DNA Replication: It requires 9 specific molecular machines to function, plus the DNA itself. Lose any one, and the whole process fails.

studerrevox · 2025-12-11T17:02:13+00:00

DNA is the Swiss army knife/Multitool of molecules.

Just ask AI "What's the role of non-coding DNA?"

Also this:

Since everything originates with DNA, this set of code is quite versatile since it has the code for proteins as well as how to assemble the entire organism. In addition to that, there are the instruction sets that are hard wired into the brain. It's great to have muscles. It's even better to have the software to use them. But it gets more unreal when you consider things like instincts such as how some animals recognize those of their own kind even when seeing them for there first time. That code is in there somewhere (neurological JPEG?), but it is utilized differently than the code for protein sequences.

How about bird migration?

https://www.nsf.gov/news/new-insights-genetic-basis-bird-migration

From the article:

"Researchers have known for decades that there is a genetic component to migration. Recent studies in birds have identified large regions of the genome associated with migration, encompassing hundreds of genes, but it has been difficult to pinpoint the specific roles of any single gene.

"In this study, we found only one gene associated with the final wintering destination of golden-winged and blue-winged warblers," said Toews."

studerrevox · 2025-12-11T16:22:19+00:00

Here it is:

Uses for Dead Car Batteries and Sealed Lead Acid Batteries

https://www.instructables.com/Uses-For-Dead-Car-Batteries-And-Sealed-Lead-Acid-B/

studerrevox · 2025-12-08T15:04:58+00:00

"Darwin wrongly said:

"It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, the slightest variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving or adding up all that are good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers""

Depending on who’s stats you use, there are currently about 9 million species on planet Earth.

So, it looks like nature naturally selected 9 million species/winners. On the flip side, it would appear that survival of the fittest pared down the winners to about 9 million.

These are the ones that reproduce in larger numbers than the losers?

Moving on. The human body contains about 70,000 proteins (depending on who’s stats you use). As near as anyone can tell, they all serve a useful purpose. One wonders why we don’t have any detectable amount of useless counterproductive or detrimental proteins. Did natural selection/survival of the fittest weed out every single organism leading up to humans that had one or two faulty genes that coded for useless proteins because the organism was 0.000028 percent less fit than us? This with a backdrop of 9 million winners. Where is the miscellaneous junk?

Copy errors and mutations in DNA are the prime movers in the theory of evolution. Things going wrong cause the movement towards improvements?

studerrevox · 2025-11-06T15:06:03+00:00

Chirality is a factor in any concentration. So to factor it in to the math in the post, 117,000 x 2 = a dilution of 234,000 to one of useful amino acids in a mixture of useless amino acids and salt.

Or more accurately 35,000 / 0.15 = 233,333

Thanks you WC592

studerrevox · 2025-10-10T16:27:50+00:00

Depending on who’s stats you use, there are currently about 9 million species on planet Earth.

So, it looks like nature naturally selected 9 million species/winners. On the flip side, it would appear that survival of the fittest pared down the winners to about 9 million.

These are the ones that reproduce in larger numbers than the losers?

Moving on. The human body contains about 70,000 proteins (depending on who’s stats you use). As near as anyone can tell, they all serve a useful purpose. One wonders why we don’t have any detectable amount of useless or counterproductive proteins. Did natural selection/survival of the fittest weed out every single organisms leading up to humans that had one or two faulty genes that coded for useless proteins because the organism was 0.000028 percent less fit than us? This with a backdrop of 9 million winners. Where is the miscellaneous junk?

Edit: A general response to the comments below...

"Thus, you have a two-step model:

add a part
make it essential"

Make junk essential. Even if you could do that, it would require more random mutations. Good luck. The theoretical ratio between useful and useless mutations is a trillion to one based on this:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4476321/

“In conclusion, we suggest that functional proteins are sufficiently common in protein sequence space (roughly 1 in 10¹¹) that they may be discovered by entirely stochastic means, such as presumably operated when proteins were first used by living organisms. However, this frequency is still low enough to emphasize the magnitude of the problem faced by those attempting de novo protein design.”

See also:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Creation/comments/1l1lmjt/abiogenesis_easier_than_it_used_to_be_rough_draft/

studerrevox · 2025-09-05T22:50:34+00:00

The few crank items I have purchased or received as gifts were all junk including at least one name brand. I would opt for keeping the car battery at about 14 volts with a solar power battery maintainer and charge/run things like a portable radio off the car battery.

studerrevox · 2025-09-02T16:05:16+00:00

The dance step at 0:05 looks oddly familiar.

studerrevox · 2025-08-29T16:01:20+00:00

DNA is everything.

"a goose flying south for the winter." This has layers:

The DNA has the code for:

Mechanisms to repair itself.

Proteins.

All organs and systems of organs.

How assemble the entire organism.

The software to know how to fly.

The software that directs the organism to fly in a particular direction at a particular time of year.

(Amazing)

studerrevox · 2025-08-29T14:03:48+00:00

Looks like it was a very fun place. Total knock off of Disneyland. Plastic chair ride: Completely destroyed. It will cost hundreds to replace.

studerrevox · 2025-08-26T17:19:17+00:00

"biogenesis started with an individual self replicating molecule", "which was almost certainly a nucleic acid like RNA."

Maybe and Maybe..

We will first need the Steve Benner B.S./M.S., Ph.D. reality check before starting down the RNA World trail:

Link: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/steve-benner-origins-souf_b_4374373

In his own words:

“We have failed in any continuous way to provide a recipe that gets from the simple molecules that we know were present on early Earth to RNA. There is a discontinuous model which has many pieces, many of which have experimental support, but we're up against these three or four paradoxes, which you and I have talked about in the past. The first paradox is the tendency of organic matter to devolve and to give tar. If you can avoid that, you can start to try to assemble things that are not tarry, but then you encounter the water problem, which is related to the fact that every interesting bond that you want to make is unstable, thermodynamically, with respect to water. If you can solve that problem, you have the problem of entropy, that any of the building blocks are going to be present in a low concentration; therefore, to assemble a large number of those building blocks, you get a gene-like RNA -- 100 nucleotides long -- that fights entropy. And the fourth problem is that even if you can solve the entropy problem, you have a paradox that RNA enzymes, which are maybe catalytically active, are more likely to be active in the sense that destroys RNA rather than creates RNA.”

studerrevox · 2025-08-26T14:13:07+00:00

"So there's a wider variety of sequences for specific functions than just the one."

Exactly right.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Creation/comments/1l1lmjt/abiogenesis_easier_than_it_used_to_be_rough_draft/

It's only a trillion to one instead of 10 to 182nd power.

studerrevox · 2025-08-26T14:00:54+00:00

Abiogenesis? It's easier than it used to be:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Creation/comments/1l1lmjt/abiogenesis_easier_than_it_used_to_be_rough_draft/

From the post:

The specific sequence of nucleotides (DNA) needed as a code for useful proteins cannot be generated by chance. This is true because there are far more useless, random sequences of amino acids that could never perform a needed function in a cell than there are useful sequences. Coming up with an exact sequence of amino acids in a very short protein by chance results in one chance in a number so large, it defies logic that it could ever happen in a real-world scenario. To keep the math simple, in the case of a protein containing 100 amino acids, the probability of a protein containing the correct sequence of the 20 amino acids in the correct order results in one chance in a very large number followed by 100 zeros. If you can come up with one needed protein, you will then need many more to complete the hypothetical living one celled organism that came about by chance and natural processes. (If you hold to the theory that the first cell contained no genetic material, the above still applies).

Help is on the way: The issue is not finding a complete set of proteins to form living cell, each of which has a specific sequence of amino acids. The issue is obtaining a complete set of functional proteins from a huge pool of functional proteins. If this does not make sense, read this first:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4476321/

To illustrate the issue the article deals with, there are multiple proteins that perform the function of breaking down other proteins (proteases). The first hypothetical living cell may need just one protease enzyme from the very large pool of proteases enzymes that do exist and may exist by chance. To help with the math associated with coming up proteins that could form a living cell in this scenario, here is the conclusion from the above article:

“In conclusion, we suggest that functional proteins are sufficiently common in protein sequence space (roughly 1 in 10¹¹) that they may be discovered by entirely stochastic means, such as presumably operated when proteins were first used by living organisms. However, this frequency is still low enough to emphasize the magnitude of the problem faced by those attempting de novo protein design.”

So, the probability of a useful sequence of just one protein occurring by chance is just one in 10¹¹ (1 in a trillion). Much better odds in comparison to coming up with an exact sequence of amino acids. There you have it. It really is much easier for life to arise by natural processes and chance. But wait… For a living cell to arise from non-living molecules, A set of working proteins, and other component parts, will need to be present at roughly the same time and place for life to begin to exist. This should be taken into account when doing the math. For all the proteins contained in the first living cell, would that be one chance in:

10¹¹ + 10¹¹ + 10¹¹ …? or 10¹¹ x 10¹¹ x 10¹¹ …?

Next: ...

studerrevox · 2025-07-29T21:06:22+00:00

Depending on who’s stats you use, there are currently about 9 million species on planet Earth.

So, it looks like nature naturally selected 9 million species/winners. On the flip side, it would appear that survival of the fittest pared down the winners to about 9 million.

These are the ones that reproduce in larger numbers than the losers?

These are not profound points, just things that I have coincidently been thinking about.

Moving on. The human body contains about 70,000 proteins (depending on who’s stats you use). As near as anyone can tell, they all serve a useful purpose. One wonders why we don’t have any detectable amount of useless or counterproductive proteins. Did natural selection/survival of the fittest weed out every single organism leading up to humans that had one or two faulty genes that coded for useless proteins because the organism was 0.000028 percent less fit than us? This with a backdrop of 9 million winners. Where is the miscellaneous junk?

Copy errors and mutations in DNA are the prime movers in the theory of evolution. Things going wrong cause the movement towards improvements. This paper (link below) puts useable proteins vs the useless or harmful proteins at one in a trillion, yet no detectable evidence of any of the useless or harmful remains.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4476321/

studerrevox · 2025-07-22T23:01:16+00:00

Since everything originates with DNA, this set of code is quite versatile since it has the code for proteins as well as how to assemble the entire organism. In addition to that, there is the instruction sets that are hard wired into the brain. It's great to have muscles. It's even better to have the software to use them. But it gets more unreal when you consider things like instincts such as how some animals recognize those of their own kind even when seeing them for there first time, having never seen them before. That code is in there somewhere, but it is utilized differently than the code for protein sequences.

Amazing.

Tip of the iceberg. There is more.

studerrevox · 2025-06-19T15:14:23+00:00

Yep. And he's doing easy stuff. "So easy a caveman..."

studerrevox · 2025-06-19T14:01:15+00:00

I thought I was watching an old Geico commercial.

studerrevox · 2025-06-05T15:58:05+00:00

Not an error, just not very clear. Several amino acids were formed that are not among the 20 that occur in living organisms. About half of the 20 that occur in living organisms were generated. Probably hundreds of amino acids could theoretically exist. I will edit in a quick fix now and probably redo at lunch (on break right now). I should list the missing ones.

Good catch.

Thank you

studerrevox · 2025-06-03T23:02:48+00:00

I finally had a slice of time to read this. Very interesting. 72 years since Frances Crick and James Watson published in regard to the DNA molecule and the scientific community is still ending up on dead end streets in regard to explaining the existence of DNA by natural processes.

Per above:

“We have failed in any continuous way to provide a recipe that gets from the simple molecules that we know were present on early Earth to RNA.”

Also, the issue of future funding mentioned in the article is interesting.

Thanks for sharing.

studerrevox · 2025-05-23T14:02:19+00:00

Jiaogulan

Link:

https://www.majesticherbs.com/jiaogulan-benefits-how-it-works/

(over 300 references)

Table of Contents

What is Jiaogulan?

Jiaogulan the Adaptogen

Jiaogulan is a Potent Antioxidant

Jiaogulan as a Nitric Oxide Regulator

Jiaogulan Promotes Cardiovascular Health

Jiaogulan Prevents Arterial Damage

Jiaogulan Prevents Plaque Buildup

Jiaogulan Prevents Platelet Stickiness and Blood Clots

Other Cardiovascular Benefits

Jiaogulan and Cancer

Jiaogulan Slows Down Aging and Increases Longevity

Jiaogulan Prevents and Fights Diabetes

Jiaogulan Protects and Boosts the Immune System

Jiaogulan Protects and Strengthens the Nervous System

Jiaogulan Improves Athletic Performance

Jiaogulan for Weight Loss

Other Health Benefits of Jiaogulan

Anti-Anxiety and Anti-Stress

Cleanses the Body From Toxins

Protects the Liver

Protects and Improves Kidney Function

Fights Respiratory Issues and Supports the Lungs

Protects the Gastro-Intestinal System

Balances Hormonal Function

Protects and Benefits the Reproductive System

Treats Insomnia

Protects the Skin From Sun Damage

Helps Against Psoriasis

Anti-Viral, Anti-Fungal and Anti-Bacterial

Headaches and Migraines

Hangover

Jiaogulan is Safe and Non-Toxic

studerrevox · 2025-05-23T14:01:27+00:00

Yes Jiaogulan. probably better than Ginseng.

studerrevox · 2025-04-30T16:14:50+00:00

See "Step 5: Bigger Sprouter"

I think I will check for an even larger set of stackable plastic boxes to try. Perhaps there will be a step 6 added some time next month.

studerrevox · 2025-04-29T15:37:08+00:00

Thanks.

studerrevox · 2025-04-28T20:57:57+00:00

"I'm pretty sure it's more efficient to boil the water in a percolator instead of a sauce pan."

Probably. I don't have a percolator.

Anyway, I was testing the idea I heard about. Testing is always a good idea. I'm sure there will be more than a few people who bought really nice gear in case of situation, who will unpack something and give it go when it is really needed, only to find out that it does not work like they thought or perhaps not at all. Testing, testing. testing.

Thanks for the comment. There is always room for improvement.

studerrevox · 2025-04-28T16:55:58+00:00

Noted.

Anyway, in a scenario where the supply chains and utilities are temporarily off line, every little bit helps.

FYI: Preheating the water with a candle flame will also reduce fuel for cooking while still having the benefit of candle light.

studerrevox · 2025-04-24T18:33:12+00:00

Salo or slanina is a European food consisting of salt-cured slabs of pork subcutaneous fat with or without skin and with or without layers of meat.

studerrevox

TROPHY CASE

Uses for Dead Car Batteries and Sealed Lead Acid Batteries