Deaddog sighting
John S. Wilkins
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57978/
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
pnyikos
> A deaddog has been sighted in the wild:
>
> http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57978/
Might you be referring to Andrew Ellington? What's really neat is
that this links a complete article, and not just an abstract:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0015364
> --
> John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
> http://evolvingthoughts.net
> But al be that he was a philosophre,
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
I haven't had a chance to read the linked article yet, but it looks
like it could be VERY relevant to the topic of abiogenesis. Also to
the question of why and how an RNA based intelligent species would
develop nanotechnology to produce a large range of proteins. Even
trial and error, it seems, could produce some fairly useful proteins
that they could then incorporate into their own genomes, and more
especially (due to fewer ethical concerns) some select micro-
organisms.
They might keep a number of altered micro-organisms under heavy guard,
like the smallpox virus is now kept under heavy guard. They could
then go on to modify them still further, and perhaps within a century
they could design an organism that has enough polypeptides coded into
its mRNA to realize a complete "protein takeover".
These organisms could then be ready for sending in space probes for
seeding suitable planets, among them the earth of ca. 3.9 billion
years ago.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
The standard disclaimer is that I am writing purely on my own and not
representing the organization whose name appears in my work address.
Nathan Levesque
> A deaddog has been sighted in the wild:
>
> http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57978/
>
> --
> But al be that he was a philosophre,
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Deaddog? Huh?
Michael Siemon
<2f690ed4-ba2b-4109...@l18g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Nathan Levesque <nathanm...@gmail.com> wrote:
His nym when he was regularly posting here...
John S. Wilkins
> On Feb 10, 5:24 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > A deaddog has been sighted in the wild:
> >
> > http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57978/
>
> Might you be referring to Andrew Ellington?
That's the guy. Works at the Institute for Mopping Floors Really Clean.
> What's really neat is
> that this links a complete article, and not just an abstract:
> http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0015364
>
>
> I haven't had a chance to read the linked article yet, but it looks
> like it could be VERY relevant to the topic of abiogenesis. Also to
> the question of why and how an RNA based intelligent species would
> develop nanotechnology to produce a large range of proteins. Even
> trial and error, it seems, could produce some fairly useful proteins
> that they could then incorporate into their own genomes, and more
> especially (due to fewer ethical concerns) some select micro-
> organisms.
>
> They might keep a number of altered micro-organisms under heavy guard,
> like the smallpox virus is now kept under heavy guard. They could
> then go on to modify them still further, and perhaps within a century
> they could design an organism that has enough polypeptides coded into
> its mRNA to realize a complete "protein takeover".
>
> These organisms could then be ready for sending in space probes for
> seeding suitable planets, among them the earth of ca. 3.9 billion
> years ago.
What I find interesting about this is that there is, as it were, an
enormous range of cryptic functions in any set of RNAs. This has at
least two implications:
1. You do not need intelligence to "find" function in such cases
2. Any intelligence would be unable to ensure that their chosen function
would be the one employed in a novel environment.
Alan
"John S. Wilkins" <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1jwiq42.1fusa37dasv5wN%jo...@wilkins.id.au...I _hate_ insider references.
Alan
John S. Wilkins
> "John S. Wilkins" <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
> news:1jwiq42.1fusa37dasv5wN%jo...@wilkins.id.au...
> >A deaddog has been sighted in the wild:
> >
> > http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57978/
> >
> I _hate_ insider references.
>
Sucks to be you, doesn't it?
Frank J
> "John S. Wilkins" <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in messagenews:1jwiq42.1fusa37dasv5wN%jo...@wilkins.id.au...>A deaddog has been sighted in the wild:
I started following the NG at the tail end of the "good old days."
While mostly lurking in 1998-2001 I spent more time with the archive,
including the "Jargon file" which has lots of insider references. Such
as the "Kalki syndrome" which refers to a TO regular (denier) from the
90s who, like Nyikos has returned recently.
>
>
>
> > --
> > John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
> >http://evolvingthoughts.net
> > But al be that he was a philosophre,
> > Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
TomS
<ea951581-44f4-4d9c...@d17g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, Frank J
stated..."
>
>On Feb 10, 11:34 pm, "Alan" <observa_spam_su...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>>"John S. Wilkins" <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in
>>messagenews:1jwiq42.1fusa37dasv5wN%jo...@wilkins.id.au...>A deaddog has been
>>sighted in the wild:
>>
>> >http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57978/
>>
>> I _hate_ insider references.
>>
>> Alan
>
>I started following the NG at the tail end of the "good old days."
>While mostly lurking in 1998-2001 I spent more time with the archive,
>including the "Jargon file" which has lots of insider references. Such
>as the "Kalki syndrome" which refers to a TO regular (denier) from the
>90s who, like Nyikos has returned recently.
It makes me feel old to hear of someone I knew as a graduate student
(it seems like just a couple of years ago) having an endowed
professorship.
--
---Tom S.
"... the heavy people know some magic that can make things move and even fly,
but they're not very bright, because they can't survive without their magic
contrivances"
Xixo, in "The Gods Must Be Crazy II"
Alan
> Alan <observa_s...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> "John S. Wilkins" <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
>> news:1jwiq42.1fusa37dasv5wN%jo...@wilkins.id.au...
>> >A deaddog has been sighted in the wild:
>> >
>> > http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57978/
>> >
>> I _hate_ insider references.
>>
> Sucks to be you, doesn't it?
Nope. I _luv_ hating insider references.
Alan
SkyEyes
> A deaddog has been sighted in the wild:
>
> http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57978/
Yeah? Well, I'll see your deaddog and raise you an ocelot, a live,
wild specimen of which was spotted in the Huachuca Mountains of
southern Arizona recently:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/02/10/20110210arizona-ocelot-sighting-rare.html
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
John S. Wilkins
> On Feb 10, 3:24 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > A deaddog has been sighted in the wild:
> >
> > http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57978/
>
> Yeah? Well, I'll see your deaddog and raise you an ocelot, a live,
> wild specimen of which was spotted in the Huachuca Mountains of
> southern Arizona recently:
>
> http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/02/10/20110210arizona-ocelot-s
> ighting-rare.html
>
Yabbut the ocelot never posted to t.o
chris thompson
> "John S. Wilkins" <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in messagenews:1jwj8e5.106dxd91s5salpN%jo...@wilkins.id.au...
>
> > Alan <observa_spam_su...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >> "John S. Wilkins" <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
> >>news:1jwiq42.1fusa37dasv5wN%jo...@wilkins.id.au...
> >> >A deaddog has been sighted in the wild:
>
> >> >http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57978/
>
> >> I _hate_ insider references.
>
> > Sucks to be you, doesn't it?
>
> Nope. I _luv_ hating insider references.
>
Me, I don't like many things. And the things I like, I don't like
liking them.
Chris
Walter Bushell
jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> SkyEyes <skye...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 10, 3:24 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > > A deaddog has been sighted in the wild:
> > >
> > > http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57978/
> >
> > Yeah? Well, I'll see your deaddog and raise you an ocelot, a live,
> > wild specimen of which was spotted in the Huachuca Mountains of
> > southern Arizona recently:
> >
> > http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/02/10/20110210arizona-ocelot-s
> > ighting-rare.html
> >
> Yabbut the ocelot never posted to t.o
On the internet no one knows your an ocelot. Opps!
--
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
is good, or is it the reverse?
Greg G.
> In article <1jwko4p.44ew2ze2azvkN%j...@wilkins.id.au>,
> �j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>
> > SkyEyes <skyey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 10, 3:24 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > > > A deaddog has been sighted in the wild:
>
> > > >http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57978/
>
> > > Yeah? �Well, I'll see your deaddog and raise you an ocelot, a live,
> > > wild specimen of which was spotted in the Huachuca Mountains of
> > > southern Arizona recently:
>
> > > ighting-rare.html
>
> > Yabbut the ocelot never posted to t.o
>
> On the internet no one knows your an ocelot. Opps!
Actually, the ocelots are usually spotted whenever they post to the
internet.
Paul J Gans
I ocelot, but not in public.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
David Iain Greig
> In article
><2f690ed4-ba2b-4109...@l18g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Nathan Levesque <nathanm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > A deaddog has been sighted in the wild:
>> >
>> > http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57978/
>> >
>> > --
>> > John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of
>> > Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
>> > But al be that he was a philosophre,
>> > Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
>>
>> Deaddog? Huh?
>
> His nym when he was regularly posting here...
From the UofE Faculty Page:
(Chris) DeadDog
Hadian Professor of Abiogenesis
The mystifying omission of abiogenesis from the general
theory of evolution
--D.
David Iain Greig
> "On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 04:23:29 -0800 (PST), in article
><ea951581-44f4-4d9c...@d17g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, Frank J
> stated..."
>>
>>>"John S. Wilkins" <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in
>>>messagenews:1jwiq42.1fusa37dasv5wN%jo...@wilkins.id.au...>A deaddog has been
>>>sighted in the wild:
>>>
>>> >http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57978/
>>>
>>> I _hate_ insider references.
>>>
>>> Alan
>>
>>I started following the NG at the tail end of the "good old days."
>>While mostly lurking in 1998-2001 I spent more time with the archive,
>>including the "Jargon file" which has lots of insider references. Such
>>as the "Kalki syndrome" which refers to a TO regular (denier) from the
>>90s who, like Nyikos has returned recently.
>
> It makes me feel old to hear of someone I knew as a graduate student
> (it seems like just a couple of years ago) having an endowed
> professorship.
We had Chris Brochu around here before his Sue days.
--D.
Alan
"David Iain Greig" <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote in message
news:cabal-ija09n$1f10$2...@darwin.ediacara.org...
Sue who? Sue you?
Alan
richardal...@gmail.com
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Feb 10, 5:24 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > > A deaddog has been sighted in the wild:
>
> > >http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57978/
>
> > Might you be referring to Andrew Ellington?
>
> That's the guy. Works at the Institute for Mopping Floors Really Clean.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > What's really neat is
> > that this links a complete article, and not just an abstract:
>
> > I haven't had a chance to read the linked article yet, but it looks
> > like it could be VERY relevant to the topic of abiogenesis. Also to
> > the question of why and how an RNA based intelligent species would
> > develop nanotechnology to produce a large range of proteins. Even
> > trial and error, it seems, could produce some fairly useful proteins
> > that they could then incorporate into their own genomes, and more
> > especially (due to fewer ethical concerns) some select micro-
> > organisms.
>
> > They might keep a number of altered micro-organisms under heavy guard,
> > like the smallpox virus is now kept under heavy guard. They could
> > then go on to modify them still further, and perhaps within a century
> > they could design an organism that has enough polypeptides coded into
> > its mRNA to realize a complete "protein takeover".
>
> > These organisms could then be ready for sending in space probes for
> > seeding suitable planets, among them the earth of ca. 3.9 billion
> > years ago.
>
> What I find interesting about this is that there is, as it were, an
> enormous range of cryptic functions in any set of RNAs. This has at
> least two implications:
>
> 1. You do not need intelligence to "find" function in such cases
>
> 2. Any intelligence would be unable to ensure that their chosen function
> would be the one employed in a novel environment.
I'd add 3) That it is surprising that the phase space occupied by
biologically active proteins is relatively so small.
RF
>
> --
> John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
pnyikos
Ah, but you do need intelligence to CHOOSE the functions that are
"desirable" from your point of view, and to match them with what you
observe the catalysts to be producing.
The big question in all this is whether the functions can be enhanced
to the degree necessary for the production of a "successful"
organism. An intelligence, proceeding according to a desired goal
(like pictures that look like those of insects, in a famous
"experiment" touted by Dawkins in _The Blind Watchmaker_) should be
able to get the desired effects, given a couple of centuries. Whether
a natural, unguided environment can be expected to produce such a
thing within a billion or so years is another matter.
> > 2. Any intelligence would be unable to ensure that their chosen function
> > would be the one employed in a novel environment.
Unless they design the organism themselves, and release it in the
appropriate environment.
> I'd add 3) That it is surprising that the phase space occupied by
> biologically active proteins is relatively so small.
Didn't you mean to say "so large"? If not, you are suggesting that my
standing challenge is going to be hard to meet, even with me setting
the bar so low: find a scenario for getting from something like the
thioester world of Christian de Duve to the first prokaryotes.
Peter Nyikos