Excellent point.

Not fair... The greatest scientific minds in history still resort to simplifications that don't do justice to Quantum Physics... Hence Schrodinger's Cat as a thought experiment.


There's a bit of condescension and arrogance... hahah
Instead of talking down to people who are discussing it with our limited understanding, do help to educate. Please.


It is another good point. Thank you.
The tricky thing about QM is that the best way to understand it is through high maths. If that was the ONLY way to discuss it, only a few thousand people in the world would be able to ponder it... So we make imperfect models and discuss it on a gun forum.

All I know is that bacon, coffee, whiskey, and cigars on a cold day before, during, and after a good day at the range is a miracle to partake thereof.

Honorable mention for a good fart, and the designer of tits.

I give thanks to all the happy accident cosmic events that made this possible.

Another fatal flaw is to use the current set of organisms (and fossils for that matter) too heavily as a measure against early life forms - a great many of which left no fossils (probably the vast majority left none). The only reason we know about the ancient nature of cyanobacterial is because they left fossils - one cannot assume they were the lone representative of the early period as a great many forms of bacteria and algae leave no fossil and many also leave no trace of activity (like burrowing holes of other obvious metabolic byproducts, etc).

Even advanced organisms like dinosaurs leave fossils primarily of bone (mineralized - not actual bone) and there is a great dearth of soft tissue exemplars. Things like impressions on sedimentary rock of the feather impressions of archaeopteryx - not an actual fossilized part of the organism but a highly suspected inference can be drawn from the impression.

The analogy is the current rage to use modern sentiments to pass judgement on historical figures. No bueno.

PS As to condescension, etc - physicists (like me - or even any professional) often have little time for popular characterizations that are just wrong. A great deal of quantum theory can be comprehended with no math at all. Plus, I'm a huge jerk, usually.

I thought I had posted my "STOE" example ... Squirrel Theory Of Everything (to illustrate the model versus system confusion. Searching leads to no results so find the example below.

Model: Squirrels (and other rodents) running in cages with wheels of various sizes chasing various types of nuts. Using specific combinations of rodent, wheel size and nut type all observable phenomena can be predicted perfectly. Previously "silly" combinations of rodent, wheel and nut predict unforeseen yet eventually observed new phenomena. The actual mathematics and other tools used to make such predictions are a distraction.

In this respect the model STOE is an excellent model and is by all accounts the highest achievement of science.

Now, who in their right mind would make the illogical leap to suggest that the universe is actually composed of rodents, nuts and wheels? The exact same goes for the standard model and quantum theory and gravitation. Why would anyone make the leap that the wavefunctions of the model somehow are actually real? Technically, the same goes for that standard model of leptons, bosons, quark, etc - they are simply tools and artifice used to grind the crank of the model. To make the leap that the elements of the model are actually real is fallacy and a horrid misuse of the model/system paradigm. There is no need to obfuscate this point with the technicalities of math, etc.

Some consider this to be philosophical hair splitting but consider when the next iteration of a model comes along and completely displaces the old model (which will be rightly seen as a silly simplification or possibly a special case of the new theory - like Newton is to Einstein or Aristotle to Dalton - Democritus). Please note than quantum theory and gravitation theory do not and cannot be unified in their current forms in not just a trivial way either so there are known to be incorrect/incomplete/wrong on a fundamental level (although for some special cases they are 'good enough').

If one think there is not such a 'distance' between Newton and Einstein theories they misunderstand the complete and utter change required to have space-time bend by energy density to make gravity manifest. Newton has no clue and would simply laugh at Einstein as if a retarded child to hear such nonsense and go back to fiddling with mercury to attempt to make gold. And yet Newton is utterly wrong on both counts on truly fundamental levels.

Since the actual physicists write and teach using the "popular characerizations" that have been used in this thread, that seems a bit odd.
I am not talking about like that of the charlatan Deepak Chopra and his ilk... Disgusting.


We're trying here.
Some of your explanations and clarifications are even more vague than our feeble attempts.
Your reminders about models being just models is very good though- it is too easy for a layperson like me to try to think of those models as reality.
It surprises me that you are so denigrating of the descriptions in the thread, when the most famous of the QM thought experiments (Schrodinger's Cat) pretty much states it the way that Murray did.
Of course, Schrodinger constructed that thought experiment to point out an obvious fallacy in the Copenhagen Interpretation.
Yes, it is a link to Wikipedia... lol Just as a background for those who want it.
Spork, if I am off base on my understanding I'd be pleased to have you correct me.


Hey, we have something in common!

Yes, and yet both theories are so close to perfection when standing alone. I wouldn't refer to either QM or General Relativity as "good enough", but maybe that is because I don't know either well enough.
I've heard it described that classical physics (Newtonian) is "good enough" for things like calculating orbits, but General Relativity is as close to perfect as we can describe... Something along the lines of accurate to within the thickness of a human hair out to a billion miles. That's off the top of my head, but close.
That will be quite a day when / if QM and GR are corrected or replaced.



Universal time, a universal frame of reference, etc... Yes. And Newton is probably the most brilliant human mind to have been published in the sciences. Kind of sobering to realize how even such a mind, as sure as he could be, was still wrong.
He said "If I have seen farther than others, it is only because I have stood upon the shoulders of giants."
The sentiment is nice, humble... I read recently that he may have meant it as an insult against a short-statured colleague with whom he had a dispute.

Nice to see the thread pick up and thanks for posting on amino acids. I don’t have time to look over the other replies yet but will when I can. I wanted to respond to Mike’s religion/violence statement also (below).

Miller Urey is very old and has a set of problems. I can go into them all at a later time when I can get to my books (I am not at home). Time is often given as the answer to all conundrums like this but I can give the odds of actual proteins being formed in the entire timespan of the universe since the big bang (assuming the theory is correct) as well as the number of ions in the known universe and the statistics show it would be virtually impossible. The math isn’t too difficult for the statistical probability after the time and particle number is known. I can dig it up and post if anyone is interested. In order to accept a theory, we need more than just a heck of a long time. We need mechanisms and experimental data. Functional proteins have never been formed, even extremely short chains (recall that proteins must only have the L enantiomer form).

This problem of protein formation is addressed ad nauseum in Meyer’s book. While amino acids reacting chemically sounds like a leap, and it is very difficult to get even an extremely small amount of a limited number of amino acids, it is a far cry from protein formation spontaneously or even synthesized by humans. Peptides forming outside of a living cell will contain random amounts of L and D amino acids (enantiomers). Proteins have never been formed in a laboratory, unless I have missed the research. All proteins in living cells consist only of L forms. I stated some of the requirements previously but they must be L forms and they must be bound in the correct sequence or they will not function. These L amino acids are sequenced (using the 20 amino acids in the cell) by the sequence of the nucleic acids in the DNA. If the sequences are not correct (and any D form is present) the protein will not have the correct 3D structure to function. A small change in the structure will not allow the binding sites to be in the correct orientation and will not fit with receptors.

There is a hypothesized “prebiotic soup” as well as a hypothesized differing atmosphere that would allow the unstable molecules to not only form but not be degraded. Neither of these, as I stated earlier, have been shown to be the case using geology so we have to take several more theories in order to proof the first theory. These are some of the reasons scientists give for living organisms no longer being spontaneously formed.

Then if we look at the actual research papers and do not rely on magazine or news articles, what we find is these experiments have many parameters set for them and they start with only a few chemicals or remove problem chemicals as reactions proceed. Basic chemistry is not allowed to proceed unfettered. They all have some form of intelligent manipulation helping the chemistry. They may remove substances that would interfere, limit, or otherwise react to stop the formation of a larger number of amino acids or peptides (or even ribonucleases in the RNA research). I would be very interested in research papers that show longer chain peptide formation or any protein formation based on a non-interventionist chemical experiment (after the setup of the initial parameters).

https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/m ... -structure

“As shown above, L and D amino acids are mirror images of each other and are non-superimposable on each other, just like our left and right hands. By non-superimposable, we mean that when the mirror image of the object is placed over the original object, they do not have a perfect overlap. Pairs of amino acids like these are called enantiomers.
Only L-amino acids are constituents of proteins. Our body synthesizes most of its own L-amino acids; these then get incorporated into proteins. Proteins are catalysts for most of the biochemical reactions that take place in our body.“


https://www.wired.com/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

“RNA is now [sic] found in living cells, where it carries information between genes and protein-manufacturing cellular components. Scientists think RNA existed early in Earth's history, providing a necessary intermediate platform between pre-biotic chemicals and DNA, its double-stranded, more-stable descendant.
However, though researchers have been able to show how RNA's component molecules, called ribonucleotides, could assemble into RNA, their many attempts to synthesize these ribonucleotides have failed. No matter how they combined the ingredients — a sugar, a phosphate, and one of four different nitrogenous molecules, or nucleobases — ribonucleotides just wouldn't form.”


On the point Mike made earlier about religion and violence, I thought I would respond. I have seen this argument given against religion more times than I can remember in forums, on television, and talking face to face. Perhaps it is understood that is a specious argument since the caveat was given about atheism (he can foresee my arguments) but since it was expounded with an example of religious violence, I thought it would be good to flesh it out.

Stating that religions cause violence would be disregarding all of the violence, murder, and torture outside of religions, which is massive. We can just take two examples of atheistic systems, the USSR and Mao’s Communist China. Both were Socialistic/Marxist regimes that were based on the atheist ideals of Marx/Lenin. The ideal was to get rid of religion and bring in a utopia but we know from history that Mao and Stalin were two of the biggest mass murders in history. Religion does not cause violence any more than guns cause violence. Both can be twisted by humans who are violent by nature in order to suppress, enslave and steal from others, however, this can be said about many things. If we did not have religions, people would still murder and we would still have war. If we did not have guns, people would still murder and we would still have war.

I could list many examples of religious torture and persecution, just look at Toledo and the Inquisition or the Islamic atrocities. Yet, I can also list the extreme opposite. Anyone who believes killing and torture in the name of Jesus is valid should just take a quick glance at the parts in red of the New Testament. Not only did Jesus teach the opposite but he even rebuked his disciples (Peter with the sword in the garden). Jesus was teaching love thy neighbor and no violence to anyone, even as you were being persecuted. Many Christians took his teachings to heart and died horrible deaths to emulate Jesus. Many prayed for their torturers and executioners as they were being killed, just as Jesus did at his crucifixion. Read Foxe’s “Book of Martyrs:A History of the Lives, Sufferings, and Triumphant Deaths of the Early Christian and the Protestant Martyrs” and it will show just how far the non-violent teachings of Jesus took people. These were amazing testimonies of courage and sacrifice without harming even those who are evil. There is a reason early on that Jesus followers called it “The Way”. The way is to follow what he said and did. Nowhere will you find anything condoning murder or torture, you will find the opposite. I could go into a long exegetical diatribe on both the NT and OT but will refrain.

No... It is not specious in the slightest.

When the acts of rape, torture, murder, slavery etc are carried out in the name of the religion, and at the direction and/or approval of the heads of the religion, this is a much different thing than simply people hurting other people out of our animal nature.
Actually, it is not different at all, but the implications are different. Religion is not a cure for mankind's animal nature, but just a flowing robe of self-sanctity.
Religion allows normal people to do horrible things under the guise of approval from god or gods. Whether you personally have done horrid things in the name of your own religion or not does not prove against the fact that religions have done incredibly evil things throughout history, sometimes in the name of their god, sometimes while cloistered behind their thick rich tapestries where no one can see.


I think that this would qualify as a fundamental misunderstanding of my argument.

I like to think in absolutes to test my viewpoints... realizing the limitations of this method.
If a single innocent boy or girl is raped, murdered, torn from its parents, even beaten for something that it had no willful part in, and the violator of said child is not zorched to hell in a fiery flash, I claim the responsible religion to be false and of human origin and design.
I think it is obvious... Humans crave a deeper meaning to their lives, and even more than that, fear death. They fear pain and suffering... If not for themselves, they fear it beyond measure for their loved ones.
Life is kind of full of suffering and death for a lot of people, but a hundred times more so thousands of years ago.
Death came early and in painful ways, and often with no warning... Hunger, undernourishment, disease, broken bones, wild animals, falls from height, things falling from heights, and.... the corker- from other human beings bent on intentionally causing that suffering and death.

When in a human's life do we feel most comforted in the face of imminent danger?
I have to draw a story, even if it is fictional or idealized. Even if it has never happened to an individual personally, we can all imagine it, and it is comforting.
Picture a prehistoric family huddled in a nook at night, a father, a mother nursing a baby, and a child of 5 ish... Shelter is crude, danger comes at night from wild animals. Maybe not every night, but even coming once in a lifetime it will sear the situation onto the child's mind like a branding iron.
The mother is nursing her baby to comfort it, the 5 year old squeezes into as tight a ball as possible, and the Father stands with a rough weapon keeping danger (death by being eaten alive) at bay. I capitalized Father in this story where he takes on an awesome role...
The savior of the family. Literally.
Sometimes that Father has given his own life for his family... In a sense, almost every father gives his life for his family.

How comforting that image would be to a child... and that feeling stays for the entire life, even growing to mythic proportions. Retellings of that story would not likely be 100% accurate.
Why ever would an omniscient, omnipotent supernatural being want to be known as "Father"?
I think it is pretty obvious that WE humans wanted a supernatural father. A promise of eternal love, safety, wealth and health. Not only protection from the dangers and suffering, but their eternal defeat.

No offense is intended in the telling of this story. It is idealized and fictional, yet happened in similar ways millions of times in the past. Any offense is in the taking, not the giving here.


Brother, I have seen your interpretation of said books, and it looks like we have different understandings.
When I was a youngster I had MANY experiences that I attributed to the supernatural. I was confident in that! My mother was Baptist and I was raised quasi-fundamentalist.... It took an enormous effort to break free of that, and that effort was required even with the knowledge of earth shaking flaws in the "authority" figures at the church, and other elders to me.
When I was a young man I went on a quest to find The Truth, which I believed would come from God. I will skip the many years of searching and praying and hoping... fervently, deeply, with all my heart. Honestly... I was HONEST in my search. On my knees crying and praying kind of earnestness.
You know what I found? Yesh, yesh, you already know what I found.

Religious people like to look at atheists as "faithless, lost"... I disagree.

But that was a personal story. Some people come to the truth without so much wailing and gnashing of teeth. I'm a slow teach, what can I say. haha

What it comes down to is that there are 3 major viewpoints in life.
1. Supernatural.
2. Science is enough to explain the "meaning" of life.
3. Who cares... What's on TV?

It's very tough to break free from supernatural teachings when people weave their lives and meanings through those... How painful it can be to lose that meaning of life.
This applies all the way back to Zeuss and his cabal, and well before. All those billions of intelligent primates, looking for safety and meaning in life.

You make me question my "father figure" story.

A lot to catch up on. I am really interested in your ideas on quantum mechanics (I have read your squirrel theory..) From all the quantum mechanics books and papers I have read (I am no expert) the physicists explained that the detector setup collapses a probability into a particle. Maybe you can expound on what exactly is happening in the setup with the detectors and different pathways.

Since we probably will never agree on the DNA/protein aspects, I am ready to be schooled in quantum physics (and no problem condescending, I can take it).

But still on last note after this on proteins and statistics (I know, I am a pain in the ass).

I also agree on the post about whiskey.

I agree that prions are interesting but I disagree on most of the other points.
I read the information on LiL proteins and thank you for that, it was interesting. I still believe Glutathione is not classified as a protein, merely a tripeptide cofactor (an antioxidant). Proteins are normally defined as a high molecular weight compound that folds on itself in a 3-dimensional pattern with at least 20 amino acids up to several thousand, but if the nomenclature has changed since I studied cell physiology, I will grant that the naming convention has changed. Either way, a 2-3 amino acid peptide is different from the structure of a normal protein.

https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compou ... ection=Top

“Glutathione is a tripeptide comprised of three amino acids (cysteine, glutamic acid, and glycine) present in most mammalian tissue. Glutathione acts as an antioxidant, a free radical scavenger and a detoxifying agent. Glutathione is also important as a cofactor for the enzyme glutathione peroxidase, in the uptake of amino acids, and in the synthesis of leukotrienes.

Perhaps this seems silly but this is the main issue scientists are trying to explain. These are well established problems in origins researchI would be interested in your take on the actual coding of functionally specific proteins as opposed to small peptides or the LiL names proteins.

Scientific research cannot use arguments of a long time period or that something will be figured out in the future. We have to have reproducible experimental results to confirm theories or they are just theoretical arguments. Saying once a process is known and then the thing becomes impossible to not occur seems odd. You are stating that someday we will know a theory is correct without evidence and then we will see that it has to occur. Maybe I just read that wrong.

“who knows the precursor forms to cyanobacteria might have been prionic”. These may be interesting questions but of not much value since we have not established a basis.

I understand your argument on the probability calculations and will not spend the time going through all the calculations or reasoning since I have laid out my arguments and will let it stand on this subject. I have no problem disagreeing on the biochemistry or the coding of functionally specific features of proteins. Hey, I disagree with my wife as well and she still puts up with me.

Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought you were aware of my background as on the same page as you but changed my mind about 6 years back. I never look at anyone in the way you stated. I would never denigrate anyone because they do not believe what I do. Who am I to say I am right and they are wrong. I have many more reasons for what I believe and the personal experiences are a large reason. It is hard to put across ideas of how we form our opinions in such short bites and I only wanted to state my viewpoints because I get tired of people mocking anyone who is not atheistic and think a scientist cannot hold a metaphysical viewpoint. We all have our experiences and we make our own choices. Your experiences were yours yet I was not seeking anything or trying to break away from anything. I did not go to a church, I did not talk with other people, things happened a certain way and I researched as well as I could to see what may be true. If I am wrong, so be it.

And I agree with you on doing those things in the name of religion yet those things happen just as much outside of religion. I still do not even like religious boxes. I go to a small church a couple times a month because I like the people. I do not feel I need to do anything. I do not hold to the standard doctrines of churches and I have had problems because of it. I do not let that change my views. People will do what they do and nobody is perfect (I am far from that). My wife is agnostic but she is the best person I know, much better than I am. I tell her I have no clue what happens to her after she dies (isn't that an odd idea for a Christian?) I do not say my interpretations of books are correct and I have actually changed my views on many things since I originally posted. I am always looking for answers to philosophical and scientific questions and am open to other ideas. If I have not made that clear than it is my fault for being a poor communicator.

Luckily through PM's you know me enough to understand that I can take differing opinions without getting uptight so I am fine with anything people post. I just hope everyone keeps an open mind and we are civil about any disagreements.

And Sporkboy needs to school me on quantum physics. I am hoping to learn and I was hoping more topics would be put forward so we can all be enlightened.

I also think we could use that whiskey, you coming up to Seattle anytime soon? I don't know when I'll make it down your way.

Edwin the cat hater ...

A less sadistic example. I have a jelly bean in each of my hands (one red and one green) but you don't know which hand. Writting out the wavefunction shows a superposition or all possible combinations of right/left hand green/red bean.

Once I open a hand and reveal the bean the wavefunction collapsed.

The only thing that changed is your understanding of the system state. The wavefunction is your understanding of the system state and has no physical reality.

To say some how the beans existed in the weird superimposed limbo of red/green right/left is to miss the boat and confuse the model for the system. Same for Edwin the feline sadist. Honestly, who keeps cats in boxes and runs around asking "alive or dead" - freaking proto-serial killer.