larkin
>>>> <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Scientists have emotions too. "Science progresses one funeral
>>>>> at a time."
>>>>
>>>> The classic example was Newton's persecution of the fellow that
>>>> discovered the achromat lens. Newton had declared chromatic
>>>> aberration to be impossible to remedy (which is why he invented
>>>> the Newtonian Telescope), only to be refuted by this upstart,
>>>> whom he destroyed. This endured until Newton's death. (from the
>>>> SED thread "Edison Did Not Invent Light Bulb!" in May 2013.)
>>>
>>> Since Newton wasn't a scientist - the word wasn't coined until
>>> 1833
>
> <big unmarked snip there>

This is a Usenet group. Despite the appalling habits of many regulars
here, snipping is standard practice - and obvious snipping doesn't need
marking.

>
>> Of course Newton was a scientist - the dating of the term is
>> irrelevant.
>
> Being a "scientist' means you behave in a particular way. As I wrote
> - and you snipped
>
> "Scientists want other people to exploit the work they have done.
> Newton probably invent calculus, but he called it the method of
> fluxions, and didn't teach it to anybody else."
>

Yes, I snipped parts that were wrong or irrelevant to the point.

Newton published some 5 or 6 books on the science and mathematics he
developed by research, experimentation, calculations and study. That is
"being a scientist" and "teaching other people". He was a mathematics
professor at Cambridge - another hint that he taught people.

He was also an evil, selfish git who almost certainly back-dated some of
his thoughts about calculus in order to justify his claims of having
invented it before Leibniz.

>> Do you also claim he was not a homo sapien, since that term was
>> coined in 1758?
>

<snip the wrong and irrelevant bits>

You said he was not a "scientist" because the word "scientist" did not
exist. By the same logic, he was not a "homo sapien". You are in a
hole - there is no need to make it deeper. We all say silly things, or
express ourselves badly at times.

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

> Somehow. But RNA World requires at least as much faith as "God did
> it."

It is interesting that some people so fiercely oppose the very idea of
some chemical blob coming into existence spontaneously and yet at the
same time they have no slightest doubt in the pre-existence of an
infinitely more complex and capable entity. Some even believe its
capabilities are literally unconstrained and somehow they know there is
only one of this species. Logic wept.

Best regards, Piotr

On 26/03/2022 23:16, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
<snip>

Look, you said Newton wasn't a scientist because the /word/ "scientist"
did not exist at the time. If that's not what you meant, you should
have said so when the ridiculousness of that claim was first pointed
out. We all express ourselves badly on occasion.

On 26/03/2022 02:21, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 8:03:15 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 15:58:34 -0700, John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 21:54:53 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>> On 24/03/2022 17:14, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 10:00:26 +0100, David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>>>> On 23/03/2022 20:32, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 17:46:28 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> I agree - dogma is not good. Scientists don't go in for dogma. They
>>>> expect theories to be very well justified with solid evidence,
>>>> experiments and theoretical backing before they accept them as
>>>> "scientific fact". And even then, it is only as "the current best
>>>> theory" which every scientist would love to prove wrong.
>>>
>>> There is no solid evidence or experiment that shows a path from
>>> inorganics to DNA based living cells. But RNA World is accepted and
>>> suggestions that there could be other paths are mocked. Lots of people
>>> hate their work to be proven wrong. I've been to some scientific
>>> conferences where people were very unwilling to be wrong. Viciously
>>> so.
>>>
>>> Scientists have emotions too. "Science progresses one funeral at a
>>> time."
>>
>> The classic example was Newton's persecution of the fellow that
>> discovered the achromat lens. Newton had declared chromatic
>> aberration to be impossible to remedy (which is why he invented the
>> Newtonian Telescope), only to be refuted by this upstart, whom he
>> destroyed. This endured until Newton's death. (from the SED thread
>> "Edison Did Not Invent Light Bulb!" in May 2013.)
>
> Since Newton wasn't a scientist - the word wasn't coined until 1833
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist
>
> he's not a great example of scientific behavior. It certainly isn't any kind of classic example.

I think he was. Although he also had his disagreeable side as well.

Poor old Hooke got a lot less credit than he deserved. He did have the
odd best seller to his name though. His Micrographia is stunning!

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

Both of them were Natural Philosophers and members of the Royal Society
which was what scientists were called back in their day. It is
considered quite likely that Hooke gave Newton the idea of an inverse
square law for gravity but his own mathematics was not up to solving it.
>
> "Science progresses one funeral at a time." is a paraphrase of something Max Planck (1858 to 1947) wrote. Some of his contemporaries did behave that badly, but Planck himself was remarkably open-minded.

That is unduly cynical.

Most scientific discoveries are sufficiently robust to be celebrated
well within the lifetime of their discoverer and usually with the award
of a Nobel Prize.

A few stubborn refusniks refuse to accept the new theories but they
quickly become irrelevant to the frontiers of science. Fred Hoyle's
Steady State theory vs Martin Ryle's observations of radio galaxies
being one such recent example. Huge egos and a very vicious fight!

> Scientists want other people to exploit the work they have done. Newton probably invent calculus, but he called it the method of fluxions, and didn't teach it to anybody else.
>

Actually he did although we should all give thanks that the notation
normally used is that due to Leibnitz and not Newtons.

f' and f" still survive to this day. It wasn't published until after his
death but it was written in 1761. He kept it as a trade secret and back
constructed opaque geometrical proofs using his results by fluxions.

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

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Wilhelm_Leibniz
>
> came up with the same idea, but told other people about it, and we use his notation, not Newton's.

Speak for yourself. Both notations are still in use even today. Leibnitz
notatio is the common one but f' and f" still abound in physics texts.
>
> That is a classical example of scientific behavior (though Leibniz wouldn't have called himself a scientist either).

They were all Natural Philosophers back then and/or Mathematicians and
quite a few also dabbled in Alchemy (definitely not a science then).

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 09:19:34 +0200, Piotr Wyderski
<bombald@protonmail.com> wrote:

>jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>
>> Somehow. But RNA World requires at least as much faith as "God did
>> it."
>
>It is interesting that some people so fiercely oppose the very idea of
>some chemical blob coming into existence spontaneously and yet at the
>same time they have no slightest doubt in the pre-existence of an
>infinitely more complex and capable entity. Some even believe its
>capabilities are literally unconstrained and somehow they know there is
>only one of this species. Logic wept.
>
> Best regards, Piotr

Since you are replying to my post, I guess you are describing me.
Entirely falsely.

You are being illogical, not me. I never declared any source of life
to be of "no slightest doubt." I did suggest that various things might
be possible, some interesting and some silly but none impossible. I
guess designing electronics made me this way, always ready for
surprises.

Given that nobody knows how life originated, declaring anything
impossible actually needs proof.

People keep accusing me of being a religious fundamentalist because I
dare to think about anything but primordial soup and random mutation.

Agressive atheism shuts off thinking more than attending church on
Sunday.

--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

> Since you are replying to my post, I guess you are describing me.

Not sure if you, as you are doing your best to bring a lot of fog.

> Given that nobody knows how life originated, declaring anything
> impossible actually needs proof.

But these guys do not claim they know how life originated. They were
merely able to demonstrate in the lab that their approach works. Whilst
it may or may not have anything in common with the origin of terrestrial
life, this is a very viable answer. The folks claiming otherwise, even
from the very center of the mainstream science, have nothing even
remotely resembling what the RNA guys have done. So the RNA hypothesis
is just more credible, but not the only explanation.

> People keep accusing me of being a religious fundamentalist because I
> dare to think about anything but primordial soup and random mutation.

I am fine with you being a religious fundamentalist, nobody's perfect.
I just say that if you call gods (or aliens) to the rescue, you must
explain the mechanism that created those gods (or aliens), not me. I
don't buy "a diode couldn't have been spontaneously created, but if you
assume the pre-existence of a supercomputer the size of the US that
designed them, things start looking different" line of thinking. Show me
the supercomputer and explain its origin.

Best regards, Piotr

On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 9:22:29 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 2:27:18 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 09:19:34 +0200, Piotr Wyderski
> > <bom...@protonmail.com> wrote:
> > >jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> > >
> > >> Somehow. But RNA World requires at least as much faith as "God did
> > >> it."
> > >
> > >It is interesting that some people so fiercely oppose the very idea of
> > >some chemical blob coming into existence spontaneously and yet at the
> > >same time they have no slightest doubt in the pre-existence of an
> > >infinitely more complex and capable entity. Some even believe its
> > >capabilities are literally unconstrained and somehow they know there is
> > >only one of this species. Logic wept.
> > >
> > Since you are replying to my post, I guess you are describing me.
> > Entirely falsely.
> Not all that incorrectly. Your self-image is shaped by your vanity,
> > You are being illogical, not me. I never declared any source of life
> > to be of "no slightest doubt." I did suggest that various things might
> > be possible, some interesting and some silly but none impossible. I
> > guess designing electronics made me this way, always ready for
> > surprises.
> You'd run into fewer of them if you could actually design your electronics.
> > Given that nobody knows how life originated, declaring anything impossible actually needs proof.
> >
> > People keep accusing me of being a religious fundamentalist because I dare to think about anything but primordial soup and random mutation.
> Actually, the problem is that you read intelligent design propaganda, don't understand that it is propaganda, and recycle it as if were your own invention. You do the same with climate denial propaganda.
> > Agressive atheism shuts off thinking more than attending church on Sunday.
> Neither has any necessary effect on peoples willingness to think. You don't seem to be able to think for yourself at all, so your ideas on the subject are entirely worthless.
>
> --
> SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

SNIPPERMAN can't resist the impulse to take personal attacks, which is clearly a defect in his personality (assuming he has one). He will most likely do the same to my post.

On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 8:27:18 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

> People keep accusing me of being a religious fundamentalist because I
> dare to think about anything but primordial soup and random mutation.

Daring? Hardly. You repeatedly insert worthless suggestions instead
of workable theory or testable hypothesis.

That's not good science. Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce weren't doing good science, either.

"Maybe it's quantum", or "life was planted", are just word salad, no
improvement over pastafarianism.

On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 14:21:13 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 8:27:18 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>
>> People keep accusing me of being a religious fundamentalist because I
>> dare to think about anything but primordial soup and random mutation.
>
>Daring? Hardly. You repeatedly insert worthless suggestions instead
>of workable theory or testable hypothesis.

How do you know my suggestions are worthless? Are you an evolutionary
biologist? They don't now how life started either.

And what problem do you have with worthless suggestions? You would
poison a brainstorming session.
--

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 29/03/22 00:34, John Larkin wrote:
> How do you know my suggestions are worthless?

That's been explained to you many times by several people.

On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:34:47 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 14:21:13 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 8:27:18 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >
> >> People keep accusing me of being a religious fundamentalist because I
> >> dare to think about anything but primordial soup and random mutation.
> >
> >Daring? Hardly. You repeatedly insert worthless suggestions instead
> >of workable theory or testable hypothesis.

> How do you know my suggestions are worthless? Are you an evolutionary
> biologist? They don't now how life started either.

So, credentials in 'evolutionary biology' don't address a pertinent skill?
What's the point, then, of the question?

> And what problem do you have with worthless suggestions? You would
> poison a brainstorming session.

Untrue; a brainstorming session, after all, ends with evaluation. The phase
where rejection is discouraged is ONLY a phase, not the whole process. I've reached
a few conclusions, and on most such occasions, I addressed the 'how to know' issue.

Anthony William Sloman wrote:

>> No, <mutations in DNA are caused by things we experience and are 'consciously' made to increase survival skills>
>
> What a load of utter nonsense. Mutations are frequently caused by subatomic particles shooting through the cell and breaking up the DNA helix. It puts itself back together, but not quite the way it was before. There's nothing "conscious" about that.

And most of them are lethal or neutral.

Best regards, Piotr

On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 01:31:15 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>On 29/03/22 00:34, John Larkin wrote:
>> How do you know my suggestions are worthless?
>
>That's been explained to you many times by several people.

Claimed, not explained. Mostly insults.

Until you truly know the origin if life, mocking any possible source
is emotion-driven and irrational.

Even improbable ideas have value. They punch through your blind spots.
That has been explained to you many times.

--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

On 29/03/22 16:39, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 01:31:15 +0100, Tom Gardner
> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 29/03/22 00:34, John Larkin wrote:
>>> How do you know my suggestions are worthless?
>>
>> That's been explained to you many times by several people.
>
> Claimed, not explained.

If you think that, you need to polish your cognition skills.

> Mostly insults.

It sounds like you are looking for reasons not to take the
time and effort to understand.

> Even improbable ideas have value. They punch through your blind spots.
> That has been explained to you many times.

The moon is made of green cheese. That improbable idea
has value until you prove to me that it isn't?
I think not.

On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 22:18:25 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:34:47 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 14:21:13 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 8:27:18 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> People keep accusing me of being a religious fundamentalist because I
>> >> dare to think about anything but primordial soup and random mutation.
>> >
>> >Daring? Hardly. You repeatedly insert worthless suggestions instead
>> >of workable theory or testable hypothesis.
>
>> How do you know my suggestions are worthless? Are you an evolutionary
>> biologist? They don't now how life started either.
>
>So, credentials in 'evolutionary biology' don't address a pertinent skill?

Do you have such credentials?

>What's the point, then, of the question?
>
>> And what problem do you have with worthless suggestions? You would
>> poison a brainstorming session.
>
>Untrue; a brainstorming session, after all, ends with evaluation.

Not always. Sometimes there is no obvious discovery, but maybe some
people leave with different attitudes or unresolved hunches. That
might inspire an idea years later.

Brainstorming exercizes mental flexibility... if you let it.

>The phase
>where rejection is discouraged is ONLY a phase, not the whole process. I've reached
>a few conclusions, and on most such occasions, I addressed the 'how to know' issue.

Invention is irrational. If you have a "phase" where ideas are
rejected, you have elected to shut off the discovery process. Defining
"phases" is inherently restrictive.

Turn on the big illuminated sign

STOP HAVING IDEAS NOW. [1]

There is the sunk-cost fallacy: we are so invested in a mediocre
design that we can't cut over to better, simpler, quicker, cheaper one
now.

[1] there is probably an LED sign like that on Alibaba. [2]

[2] That was an idea. See how that works?

--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 16:48:35 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>On 29/03/22 16:39, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 01:31:15 +0100, Tom Gardner
>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 29/03/22 00:34, John Larkin wrote:
>>>> How do you know my suggestions are worthless?
>>>
>>> That's been explained to you many times by several people.
>>
>> Claimed, not explained.
>
>If you think that, you need to polish your cognition skills.
>
>> Mostly insults.
>
>It sounds like you are looking for reasons not to take the
>time and effort to understand.
>
>
>> Even improbable ideas have value. They punch through your blind spots.
>> That has been explained to you many times.
>
>The moon is made of green cheese. That improbable idea
>has value until you prove to me that it isn't?
>I think not.

Moon surface samples have been collected and analyzed. We know some
about seismic propagation in the bulk of the moon. And we can measure
tidal effects; green cheese would radically increase orbital decay.
That is hard experimental data that works against the cheese theory.

We have zero experimental data that resolves the origin of DNA-based
life, so options remain open.

--

I yam what I yam - Popeye