Some scientists propose that in the beginning, geochemistry gave way to biochemistry — with no genetic material necessary. Only later did RNA and DNA appear.

Four billion years ago, our planet was water and barren rock. Out of this, some mighty complicated chemistry bubbled up, perhaps in a pond or a deep ocean vent. Eventually, that chemistry got wrapped in membranes, a primitive cell developed and life emerged from the ooze.

But how? Among the many mysteries is a chicken-and-egg problem to solve. The proteins called enzymes that get chemical reactions going inside cells are created from instructions carried in genetic material: DNA or RNA. But at the start, those molecules weren’t around: To make them, you need enzymes.

So what got things going?

One idea long floated by scientists is that genetic material came first — in the form of a molecule called RNA, a close cousin to DNA. RNA’s beauty is its versatility: It can catalyze chemical reactions and store genetic information. So perhaps in a pond on Earth’s surface, molecules were concentrated by evaporation and then linked together to form the first RNA strands.

Full Article

posted by f.sheikh

“We are amazed, but not amused” — Stevie Wonder

It seems we are staring at the prospects of losing our economic superiority in the world and has hit a panic button. Maintaining military superiority also depends on maintaining economic superiority. Unfortunately, our both political parties lack the leaders who can clearly envision the future and are on self-destructive course. It is interesting article to read how our main competitor, China, is preparing for the future. (f.Sheikh)

“  China’s peak is truly spectacular — a marvel of state capacity and resource mobilization never seen before on this planet. In just a few years, China built more high-speed rail than all other countries in the world combined. Its auto manufacturers are leapfrogging the developed world, seizing leadership in the EV industry of the future. China has produced so many solar panels and batteries that it has driven down the cost to be competitive with fossil fuels — a huge blow against climate change, despite all of China’s massive coal emissions, and a victory for global energy abundance. China’s cities are marvels of scale — forests of towering skyscrapers lit up with LEDs, cavernous malls filled with amazing restaurants and shops selling every possible modern convenience for cheap, vast highways and huge train stations. Even China’s policy mistakes and authoritarian overreaches inspire awe and dread — Zero Covid failed in the end, but it demonstrated an ability to control society down to the granular level that the Soviets would have envied.”

“Modern China is certainly a very innovative country. Chinese scientists now publish the majority of high-impact papers in fields like chemistry, physics, computer science, materials science, and engineering:”

“China’s innovation outside of the laboratory is just as impressive. A vast number of incremental improvements and process innovations allow many Chinese businesses to improve product quality and decrease manufacturing cost much more effectively than their foreign rivals. Without Chinese innovation, most of the manufactured goods we consume would be either lower-quality, more expensive, or both. In fact, Chinese companies are responsible for most of the nation’s research spending. As a result, Chinese companies dominate the global market for a number of high-tech products:”

full article

Interesting article by Aris Roussinos

As a result of our rulers’ policy choices, Europe is now so weak that it presents an unguarded feast for the great powers carving up the world between them. The emperor on the Washington throne now seeks to detach Greenland from Denmark and add it with Canada to his vast American domain. When Trump can say of Canada that soon “the artificial line of separation drawn many years ago will finally disappear”, the dynamics are not so different from Putin harking back to Kyivan Rus and the Rurikids to justify his war of imperial expansion. Empires ebb and flow, as they always have: the weaker states between them, whether Ukraine or Europe as a whole, must either accept having their fates determined by great imperialists, or prepare to fight for their own survival.

The talk, then, of European rearmament as a means to save Ukraine from American retreat and Russian dismemberment is best understood as a form of noble lie to prepare European voters to stand alone. When Emmanuel Macron called Nato “brain dead” five years ago, suggesting America’s waning commitment, he was mocked by the very same Atlanticist voices which now, too late, demand a strong and sovereign Europe. These are the very same voices that three years ago, when Russia first invaded, were proclaiming that “Nato is back”, with the relief of born vassals suddenly rescued from the fearful responsibilities of freedom. Had Macron been listened to back in 2020, perhaps matters would be different now; perhaps, indeed, the Ukraine war would never have begun. But Europe’s empty commitments are simply too late: without American support, Ukraine has lost the war. And a Europe capable, with great exertion, of patrolling Ukraine’s eastern frontiers in a decade’s time is simply of no use in determining the outcome of the peace talks taking place now. Once again, it is those most culpable for present failure spurring us to future action: yet whether or not it is also too late for Europe remains an undetermined question. The assumption belatedly dawning on European policymakers is that Nato’s Article 5 is already dead, and with it, the Atlantic Alliance. If Nato still exists in a decade, it will do so only in the sense that Charlemagne was a Roman emperor. The titles may remain the same, perhaps the great ritual gatherings will continue, but the hard facts of power will have changed utterly, and the frontiers to defend will have shrunk.

With Nato moribund, it is difficult to think of a Western state, apart from Canada, worse prepared or politically situated for Trump 2.0 than Britain.

Full article

posted by f.sheikh

Iassume that the reader is familiar with the idea of extra-sensory perception … telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition and psycho-kinesis. These disturbing phenomena seem to deny all our usual scientific ideas … Unfortunately the statistical evidence, at least for telepathy, is overwhelming … Once one has accepted them it does not seem a very big step to believe in ghosts and bogies.’

These words weren’t published in the pages of an obscure occult journal or declared at a secret parapsychology conference. They weren’t written by a Victorian spiritualist or a séance attendee. In fact, their author is Alan Turing, the father of computer science, and they appear in his seminal paper ‘Computing Machinery and Intelligence’ (1950), which describes the ‘imitation game’ (more commonly known as the ‘Turing test’) designed to establish whether a machine’s intelligence could be distinguished from that of a human.

The paper starts by setting up the now-famous thought experiment: a human, a machine, and an observer who asks questions. If the observer cannot work out which one is which based on their responses, the machine has passed the test: its intelligence is indistinguishable from that of a human mind. The vast majority of the paper addresses various objections against the experiment from mathematics, philosophy of mind, or from those sceptical about the power of computers.

But, about two-thirds of the way through the paper, Turing addresses an unexpected worry that might disrupt the imitation game: telepathy. If the human and the observer could communicate telepathically (which the machine supposedly could not do), then the test would fail. ‘This argument is to my mind quite a strong one,’ says Turing. In the end, he suggests that, for the test to work properly, the experiment must take place in a ‘telepathy-proof room’.

full article

posted by f.sheikh