Randy Yates wrote: ...> Stop attacking my beliefs first, and I might be a little more restrained > in attacking yours.You apparently feel that by not sharing your beliefs, I attack them. That hints at the paranoia I wrote of.>> If I may ask, how old does your view take the solar system to be? > > At least 49 years - I have no freaking idea. To know that a carburator > didn't evolve from an ore deposit doesn't mean that I know how one > works.I share your belief that evolution without self-replication is not possible. Why do you keep harping on it? The only interesting case exists among self replicators. There, at least, is room for discussion. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Ron Bracewell Passed Away in August
Started by ●December 5, 2007
Reply by ●December 12, 20072007-12-12
Reply by ●December 12, 20072007-12-12
Richard Dobson wrote: ...> So you have to qualify the question by asking in what langauge people > believe in it. Do they know for example that the first line of Genesis: > > "Bereshith bara Elohim, eth ha Shamaim, w'eth ha Aretz". > > Should more properly be translated based on this mapping: > > Bereshith: in principle, in archetypal form > bara : moved from unknown to known > Elohim : "the Being of Beings" ("Elohim" is plural) > Shamaim : the World of Vibrations (also plural) - light, sound as > signifying life, but also "exalted and shimmering waters" > Aretz : Compressed Stuff, stability and Stasis, Limitation > > > My favourite translations of this include, most simply: > > "in the beginning, God created the Wave and the Particle". > > Well, someone must have done, anyway!:-) I have to send that to my brother-in-law the rabbi. The meaning of much that has been translated accurately is lost anyhow, although modern research and exegesis have clarified a few. "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of [the] needle than a rich man to enter the gates of heaven." The gates of walled cities were barred at night to prevent surprise attacks. To allow people to come and go nonetheless, a narrow passage through the wall, called the eye of [a] needle, was left open. A person would have to sidle through it and only one could pass at a time, making it easy for a single guard to defend against attack. It wasn't possible to get a donkey through, let alone a camel, but it was imaginable. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●December 13, 20072007-12-13
Richard Dobson wrote: (snip)> Complexity is easy (just ask John Conway) - plain > weirdness is more challenging. I have always found water to be the > single most weird substance in the universe. Never ceases to amaze me. > If you want evidence of intelligent design, forget about life, just look > at water. No human could possibly have invented such a thing! And made > out of two gasses? How is ~that~ possible!Water is pretty interesting. Ammonia and HF are a little unusual, too. Part of it is that the small size allows more attraction between molecules than larger molecules. We were lucky to end up with so much of it, too. Though O16 (and C12) from nicely as multiples of the extra stable alpha particle, so it isn't so surprising. One reasonably popular suggestion is that there are many universes, each with different physical properties. We are in one that turned out good for life to form. Physics seems to suggest that 1e500 universes is about the right number to have a reasonably chance for one like ours to form. -- glen
Reply by ●December 13, 20072007-12-13
Randy Yates wrote: (snip)> Why don't we see any 1969 Kimball Swinger electronic organs sitting in the middle > of the forest? I mean, it's been billions of years, anything is possible, > right? And it's MUCH less complex than a human body.We don't yet really know how complex we are. Current genomics suggests about 35,000 genes. It used to be thought closer to 100,000 but was revised down. How many bits of information to describe the Kimball Swinger such that someone elseo could build one without outside knowledge? (A circuit description wouldn't be enough, you also have to describe in detail the production of all the components.) -- glen
Reply by ●December 13, 20072007-12-13
glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:> Randy Yates wrote: > > (snip) > >> Why don't we see any 1969 Kimball Swinger electronic organs sitting in >> the middle >> of the forest? I mean, it's been billions of years, anything is >> possible, right? And it's MUCH less complex than a human body. > > We don't yet really know how complex we are. > > Current genomics suggests about 35,000 genes. It used to be thought > closer to 100,000 but was revised down. How many bits of information to > describe the Kimball Swinger such that someone elseo could build one > without outside knowledge? (A circuit description wouldn't be enough, > you also have to describe in detail the production of all the components.)If you want to talk about the potential for a Swinger to evolve, it will have to be the bar-hopping self-replicating kind. Evolution vs. divine creation may be still a matter of faith, but the notion of evolution without self replication is absurd. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●December 13, 20072007-12-13
Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> writes:> glen herrmannsfeldt wrote: >> Randy Yates wrote: >> >> (snip) >> >>> Why don't we see any 1969 Kimball Swinger electronic organs sitting >>> in the middle >>> of the forest? I mean, it's been billions of years, anything is >>> possible, right? And it's MUCH less complex than a human body. >> >> We don't yet really know how complex we are. >> >> Current genomics suggests about 35,000 genes. It used to be thought >> closer to 100,000 but was revised down. How many bits of information to >> describe the Kimball Swinger such that someone elseo could build one >> without outside knowledge? (A circuit description wouldn't be enough, >> you also have to describe in detail the production of all the components.) > > If you want to talk about the potential for a Swinger to evolve, it > will have to be the bar-hopping self-replicating kind. Evolution > vs. divine creation may be still a matter of faith, but the notion of > evolution without self replication is absurd.My follow-up to Richard clarified this point. Are you conveniently ignoring it, or have you honestly overlooked it? -- % Randy Yates % "The dreamer, the unwoken fool - %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % in dreams, no pain will kiss the brow..." %%% 919-577-9882 % %%%% <yates@ieee.org> % 'Eldorado Overture', *Eldorado*, ELO http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
Reply by ●December 13, 20072007-12-13
Randy Yates wrote:> Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> writes: > >> glen herrmannsfeldt wrote: >>> Randy Yates wrote: >>> >>> (snip) >>> >>>> Why don't we see any 1969 Kimball Swinger electronic organs sitting >>>> in the middle >>>> of the forest? I mean, it's been billions of years, anything is >>>> possible, right? And it's MUCH less complex than a human body. >>> We don't yet really know how complex we are. >>> >>> Current genomics suggests about 35,000 genes. It used to be thought >>> closer to 100,000 but was revised down. How many bits of information to >>> describe the Kimball Swinger such that someone elseo could build one >>> without outside knowledge? (A circuit description wouldn't be enough, >>> you also have to describe in detail the production of all the components.) >> If you want to talk about the potential for a Swinger to evolve, it >> will have to be the bar-hopping self-replicating kind. Evolution >> vs. divine creation may be still a matter of faith, but the notion of >> evolution without self replication is absurd. > > My follow-up to Richard clarified this point. Are you conveniently > ignoring it, or have you honestly overlooked it?Do you mean " ... I did indeed infer a reproductive process. That was my mistake?" My comment was not to you, but a response to Glen. Perhaps I was too zealous in trying to confine the discussion to animate entities. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●December 13, 20072007-12-13
Jerry Avins wrote:> glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:(snip)>> Current genomics suggests about 35,000 genes. It used to be thought >> closer to 100,000 but was revised down. How many bits of information to >> describe the Kimball Swinger such that someone elseo could build one >> without outside knowledge? (A circuit description wouldn't be enough, >> you also have to describe in detail the production of all the >> components.)> If you want to talk about the potential for a Swinger to evolve, it will > have to be the bar-hopping self-replicating kind. Evolution vs. divine > creation may be still a matter of faith, but the notion of evolution > without self replication is absurd.I wasn't going that direction at all. Just that the way people are put together is completely different than the way electronics is put together. I was thinking about this some time ago in the context of siamese twins. Consider that you have the design for just about any computer in the last 50 years. Now take two of them, remove a random set of parts from one and join it to the other such that it works as a dual processor system. For most computers, if you remove one part at random the whole system stops working. For us, if you remove one part much of the time the rest of the system adapts to the change and continues working, though maybe not quite as well. While the information storage system for people is digital (DNA), the control mechanisms are mostly analog. (Concentrations of various chemicals in cells turning on and off genes.) Similar to human designed electronics, there are two ways to make a system robust against variations in the components. Those are negative feedback (commonly used in analog systems), and saturation (used in digital systems). Those same methods are believed to be used in the cellular control systems. -- glen
