Being an old bastard, probably of or near your vintage, I did find this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CtjhWhw2I8
For the alternative theorists:
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
Being an old bastard, probably of or near your vintage, I did find this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CtjhWhw2I8
Thanks, and yep I had one of the first "transistors" which had the CD on the dial. The Red Scare was almost as big as the xenophobia of the recent Republican era. In fact I'd still rather be dead than red. (That should set fine with you if you're a fan of PBS.) I think to be a Republican these days, you get a chip implant that filters exclusively for FAUX News. That and it turns off the conscience. And cognition. And you go into a weird dream state that's not even a happy one.
But anyway my first real testbed was a 50s era TV that had been thrown out. The audio section was still working so I salvaged it to play records (as an amp). I had no idea what I was doing, shocked myself repeatedly on the high voltage supply to the cathode, and I've been absolutely normal since then :smiley with eyes on springs: -- BTW the site could use a few more smilies.
I didn't get your point about micro diamond. I was busy pitching at windmills of a faint creationist design. exchem who is an excellent poster sent up a flag, but he's across the pond, so in case he doesn't follow American media I should mention that PBS are bona fide good guys. I mean they carry BBC feed so they can't be Tories. I have to admit your post made me wonder what you meant. Was it to do with Alternative Theory? I either jumped from the train or it jumped from the track, or both.
If micro diamonds abound does it say something about intelligent design? I would go for the theory that God is secretly enslaving his minions so they will mine the stuff and make him richer than all the televangelists, the Southern Baptist convention and the Vatican put together. Could possibly explain why he's a jealous God anyway. Gimme back my diamonds! See what I had to go through (smashed the big one into smithereens with that other planet that created the moon) just to get the prebiotic cytosine, etc., needed to get life going. Oh well, might as well evolve those prokaryotes into minions and in few billion years I'll get my money back. Grumbling all the way, of course, and beating the crap out of us like what happened to Oliver Twist or something. And if anyone starts a new Christian denomination based on this premise, I want to be its first pope. Just saying.
Idle chatter, to fill the gap while the creationists figure out what to do about all of this evidence that they really evolved from bacteria and fungi. At some point they'll be grateful to have descended from "monkeys". (Have to put that in quotes so the sciency types don't jump my case.) At some point I'd like to remind the creationists that they got their excretory system and brain (which they can't differentiate anyway) from worms. At least monkeys are smart, athletic and playful. Apes, I mean, of course.
what do you suppose causes this?
regulatory genes perhaps?
i found an interesting link that describes various aspects of DNA.
the model seems really close to that of software running on hardware.
interesting stuff really.
"science", plos, pnas, and science daily are not creationist sites.
you are wrong aqueous.
you keep this type of crap up and i WILL stop responding to you.
In reply to Aqueous id, re: your # 1282 post.
There must a "link" somewhere to the diamond phenomena! These are not just "micro", they are at values beyond sub-molecular...yet they clearly exhibit all of a diamonds'
characteristic traits. (maybe I am not giving a proper definition of "search" commands to google or bing)
(Thanks for reading!)
There must a "link" somewhere to the diamond phenomena! These are not just "micro", they are at values beyond sub-molecular...yet they clearly exhibit all of a diamonds'
characteristic traits. (maybe I am not giving a proper definition of "search" commands to google or bing)
(Thanks for reading!)
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Yes, but lest we misunderstand, that process is a chemical reactive process (an elemental function)
I am astounded and in awe when i try to comprehend the size and scope of the universe and how it all functions. It is almost unbelievable. That is why, IMO. there are so many theists. They refuse to accept that all this intricacy is NOT from irreducible complexity or personal motive. It's just mathematics at an unimaginably small and large scale at once.
"the Universe does not need to be sentient to function orderly" Actually, it's the opposite, IMO.
Allow the example of the diamond.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond
Diamonds are a common carbon crystal.
Now,
Gold is another story. Gold is indeed a gift of the stars, in particular "dead" stars. Gold is not native to the earth and "came from outer space". Consider the history attached to the concept of "Gold" (forged and purified in Hell)
But the best example and proof of chemical exchange lies in the way the "slime mold' functions.. IT HAS NO BRAIN!
Yet it can solve the puzzle of a maze with unfailing accuracy. Chemically. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brainless-slime-molds/
. A Protist? Does that mean "very early in the evolution life"? Wow, that must be really old, and successful!
A model of abstract order, and very similar to the the order of fractals.
Last edited:
Fully and totally agree Write4U......
I like nothing better when I get to Fiji, then laying back on a deserted beach, pondering the heavens above me.
Back later...things to do, places to see!
i doubt if the environment has much effect on these genes.
the only possible exception is something that would damage the gene.
in other words, these genes function whether it is raining or not, unless damaged.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
But genes do not come "before" chemichals. Chemicals precede genes. It always comes down to "irreducible complexity", but if the time lines are placed in proper order, one can see a clear trend of "simple to more complex", not the other way around. IMO, all theory should be based on that fundamental principle. (Ockham)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis
IOW, a "gene" is a "(bio) chemical construct". Genes come from chemicals. Chemicals come from sub-atomic particles. You have to keep the chronology in order, which is hard to do sometimes.
In reply to Write4u, re: "life" definitions.
"RNA" life may not have been the first to exist...very good.
This poses an interesting question. Is a "virus" a quasi-life entity? One of Nature's "failed" experiments...or a supreme creation, a "Frankenstein" that is neither dead nor alive.
(Thanks for reading!)
"RNA" life may not have been the first to exist...very good.
This poses an interesting question. Is a "virus" a quasi-life entity? One of Nature's "failed" experiments...or a supreme creation, a "Frankenstein" that is neither dead nor alive.
(Thanks for reading!)
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Working backward, it would seem to me that the organism can be broken down to individually functioning structures, down to individual atoms. Whichever organism gets there first is the simplest and the "least alive" as compared to the common definition of being "alive", and an abstract "mathematical equation" (potential).
In reply to Write4U, re: your #1292 post.
Excellent explanation! The next logical step would be to ask "how did a viral structure come into existence?" What forces and conditions (excluding a "deity") served as causation?
True enough, if a "potential" exists, Nature will find "something" to exploit the potential.
Looked at as a "chicken/egg" scenario..."which was first?" presents quite a puzzle! (I think of the virus as a "triumph of failure"...a "dead-end" of existence)
.......
Although what I perceive as a "dead-end" may not be as it seems...is it possible that the virus is exploiting "higher" organisms, an attempt to "hijack" being alive?
This sounds far-fetched because it pre-supposes that some mechanisms exist as "driving force" inherent to the viral structure. (very unlikely)
......
How about this? The virus is a "key", waiting for "organic locks" to exist. (also very unlikely, but still....)
(Thanks for reading!)
Excellent explanation! The next logical step would be to ask "how did a viral structure come into existence?" What forces and conditions (excluding a "deity") served as causation?
True enough, if a "potential" exists, Nature will find "something" to exploit the potential.
Looked at as a "chicken/egg" scenario..."which was first?" presents quite a puzzle! (I think of the virus as a "triumph of failure"...a "dead-end" of existence)
.......
Although what I perceive as a "dead-end" may not be as it seems...is it possible that the virus is exploiting "higher" organisms, an attempt to "hijack" being alive?
This sounds far-fetched because it pre-supposes that some mechanisms exist as "driving force" inherent to the viral structure. (very unlikely)
......
How about this? The virus is a "key", waiting for "organic locks" to exist. (also very unlikely, but still....)
(Thanks for reading!)
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
"Common definitions" aren't very useful in scientific discussions. In this case, even the scientific definition of life leaves a lot of wiggle room--for the very good reason that all the life we have ever studied is on one planet. But for what it's worth, an object is said to be alive when it has most of the following characteristics (from Wikipedia):
- Homeostasis
- Organization
- Metabolism
- Growth
- Adaptation
- Response to stimuli
- Reproduction
Fraggle Rocker
When talking about the first, simplest lifeforms the only criteria is self replication from the molecules in it's environment. All these other criteria are traits of "Cadillac" evolved lifeforms, the simplest forms were "Pintos". Fact is we would have a hard time distinguishing the first lifeforms from the normal chemistry surrounding them, their only distinction would be their ability to create copies of themselves. But once replication begins, so does replication with modifications tested by survival and evolution has begun. That is when all the other traits will evolve. The cell did not pop into being fully formed, it's every detail was evolved, step by step.
Grumpy
When talking about the first, simplest lifeforms the only criteria is self replication from the molecules in it's environment. All these other criteria are traits of "Cadillac" evolved lifeforms, the simplest forms were "Pintos". Fact is we would have a hard time distinguishing the first lifeforms from the normal chemistry surrounding them, their only distinction would be their ability to create copies of themselves. But once replication begins, so does replication with modifications tested by survival and evolution has begun. That is when all the other traits will evolve. The cell did not pop into being fully formed, it's every detail was evolved, step by step.
Grumpy
a "sub molecular "diamond"?
uh, hmmm, i haven't been reading your posts but i fail to see how you can have a "sub molecular diamond",
diamond is basically a lattice structure composed of carbon.
Fraggle Rocker
When talking about the first, simplest lifeforms the only criteria is self replication from the molecules in it's environment. All these other criteria are traits of "Cadillac" evolved lifeforms, the simplest forms were "Pintos". Fact is we would have a hard time distinguishing the first lifeforms from the normal chemistry surrounding them, their only distinction would be their ability to create copies of themselves. But once replication begins, so does replication with modifications tested by survival and evolution has begun. That is when all the other traits will evolve. The cell did not pop into being fully formed, it's every detail was evolved, step by step.
Grumpy
Nice, short, logical and Informative little post Grumpy ol fella!
Thanks.
In reply to leopold, re: your #1296 post.
Don't kill the "messenger!" Yes...you're correct. You cannot "see" something that small, without a lot of help.
If you "read the whole reference" that I mentioned, it states you would need a "scanning electron microscope" to see them.
I have doubt that a "lattice structure" of carbon could exceed "normal" parameters of definitions as an element.
I agree that I made a misjudgment with the phrase "sub-molecular"....I should have said "smaller than a molecule". (is this better?)
........
I'm not "Mr. Wizard" or "Mr. Science" and have no ambitions to be an "authority" on the internet, or anywhere else...I just mentioned something I think was on PBS a couple of
years ago! Yes, leopold...I'm aware of what "carbon" and it's six known forms are. I know what a frickin' diamond is!
(Thanks for reading!)
Don't kill the "messenger!" Yes...you're correct. You cannot "see" something that small, without a lot of help.
If you "read the whole reference" that I mentioned, it states you would need a "scanning electron microscope" to see them.
I have doubt that a "lattice structure" of carbon could exceed "normal" parameters of definitions as an element.
I agree that I made a misjudgment with the phrase "sub-molecular"....I should have said "smaller than a molecule". (is this better?)
........
I'm not "Mr. Wizard" or "Mr. Science" and have no ambitions to be an "authority" on the internet, or anywhere else...I just mentioned something I think was on PBS a couple of
years ago! Yes, leopold...I'm aware of what "carbon" and it's six known forms are. I know what a frickin' diamond is!
(Thanks for reading!)
uh, well i wasn't actually talking about "seeing" them.
a better phrase would have been "i can't picture it in my mind".
no, because a "molecule" can range in size from molecular hydrogen to DNA and beyond.
in my opinion it would be impossible to have a "sub molecular" diamond.
it's also my opinion that the least number of carbons needed would be 5.
in other words, this is the smallest unit that can be a "diamond".
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Nice, short, logical and Informative little post Grumpy ol fella!
Thanks.
Seconded.