Scientists Discover a Self-Replicating Protein Structure, And It Could Have Built The First Life on

[Sherlock Holmes]

Abu's pinky finger is more erudite than your entire set of fallacious claims

You ask dumb questions like "is it chaotic or is it random", as if there were a difference.

I'll bet you never heard of Ramsey. He says the same thing ALL the smart mathematicians say, there's no such thing as complete randomness and the best we get is DEGREES of disorder.

How much of it you see, depends on the scale of your perspective, and how you measure it.

There's no such thing as complete determinism either. And once again the same holds true, it depends on scale and measure.

To insist otherwise reveals an ignorance of our universe. Not to mention the fundamentals of mathematics. Study Hausdorff, one of the kings of measure, topology, and fractal dimensionality. Study Renyi, Feynman, and von Neumann. They all say the same thing. Heisenberg says it too. You can't measure what you can't see.

Insisting on knowledge of the unknowable is pretty foolish. Insisting that unpredictability is deterministic is pretty foolish too. It's the kind of tripe you get when you start believing the fluff on Google and Wikipedia. They tell you unpredictability is deterministic and that somehow soothes the creationist mind so you start believing it. Even when it's plainly obvious you can't predict a damn thing.

Instead of arguing inanities you should go read about how much you CAN measure, and when and why. You know what Google says about "unmeasurable"? Too big to measure. I kid you not, that's what it says. If you start believing crap like that you'll be an unhappy person in no time flat. Instead, study measure theory. Read Borel, Lebesgue, Radon ... if reading is too much and you like pictures better, go get the Fractal Geometry of Nature by Mandelbrot. At least that way you'll learn something useful. He devotes an entire chapter to measure, and then shows you how it affects everything from distance to dimensionality. Go look at the pretty drawings by Renyi, who took it one step further and studied the asymptotes of measurability. Guess what, they're the SAME upper and lower bounds you find in stochastic ("random") generators.

You're never going to learn this stuff from Google, or Wiki, or even ChatGPT. Assuming you WANT to learn it, which most believers don't, because they can't tolerate having their worldviews deconstructed. They'd rather BELIEVE that things are logical, even when they aren't. Because if they couldn't cling to their beliefs they'd fall apart.

There's an old Chinese proverb that says "blessed are those who expect nothing, for they'll never be disappointed". Math is about relationships, not truths. Convenient truths are a mind killer. "God dunnit" is a great excuse to stop using your mind. You end up believing stuff like there's some kind of dichotomy between randomness and determinism, even when every great mathematician in the last 400 years has shown you there isn't.

Please no more verbose lectures on mathematics, I stopped listening after you said "chaos is not deterministic".

 

[scruffy]

Please no more verbose lectures on mathematics, I stopped listening after you said "chaos is not deterministic".

Suit yourself.

You're not required to listen.

But you still can't predict the outcome.

Of your "deterministic" system.

You'll believe whatever you want to believe. I'm done with you.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Suit yourself.

You're not required to listen.

But you still can't predict the outcome.

Of your "deterministic" system.

You'll believe whatever you want to believe. I'm done with you.

One cannot predict the outcomes in chaotic deterministic systems, these are a subset of deterministic systems.

 

[scruffy]

One cannot predict the outcomes in chaotic deterministic systems, these are a subset of deterministic systems.

If you can't predict the outcome then there must be a RANDOM aspect to the behavior.

Ya think?

Duh?

Claiming something is deterministic is NOT USEFUL if you can't predict the outcome.

You insist on failure.

Do you enjoy beating your head against a brick wall?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

If you can't predict the outcome then there must be a RANDOM aspect to the behavior.

No, there's uncertainty, which is not the same as random.

Claiming something is deterministic is NOT USEFUL if you can't predict the outcome.

Can you create the Mandelbrot set using randomness rather than chaos?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, there's uncertainty, which is not the same as random.

Can you create the Mandelbrot set using randomness rather than chaos?

You can't even "recreate" a single mandelbrot set in this universe using chaos. But that's a finer point.

 

[abu afak]

No, we don't have all the answers, but we're still looking.
We'll never have all the answers as they just generate new questions.

Scientists Discover a Self-Replicating Protein Structure, And It Could Have Built The First Life on Earth
Mike McRae - 4 Mar 2018 - sciencealert.com
Scientists Discover a Self-Replicating Protein Structure, And It Could Have Built The First Life on Earth

Roughly 4 billion years ago an assortment of complex organic compounds went from being mere carbon soup to replicating biochemistry – the first steps to life on Earth.​

​

The order of these steps has been a source of debate for decades. Now, a recent discovery about a common protein structure could help tip the balance, bringing us closer to understanding just how we came to be here.​

​

Researchers from Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule (ETH) in Zürich have demonstrated that short strands of amyloid protein structures can direct the selection of amino acids to build even more amyloids.​

​

If the word amyloid doesn't sound familiar, they're a protein structure that's increasingly being found all over the place in nature.​

[.....]​

`

That experiment created no life and also required human manipulation. We're talking about the origin of life here, before humans.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No, we don't have all the answers, but we're still looking.
We'll never have all the answers as they just generate new questions.

Scientists Discover a Self-Replicating Protein Structure, And It Could Have Built The First Life on Earth
Mike McRae - 4 Mar 2018 - sciencealert.com
Scientists Discover a Self-Replicating Protein Structure, And It Could Have Built The First Life on Earth

Roughly 4 billion years ago an assortment of complex organic compounds went from being mere carbon soup to replicating biochemistry – the first steps to life on Earth.​

​

The order of these steps has been a source of debate for decades. Now, a recent discovery about a common protein structure could help tip the balance, bringing us closer to understanding just how we came to be here.​

​

Researchers from Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule (ETH) in Zürich have demonstrated that short strands of amyloid protein structures can direct the selection of amino acids to build even more amyloids.​

​

If the word amyloid doesn't sound familiar, they're a protein structure that's increasingly being found all over the place in nature.​

[.....]​

`

It didn't take long for me to find the crux of this claim:

To be fair, these were highly controlled laboratory conditions. It's a leap to go from tweaking proteins to generating life.

Those highly controlled conditions includes very high purities that are never found in nature along with calculated amounts of reagents and so on. Nature doesn't do that, it is directionless, random and life has only ever been found to come from life - this is the law of biogenesis one of the most verified laws in empirical science.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Those highly controlled conditions includes very high purities that are never found in nature along with calculated amounts of reagents and so on

This is not relevant. Those molecules, whether 5% or 100% of a solution, will find each other and interact billions of times per second for millions of years.

 

[Unkotare]

And democrats want to destroy it. Because, "reproductive rights!"

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And democrats want to destroy it. Because, "reproductive rights!"

And you want to enforce your personal fetishes on women at the end of a gun.

Gross.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

This is not relevant. Those molecules, whether 5% or 100% of a solution, will find each other and interact billions of times per second for millions of years.

Lets see this happen naturally then, anything orchestrated by an intelligent team of people by definition requires intelligence but nature has no intelligence so why should we believe that these observations can ever arise naturally? faith?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Lets see this happen naturally then,

Which would.entail recreating the conditions expected to be present 3 billion years ago.

Yes, scientists do that.

Do you have any other suggestions for the people who have dedicated their life's work to this?

 

[Unkotare]

And you want to enforce your personal fetishes on women at the end of a gun.

Gross.

Find a quote where I have EVER said anything even remotely like that. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Can't find one?

Yeah, then SHUT THE FUCK UP.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Which would.entail recreating the conditions expected to be present 3 billion years ago.

Yes, scientists do that.

Do you have any other suggestions for the people who have dedicated their life's work to this?

Yes I do, do not claim that because a result arises under carefully controlled and highly sensitive and very specific conditions, then that same result can definitely arise naturally without human intervention. The latter is an assumption not a fact.

I can assemble a radio here but that doesn't mean one will arise unaided one day all by itself. By all means speculate but do not state that this is definitely possible.

 

[scruffy]

This is not relevant. Those molecules, whether 5% or 100% of a solution, will find each other and interact billions of times per second for millions of years.

With a redundancy factor of 10^23.

That's probability 1 with 23 orders of magnitude backup.

You can do the diffusion math in a liter of water, it's not even a single order of magnitude.

And we're talking bacteria whose total volume is a few cubic microns.

The whole impossibility thing is laughably stupid.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

With a redundancy factor of 10^23.

That's probability 1 with 23 orders of magnitude backup.

You can do the diffusion math in a liter of water, it's not even a single order of magnitude.

And we're talking bacteria whose total volume is a few cubic microns.

The whole impossibility thing is laughably stupid.

So why don't these arise in nature? why only in a carefully controlled lab setting?

Proving that humans can assemble something in no way proves that it can be assembled without humans, this is basic, logic, why do you always stumble on these points.