On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 5:21:56?AM UTC-8, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:occupied volume, processing speed (you mention time to replicate), the requirement for proportionally more DNA management resources (error correction etc)?
On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 14:15:19 -0800 (PST)
MarkE <me22...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 3:01:55?PM UTC+11, Lawyer Daggett wrote: >> [cost of junk DNA]
The energy cost argument does deserve testing, which you've had a go at. Is the cost of carrying junk DNA more than just energy? E.g. the cost of material? Although efficient recycling within the cell may partially offset that. Or the cost of
selection coefficient calculation.
If the cell as-a-factory analogy has merit, the idea of burning that proportion of time and money is highly questionable. At the same time, beware of simplistic comparisons - e.g. checking against biological realities is necessary, e.g. your
It's a poorly designed factory. But it seems to work, and that's all
Interesting to see where the science goes from here.
evolution cares about.
Evolution doesn't give a damn about design, poor or not. It's like Microsoft - good enough.
Evolution doesn't give a damn about design, poor or not. It's like Microsoft - good enough.Unlike MS, evolution doesn't make it a common practice to
take something which works and throw sand in its gears "just
because it can".
On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 10:41:56?AM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:occupied volume, processing speed (you mention time to replicate), the requirement for proportionally more DNA management resources (error correction etc)?
On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 08:42:05 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com>:
On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 5:21:56?AM UTC-8, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 14:15:19 -0800 (PST)
MarkE <me22...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 3:01:55?PM UTC+11, Lawyer Daggett wrote:[cost of junk DNA]
The energy cost argument does deserve testing, which you've had a go at. Is the cost of carrying junk DNA more than just energy? E.g. the cost of material? Although efficient recycling within the cell may partially offset that. Or the cost of
selection coefficient calculation.
If the cell as-a-factory analogy has merit, the idea of burning that proportion of time and money is highly questionable. At the same time, beware of simplistic comparisons - e.g. checking against biological realities is necessary, e.g. your
I've seen the "syntax error" notice before, and not just in GG. I think the problem is "invisible characters" generated byUnlike MS, evolution doesn't make it a common practice toIt's a poorly designed factory. But it seems to work, and that's all
Interesting to see where the science goes from here.
evolution cares about.
Evolution doesn't give a damn about design, poor or not. It's like Microsoft - good enough.
take something which works and throw sand in its gears "just
because it can".
BTW, in this thread and at least one other (I forget which)
a reply fails to post and I get "Syntax error in header
field" and can only correct it by retyping the content of
the Newsgroups and Subject fields.
fluffed typing.
On 01/12/2023 18:37, Bob Casanova wrote:
Evolution doesn't give a damn about design, poor or not. It's like Microsoft - good enough.Unlike MS, evolution doesn't make it a common practice to
take something which works and throw sand in its gears "just
because it can".
I don't know; that sounds rather like fixation if mildly detrimental >mutations through drift.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 03:36:29 |
| Calls: | 10,387 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,777 |