Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-7 Poor

About Hrvoje1

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Accidents never happen, in a perfect world. Says Blondie. But Freud would most probably agree, at least with respect to slips and mistakes, he invented the whole theory about it. So, there is a reason why I mentioned nucleotides instead of proteinogenic amino acids. Namely, they are both categorized as "generic resources" in Constructor Theory of Life, by Deutsch and Marletto, and presented with the same letter N, in the model of self-reproducer, although the former appear as a substrate only in a copy phase (DNA replication), and the latter only in a construction phase (protein synthesis): So, there is a difference in a raw material, that is not reflected in a detailed schema. At least that's the case in a currently only known implementation of life (Life v1.0). Of course, that detail is intentionally abstracted from the picture, as not important, but those who talk about concrete implementation (as I did) should be aware of that.
  2. As per Phil Foglio (who was paraphrasing a line misattributed to Larry Niven, which was itself an inversion of Arthur C. Clarke), “any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from technology”.
  3. I googled for "protein synthesis rate" and found a lot of interesting articles, but none of them answered the question. Then I googled for "spontaneous protein synthesis", and found some interesting and relevant results. First one is about answering the question: Is protein synthesis a spontaneous or a non-spontaneous process? There, the second answer by Robert Bywater mentions that spontaneity is not very clearly defined notion in the context of that question. But, whatever sensible way you define it, protein synthesis is definitely not spontaneous process. That doesn't mean that it requires some external factors that are not normally present in vivo medium, because that would not be sensible definition. But without the accuracy of a molecular machine called ribosome, how else could amino acids be assembled into a protein? And without information stored in DNA, and transcripted into mRNA, how would ribosome know what protein it is supposed to assemble, ie what needs to be translated into protein? Let alone amino acids by themselves, without the mentioned machinery? Second one is about answering the question: How is the balance between protein synthesis and degradation achieved? There it says: So, I don't know how anything I said provoked you to tell me your story about how enzymes were introduced by random mutation to living organisms, but you might have noticed that this is a science discussion board, so what is easy to imagine to you, isn't necessarily representative or relevant. Relevant is only a scientific fact: proteins do not assemble themselves spontaneously, even if you give them all the time in the world. Right?
  4. OK, maybe my question is such that you don't intend to answer. On the other hand, some people don't react unless notified about their quoting, or react very slowly, so to catalyze a bit your response:
  5. OK, but how slower exactly? What is the ratio between protein synthesis rate when there is a normal concentration (density) of all required components present, and when there is for example no ribosomes, no RNA polymerase, no chaperones, and no DNA, but there is a sufficient supply of proteinogenic amino acids present in its usual concentration? I believe that's the monomer stuff that gets assembled (and not nucleotides as I said previously) into proteins, which are polymer stuff made of those. I also probably shouldn't have mentioned other components, because most probably I didn't mention all that is required.
  6. Now you are on the right track, when you mention spontaneity. Some chemical reactions are more spontaneous then the others, in that regard that they don't require catalysts to lower the activation energy, ie beat the energy barrier. For some, even that is not sufficient, they require another component that stores information and acts as a program for that catalyst, that is, sort of speaking, programmable. Such is case with the enzymes that synthesize proteins, they require DNA that contains the information based on which they operate. Without it, nucleotides would never assemble them selves spontaneously into proteins.
  7. Probably both, but I don't think I made any of it, by examining the analogy between that kind of information, and the information that is stored for example in a brain, which FreeWill is talking about, or the one that is stored for example in DNA, and is used by enzymes to perform the task of protein synthesis.
  8. So, you make more emphasis on the equivalence, than on the distinction between knowledge and energy? Because, I don't think these can be counted as any kind of energy, maybe as information, but not as energy. And that poses the further question of distinction between knowledge and information.
  9. Is there an analogy, and is there a difference, between the ability to perform a task based on stored information, that can be called knowledge, and the ability to perform work based on stored work, that can be called energy?
  10. This is as scientific explanation of fear, ignorance and hate as you can get. I liked it.
  11. So, the notion of identical particles is a clear indicator of regularity of nature, but perfect symmetry at that very small scale, that is a direct consequence of that identicalness, and wouldn't be possible without it, is not? How very logical. You obviously oppose not because of what I say, but just because you don't want to agree with me. Which is fine by me, because I have a few points of disagreement with you too. I don't think it is necessary to insult intentionally your fellow participant in discussion, instead of saluting at the end of discussion, and I don't think it is wise to underestimate the wisdom of common people, I met a lot of them that are smarter then some registered, licensed scientists.
  12. And the rest of that post is equally questionable, especially the mentioned moving of goalposts. That could make sense if debating is considered an adversarial competitive sport discipline in which the primary goal is to defeat your "opponent" (that should have been your fellow participant in discussion), by proving him wrong whatever he claims. Even better, prove him wrong even when he does not claim anything, just asks. Such as for example here, I learned from Phi for All's post that swansont disagreed with me even though I only asked >>What is more common in nature, regularities or irregularities?<< and left open for discussion what is exactly regularity in nature. Although I felt I should mention at least some examples, I never thought it can become an immediate source of disagreement. However, I consider debating an activity in which one of main virtues is to come up with a question that is worth debating in the first place, in which such sports-like metaphors are meaningless. If during the discussion one realizes there is a better question, such as >>What is more fundamental principle in nature, regularity or irregularity?<<, it is not "cheating" to pose such question in the same thread. There is no "goal moving", the goal is always the same: to find the most meaningful question for discussion, only the question may be changed, ie it may be improved. Only a narrow minded person whose whole idea of participating in a forum is to humiliate other discussants could consider that as goalposts moving. Because, like, someone invested some time and effort to defeat me, by proving my claim wrong, or my question meaningless, and now I am cheating by finding better question. We are obviously not playing the same game here, although engaged in same activity, if you can draw such conclusions from what I wrote. Let me be clear, I don't consider neither of these questions a great achievement of neither originality nor importance, as I already said, I'm afraid I didn't do that good job as I wanted, but I certainly did not "strawman" anybody (what a strange verb), or "move goalposts".
  13. I didn’t notice that fact that he disagreed with me.
  14. I resent that tone too, and I noticed that wtf's presence on this forum ceased from that moment on. I regret that, because that person is by far the best discussant I have encountered around here, and I hope that this absence is not for good.