Saturday, October 22, 2022

How To Identify The Despotic Minority - 17

Team Toxo

I. Background

There may be a religious, psychological, or medical way to detect the advent of despotism and provide a simplified remedy for prevention of the worst which toxoplasmosis can bring.

Let's examine that potentiality.

Once upon a time a Dredd Blog System post pointed out a startling Stanford University laboratory-discovered dynamic concerning Toxoplasma Gondii:

"On a certain level, this is a protozoan parasite that knows more about the neurobiology of anxiety and fear than 25,000 neuroscientists standing on each other's shoulders... But no doubt it's also a tip of the iceberg of God knows what other parasitic stuff is going on out there. Even in the larger sense, God knows what other unseen realms of biology make our behavior far less autonomous than lots of folks would like to think."

(Hypothesis: The Cultural Amygdala, Dredd Blog System, Dec. 2012, quoting Dr. Sapolsky).

In the years-later Dredd Blog series "On The Origin Of The Home Of COVID-19" this issue is closely looked at again, beginning with this premise in the first post of that series:

"Let’s start at the beginning. As of 17 March, we know that the Sars-CoV-2 virus (a member of the coronavirus family that causes the respiratory illness Covid-19) is the product of natural evolution. A study of its genetic sequence, conducted by infectious disease expert Kristian G Andersen of the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California, and colleagues, rules out the possibility that it could have been manufactured in a lab or otherwise engineered. Puff go the conspiracy theories.


The principal driver of zoonotic diseases (such as the virus Sars-Cov-2, which spread from animals to humans) is industrial animal agriculture"

(On The Origin Of The Home Of COVID-19, May 2020, quoting The Guardian). As regular readers know, Dredd Blog calls the home of COVOD-19 "the mass-production-of-animals-for-food industry".

II. SARS-CoV-2 And Toxoplasma Gondii Are Not Alone

That infamous "mass-production-of-animals-for-food industry" is the "home" of other thingys:

e.g. "Estimates of foodborne illness can be used to direct food safety policy and interventions. We used data from active and passive surveillance and other sources to estimate that each year 31 major pathogens acquired in the United States caused 9.4 million episodes of foodborne illness ... norovirus ... nontyphoidal Salmonella ... Clostridium perfringens ... Campylobacter ... Toxoplasma gondii ... Listeria monocytogenes ..."

(Foodborne Illness ... Major Pathogens, emphasis added). Notice that Toxoplasma Gondii is on the list?

III. But Toxo Is The One That Is "Mental"

If you notice, the researchers, who search for indicators of whether or not subjects they are conducting a search on, focus on physical manifestations (fever, sneezing, tiredness, weakness, etc.).

However, in Toxoplasma Gondii infection cases the search has to be for aberrant behavior:

"In today's post the focus is also on microbial behaviors that are hypothesized to be a factor in human cognition and psychology.

That focus is on the scientific research in psychology mixed with microbiology.

Based upon a recent paper (Effects of Latent Toxoplasmosis on Political Beliefs and Values, 2022), it seems like that hypothesis "is getting around" (cf. Toxoplasmosis – A Global Threat, 2014: "Toxoplasmosis is becoming a global health hazard as it infects 30–50% of the world human population.").

Previous to those papers, over a decade ago in a post/series the "Dredd Blog System" jumped in with a series about a hypothesis that also concerned microbial impact on behavior.

Specifically, the post and series focused on animal/human behavior that is modified and/or induced by microbes (Hypothesis: Microbes Generate Toxins of Power, 2011)."

(How To Identify The Despotic Minority - 16). Wow, Toxoplasma Gondii can even change "Political Beliefs and Values" and it is "a global threat" ... hey mainstream media, wake up!

IV. It's Been A Long Time Coming

Regular readers know that Dredd Blog has pointed out that our forefathers, scientists of yore, and historians of yore have set forth research and comments which instigated my suspicions that Toxoplasma Gondii has been around since dirt.

Some examples:

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. " (President James Madison, Extinction Peace)


"If the evolution of civilization has such a far reaching similarity with the development of an individual, and if the same methods are employed in both, would not the diagnosis be justified that many systems of civilization——or epochs of it——possibly even the whole of humanity——have become neurotic under the pressure of the civilizing trends? To analytic dissection of these neuroses, therapeutic recommendations might follow which could claim a great practical interest. I would not say that such an attempt to apply psychoanalysis to civilized society would be fanciful or doomed to fruitlessness ... In spite of all these difficulties, we may expect that one day someone will venture upon this research into the pathology of civilized communities." (Freud)


"In other words, a society does not ever die 'from natural causes', but always dies from suicide or murder --- and nearly always from the former, as this chapter has shown." (Toynbee)


"In the Study Toynbee examined the rise and fall of 26 civilizations in the course of human history, and he concluded that they rose by responding successfully to challenges under the leadership of creative minorities composed of elite leaders. Civilizations declined when their leaders stopped responding creatively, and the civilizations then sank owing to the sins of nationalism, militarism, and the tyranny of a despotic minority." (Encyclopedia Britannica)

(above quotes are from Freud, Toynbee, and the Encyclopedia Britannica in a Dredd Blog post: "How To Identify The Despotic Minority - 14", emphasis in original). Just sayin'.

V. Closing Comments

The previous post in this series is here.

From The Dylan Review:

Friday, October 21, 2022

If Cosmology Is "Off," How Can Biology Be "On?" - 3

Bigga Badda Boom
One fundamental construct of the hypothesis called "The Big Bang", in terms of "proof", is cosmic background radiation:

"In standard Big Bang cosmology, the universe expanded from a very dense, hot and opaque initial state. The light that was last scattered about 380,000 years later, when the universe had become transparent, has been redshifted and is now seen as thermal radiation with a temperature of 2.7 K, the cosmic microwave background (CMB)."

(Does standard cosmology really predict the cosmic microwave background?). But there are several arguments that nullify that portion of the hypothesis, for example:

"However, since light escapes faster than matter can move, it is
prudent to ask how we, made of matter from this very source, can still
see the light. In order for this to be possible, the light must take a
return path of the right length. A curved return path is possible in
spatially closed, balloon-like models, but in standard cosmology, the
universe is “flat” rather than balloon-like, and it lacks a boundary
surface that might function as a reflector. Under these premises,
radiation that once filled the universe homogeneously cannot do so
permanently after expansion, and we cannot see the last scattering
event. It is shown that the traditional calculation of the CMB
temperature is inappropriate and that light emitted by any source
inside the Big Bang universe earlier than half its “conformal age” can
only become visible to us via a return path. Although often advanced
as the best evidence for a hot Big Bang, the CMB actually tells against
a formerly smaller universe and so do also distant galaxies."

(ibid). That Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is composed of photons which only exist when they are moving at the speed of light.

They are utterly consumed when they impact an atom, becoming only potential energy (equal to the energy of the photon) within that atom:

"The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is believed to be the residual effect of an alleged primordial explosion and as such is the only evidence supporting the big bang hypothesis.  However, precise measurements by the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite (COBE) indicate that the CMB is blackbody radiation most probably caused by interstellar dust.  The CMB is smooth and looks the same in all directions for the same reason that a fog looks smooth and uniform in all directions.  The CMB appears as an electromagnetic fog on optical telescopes and as a static hum on radio telescopes.

In 1964, cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) was discovered by radio astronomers Robert Wilson and Arno Penzias. They heard the CMB as a static buzzing sound coming from every part of the sky.  Big bang proponents had been searching for confirming evidence for their singularity theory, and they hoped this would be it.

CMB radiation can be detected by telescope in every direction as a patchy background, about 13.4 billion light-years away. This observation is mistakenly believed to be thermal radiation left over from recombination, the epoch during which charged electrons and protons supposedly first became bound to form electrically neutral hydrogen atoms, shortly after the alleged big bang.  The assumption is that hydrogen, the lightest element, was made exclusively during the big bang and in the general area of its supposed origin.   However, ionized hydrogen gas permeates the entire universe."

(Cosmic Microwave Background is Electromagnetic Fog). There are other fanciful concepts in the hypothesis (Quantum Biology - 9, @ "II").

The "playing with dolls" humorous criticism in the Quantum Biology link is milder than the "dogmatism" criticism in the following quote:

"Notice what is going on here. The data disagree with the model, so the data must be wrong. This is the reverse of the way that science is supposed to work. But it is an example of an all-too-common attitude that has been rampant in cosmology for decades. It’s often been said in cosmology circles that data should never get in the way of a good model. Also notice that there is no evidence for this bubble. Far too many people apparently think that the necessity of the bubble to salvage the model is evidence for its existence. Again, this is not how science is supposed to work. Such rescuing devices have been par for the course in cosmology for decades. As problems have arisen, cosmologists have invoked all sorts of hypothetical things, such as inflation, to fix the problems. Though there is no evidence for these rescuing devices, cosmologists are convinced that these rescuing devices must be true, or else the big bang model would be wrong. The reasoning is that since the big bang model must be true, then it follows that anything the big bang model requires must also be true. It never occurs to most scientists that the big bang model may not be true. There is a word for this attitude. That word is dogmatism."

(Cosmic Bubble Hypothesis Highlights Another Big Bang Problem). And don't forget the "Symmetrons" who built "the cosmic walls" (Mysterious invisible walls may have been discovered in outer space). 

The main issue is the nature of electromagnetic radiation (e.g. "light").

Photons of electromagnetic radiation only exist while moving at the speed of light (~186,282 miles per second) and cease to exist when absorbed by an atom.

This issue came up years ago when I was young, and it came up again when I was coding a C++ photon class some years ago in an Oceanography program that is used for many purposes, including here on Dredd Blog (cf. eg. Link).

Some quantum doodles:

e = hv
e = mc2


hO = hv
mc2 = hv
e/m = c2
hO/m = c2
c2 = hO/m

"hO" = potential enthalpy
"h" is Planck's constant
"v" = frequency
"m" = mass
"c" = speed of light



("Photons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholics." Woody Allen)

Notice how the speed of light and time ("Time is what prevents everything from happening at once." Einstein) impact on the following:

"Scientists believe the creation of the long, bright pulse occurred when a massive star in the Sagitta constellation — about 2.4 billion light-years away — collapsed into a supernova explosion and became a black hole. The star was likely many times the mass of our sun."

(CNN). Notice that "light-years away" will not equate in many people's minds to "this event took place 2.4 billion years ago", but we are seeing it now because it takes light that long to reach us from there.

The previous post in this series is here.

Penrose mentions one of my doodles:

Thursday, October 20, 2022

Quantum Biology - 14

Fig. 1 It's Around Here Somewhere
I. Background

In episode five of this series we looked in on classes at some ivy league universities and watched excellent portrayals of some of the dynamics of DNA and RNA (Quantum Biology - 5). 

Today we are going to look a bit deeper by asking whether or not all or some of the hypotheses related to those dynamics have been proven.

II. Faith and Trust?

What kind of belief, or trust, or science does it take to embrace or to falsify a hypothesis (The Pillars of Knowledge: Faith and Trust?)?

One answer advanced is "just the key of course":

"All of this is a hypothesis, proposed by John Sutherland, a chemist at the University of Cambridge in England. But he has tested all the required chemical reactions in a laboratory and developed evidence that they are plausible under the conditions expected of primitive Earth. Having figured out a likely chemistry needed to produce the starting materials of life, Dr. Sutherland then developed this geological scenario because it provides the conditions required by the chemistry. As for the chemistry itself, that springs from Dr. Sutherland’s discovery six years ago of the key to the RNA world."

(Making Sense of the Chemistry That Led to Life on Earth, emphasis added). Oh, "the key to the RNA world", not "a" key but "the" key?

One scientific "test" of a hypothesis, the test of its veracity, is whether or not it can be falsified (Falsifiability, cf. Karl Popper - Theory of Falsification).

III. What Was Required?

The initiator of a hypothesis is required to postulate how the hypothesis can be falsified (if "this", then it is falsified, otherwise it is workable):

"In common usage in the 21st century, a hypothesis refers to a provisional idea whose merit requires evaluation. For proper evaluation, the framer of a hypothesis needs to define specifics in operational terms. A hypothesis requires more work by the researcher in order to either confirm or disprove it. In due course, a confirmed hypothesis may become part of a theory or occasionally may grow to become a theory itself."

(ibid, Fig. 1 link). There are valid concerns that "the key to the RNA world" hypothesis does not meet the standard for a valid scientific hypothesis:

"Another reason why RNA catalysis is important lies in its postulated importance in the early development of life on the planet. It is the key to the RNA world hypothesis proposed by Crick, Orgel, and others that potentially solves a massive chicken-and-egg problem that results from the requirement for the coincident emergence of nucleic acids and proteins with a division of labor between genetic encoding and catalysis. While no-one can rewind the tape to prove such a scenario, the discovery of the peptidyl transferase ribozyme is the closest we get to a “smoking gun” proof of this concept. A viable RNA world would have required many more chemical activities than are represented by the currently-known ribozymes, and it is conceivable that 'molecular fossils' still exist." 

(RNA catalysis—is that it?, emphasis added). What would falsify the only key that can do it falsification is said to be a massive chicken-and-egg problem (which usually leads to playfulness: The Doll As Metaphor, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8).

One of the chicken-and-egg (which came first, this or that) problems is which came first DNA or RNA.

I mentioned DNA/RNA in Section I above, adding a link to the fifth episode of this series, which had a video of a DNA to mRNA transcription and translation.

That video is provided again at the bottom of this post.

IV. Onward to Eucaryotes

That video shows a transcription using the genome of a Eucaryote which is the type of cell we humans have ("A little high school biology review: Eukaryotes are cells with a nucleus and membrane-bound organelles, and they include fungal, plant and animal -- including human -- cells." Science Daily).

As the transcription & translation proceeds, notice that all of the nucleotides in the complimentary base pair ("C", "G", and "A") are copied, but the "T" complimentary base pair is not copied, instead it is converted into a "U".

I discussed that event in the post Some Of My Best Friends Are Germs, but that discussion did not include the Toxoplasma Gondii genome.

Today that issue is going to be discussed in the context of Eucaryotes because both human cells and Toxoplasma Gondii (see How To Identify The Despotic Minority - 16) cells are Eucaryotes (Note: that post quotes sources which point out that "Toxoplasmosis [Toxoplasma Gondii infection] is becoming a global health hazard as it infects 30–50% of the world human population").

V. Onward To Atoms

Today's appendices point out that the atoms in the DNA and RNA of Toxoplasma Gondii and humans do not add up to supporting "the key to the RNA world" that has been discussed earlier in this post.

Thus, the atomic reality should also be a part of the test as to the hypothesis of John Sutherland, Crick, Orgel, and others mentioned earlier in this post, who are said to have proven "the key to the RNA world" hypothesis.

Again, one reason for this is that the atomic structure of "T" (Thymine) is not the same as the atomic structure of "U" (Uracil):

"The appendices to today's post show mutant codons (Appendix One) and the differences in atom counts (Appendix Two) in one nucleotide of DNA (T,  thymine) compared to the relevant nucleotide of RNA (U, uracil).

The codons and amino acids related to mRNA (mRNA codons have "U" instead of "T") in the lines of Appendix Two follow (are on the following line) the codons of the lines of DNA codons.

This (Appendix Two) shows that the atom counts in DNA 'T' do not match the atom counts of RNA 'U' ('T' parts are not 'U' parts).

Considerable skill is required to move atoms out of or into a molecule, yet that happens during DNA -> mRNA transcription (see videos below).

As it were, one carbon atom and two hydrogen atoms are removed from 'T' which results in 'U' during codon transcription processing.

As you can see in those appendices, this is done in the cells of eucaryotes millions and millions of times daily."

(Quantum Biology - 5, at section "II. Appendices", cf. Quantum Biology, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13).

Fig. 2 by Celeste Roberge
There's nothing left to do but count the atoms, which like rocks (Fig. 2), don't change what they are just because we put them in a large pile (Small Brains Considered - 11). 

VI. Closing Comments

As if that was not enough, those scientists who have become intellectually adrift go even further.

Yes, there are even some once quantum physics based scientists who have, in effect then, indicated that the secrets of the Eastern Mystical Religions and the Western Christian Religions are hidden deep in the, "as it were", pile of rocks (Small Brains Considered - 7).

This Dr. Falkowski video below addresses "we don't know":

Dr. Paul Falkowski

"Andy. Thank you very much, Andy, and thanks for inviting me here. It's a pleasure. So I just want to begin this by thinking about a bridge. In this particular case, it's an obvious bridge. And if you think about evolution, you know where we've come to, but you don't know where we began. So origins of life is one of the most challenging problems facing science. Actually, as my friend and colleague Nick Lane says, it's the black hole of science. It's an embarrassment. And it's a very complicated problem." -Dr. Falkowski

(From the transcript, emphasis added).

The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.

A tale of two other brain areas (one in the nucleus, the other in the ribosomes)?:

Tuesday, October 18, 2022

Small Brains Considered - 11

Fig. 1 Same Differences

I. Background

The ribosome was a focus of a previous post in this series.

A ribosome is made of rRNA but what does that look like?

Let's take a closer look at what rRNA is made of:

"Ribosomal ribonucleic acid (rRNA) is a type of non-coding RNA which is the primary component of ribosomes, essential to all cells. rRNA is a ribozyme which carries out protein synthesis in ribosomes. Ribosomal RNA is transcribed from ribosomal DNA (rDNA) and then bound to ribosomal proteins to form small and large ribosome subunits. rRNA is the physical and mechanical factor of the ribosome that forces transfer RNA (tRNA) and messenger RNA (mRNA) to process and translate the latter into proteins.[1] Ribosomal RNA is the predominant form of RNA found in most cells; it makes up about 80% of cellular RNA despite never being translated into proteins itself. Ribosomes are composed of approximately 60% rRNA and 40% ribosomal proteins by mass." 

(Ribosomal RNA, emphasis added). The graphic at Fig. 1 shows us that rRNA is made of the same basic components that all RNA is made of (including ribosomal proteins mentioned in that quote) which is: the nucleotides "ACGU" (no "T").

II. What Does It Mean?

The "take home" is that any small brain in eukaryotic cells is a myth, because all parts of eukaryotes are composed of molecules, those molecules are composed of the same atoms that all of the genomes of eukaryotes are made of (DNA and RNA):


adenine (A) [C5H5N5]

cytosine (C) [C4H5N3O]

guanine (G) [C5H5N5O]

thymine (T) [C5H6N2O2]

uracil (U) [C4H4N2O2]

(and none of them are alive).

III. Yeah, But What Does it Mean?

It means "we don't know" (quoting Paul G. Falkowski in the video below), and that we should not make up doll stories (Small Brains Considered - 7).

Atoms and molecules are machines, ribosomes are machines, ribozymes are machines, genes are machines, and they are  not alive (The New Paradigm: The Physical Universe Is Mostly Machine, 2). 

Thus, a question arises: Did Abiotic Intelligence Precede Biotic Intelligence?.

As I have said:

Putting A Face on Machine Mutation
Which Came First - Cyborg Or Robot?
Putting A Face on Machine Mutation
Will Humans Evolve Into Machines?

The Tiniest Scientists Are Very Old

Which Came First - Cyborg Or Robot? - 2
Are Toxins of Power Machines or Organisms?

Putting A Face On Machine Mutation - 2
Do Molecular Machines Deliver Toxins of Power?
Did Abiotic Intelligence Precede Biotic Intelligence?
Putting A Face On Machine Mutation - 3
The Life and Death of Bright Things

Weekend Rebel Science Excursion - 17
The Uncertain Gene thru The Uncertain Gene - 8
If Cosmology Is "Off," How Can Biology Be "On?"
Putting A Face On Machine Mutation - 4


On the Origin of the Genes of Viruses - 5
On the Origin of the Genes of Viruses - 6

 IV. Closing Comments

The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.

The Dr. Falkowski video addresses "we don't know":

Dr. Paul Falkowski

"Andy. Thank you very much, Andy, and thanks for inviting me here. It's a pleasure. So I just want to begin this by thinking about a bridge. In this particular case, it's an obvious bridge. And if you think about evolution, you know where we've come to, but you don't know where we began. So origins of life is one of the most challenging problems facing science. Actually, as my friend and colleague Nick Lane says, it's the black hole of science. It's an embarrassment. And it's a very complicated problem." -Dr. Falkowski

(From video transcript, emphasis added).

So, any further questions should be directed to The Borg:

Monday, October 17, 2022

Small Brains Considered - 10

Fig. 1 Synthesis of
Appendix 1 and Appendix 2

 I. Background

The previous post in this series featured appendices containing HTML tables depicting  Toxoplasma Gondii ("Toxo") genomes (APNDX Amino Acids, Codons, AtomsAPNDX Sorted Amino Acids, Codons, Atoms).

The discussion in another post was that ("30-50% of humans are infected") Toxo infections are ubiquitous.

In today's post let's focus on the "embarrasment" of the microbiologists who consider "small things" but not the brains of those small things, if there is such a thing in Toxo.

One prime candidate for being considered as a brain in the small things considered department is the ubiquitous ribosome (as was considered in the previous post):  

It would seem that the small brain considered (the ribosome) is quite artificially intelligent, even though it too (like the amino acids and codons) is just a group of atoms:

"Using a computer to simulate the interaction of 2.6 million atoms, Los Alamos National Laboratory researchers have re-created a tiny slice of one of the most fundamental genetic processes of life.

The lab simulated how a cellular machine called a ribosome follows genetic instructions to construct a complex molecule called a protein out of building blocks called amino acids. With 768 processors of LANL's 8,192-processor ASCI Q [human made] machine running for about 260 days, the researchers created a movie of the process. Previous views had shown only static snapshots."

(Lab computer simulates ribosome in motion, emphasis added). It took a human made super computer 260 days to depict what a microscopic machine does more quickly:

"the ribosome behavior that they simulated takes only 2 nanoseconds, or 2 billionths of a second"

(ibid). That somehow explains the time doll ("When the universe [doll] was very young — something like a hundredth of a billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second (whew!) [the time doll was ... conjured ... shortly after that] — it underwent an incredible growth spurt", Quantum Biology - 9).

Go figure.

(Small Brains Considered - 9, at section "IV. Analysis"). Keeping that in mind, the big story to add to that is Fig. 1 which depicts concisely what the ribosome does when processing a Toxo genome gene segment.

Fig. 2 Atomic Photo Album

The appendices linked to in Fig. 1 are Toxo genome entities that process mRNA when the nucleus of the Toxo eukaryote cell's machinery (I guess the small things considered intellectual machinery would call it "the nuclear brain") translates/transcribes the Toxo DNA into Toxo mRNA, then "ships it" (Federal express, UPS, Amazon) out of the nucleus out to the badlands where the ribosome machines are located.

NOTE: The ribosome is depicted by scientists as a molecular machine because it is not a biotic entity, it is an abiotic entity (not alive, see The Abiology Rebellion).

This is in accord with the new scientific paradigm (The New Paradigm: The Physical Universe Is Mostly Machine, 2, 3).

II. Down To The Brass Tacks

The first line of the Fig1 graphic is:

C5H5N5O1<->C5H5N5<->C5H5N5O1 > [C5H9N1O4]

That indicates that the ribosome uses the three molecules of atoms, picking and choosing this and that atom from those three molecules to produce the C5H9N1O4
amino acid group of atoms (it's like a line-up down at the station Fig. 2).

Using simple arithmetic we can deduce that one third of the carbon (C) atoms in the three codon molecules were used (two thirds were put in the waste basket I suppose), nine of the fifteen hydrogen (H) atoms were used and six were tossed, one of the fifteen nitrogen (N) atoms were used, fourteen were tossed, and somehow four oxygen (O) atoms appeared when only two were in the codon.

You can go down the list and notice that the arithmetic is strange (especially so since the magnitude is overwhelming in the sense that there are ten million ribosomes in each eukaryotic cell: Encyclopedia Britannica).

And that is the simple part, in the sense that this atomic surgery happens in the proverbial blink of an eye ("the ribosome behavior that they simulated takes only 2 nanoseconds, or 2 billionths of a second").

How the "the nuclear brain" (nucleus) changes the

Thymine T THY C5H6N2O2


Uracil U URA C4H4N2O2

is another arithmetic "subtraction miracle" or perhaps they aren't over their "T" is "U" and "U" is "T" thingy yet I suppose (It's In The GenBank - 4).

III. Closing Comments

See the last video below for an excellent overview of the eukaryotic cell nucleus's transcription/translation dynamics.

See the Falkowski video just below for an honest scientist's appraisal about the most-honest we can be with our words ("we don't know"):

Dr. Paul Falkowski

"Andy. Thank you very much, Andy, and thanks for inviting me here. It's a pleasure. So I just want to begin this by thinking about a bridge. In this particular case, it's an obvious bridge. And if you think about evolution, you know where we've come to, but you don't know where we began. So origins of life is one of the most challenging problems facing science. Actually, as my friend and colleague Nick Lane says, it's the black hole of science. It's an embarrassment. And it's a very complicated problem." -Dr. Falkowski

(From the video transcript, emphasis added).

The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.

SBC 10 Appendix Two

This is an appendix to: Small Brains Considered - 10

Atomic Formulas Table

Codon Codon[1]
Total Atoms
In Codons
Amino Acid Amino Acid
GAG C5H5N5O1 C5H5N5 C5H5N5O1 C15H15N15O2 Glutamic acid C5H9N1O4
CCA C4H5N3O1 C4H5N3O1 C5H5N5 C13H15N11O2 Proline C5H9N1O2
TGC C5H6N2O2 C5H5N5O1 C4H5N3O1 C14H16N10O4 Cysteine C3H7N1O2S1
ATT C5H5N5 C5H6N2O2 C5H6N2O2 C15H17N9O4 Isoleucine C6H13N1O2
ATC C5H5N5 C5H6N2O2 C4H5N3O1 C14H16N10O3 Isoleucine C6H13N1O2
TAG C5H6N2O2 C5H5N5 C5H5N5O1 C15H16N12O3 Stop-codon none
ATA C5H5N5 C5H6N2O2 C5H5N5 C15H16N12O2 Isoleucine C6H13N1O2
GTA C5H5N5O1 C5H6N2O2 C5H5N5 C15H16N12O3 Valine C5H11N1O2
GGC C5H5N5O1 C5H5N5O1 C4H5N3O1 C14H15N13O3 Glycine C2H5N1O2
TCT C5H6N2O2 C4H5N3O1 C5H6N2O2 C14H17N7O5 Serine C3H7N1O3
GAG C5H5N5O1 C5H5N5 C5H5N5O1 C15H15N15O2 Glutamic acid C5H9N1O4
AAT C5H5N5 C5H5N5 C5H6N2O2 C15H16N12O2 Asparagine C4H8N2O3
AUG C5H5N5 C4H4N2O2 C5H5N5O1 C14H14N12O3 Methionine C5H11N1O2S1
CAU C4H5N3O1 C5H5N5 C4H4N2O2 C13H14N10O3 Histidine C6H9N3O2
UAU C4H4N2O2 C5H5N5 C4H4N2O2 C13H13N9O4 Tyrosine C9H11N1O3
CUA C4H5N3O1 C4H4N2O2 C5H5N5 C13H14N10O3 Leucine C6H13N1O2
GAU C5H5N5O1 C5H5N5 C4H4N2O2 C14H14N12O3 Aspartic acid C4H7N1O4
AGU C5H5N5 C5H5N5O1 C4H4N2O2 C14H14N12O3 Serine C3H7N1O3
AGG C5H5N5 C5H5N5O1 C5H5N5O1 C15H15N15O2 Arginine C6H14N4O2
CUC C4H5N3O1 C4H4N2O2 C4H5N3O1 C12H14N8O4 Leucine C6H13N1O2

SBC 10 Appendix One

This is an appendix to: Small Brains Considered - 10

Codon: codon atoms(3 each), codon atoms (totals), amino acid, amino acid atoms

GAG: C5H5N5O1,C5H5N5,C5H5N5O1,C15H15N15O2,Glutamic acid, C5H9N1O4
CCA: C4H5N3O1,C4H5N3O1,C5H5N5,C13H15N11O2,Proline, C5H9N1O2
TGC: C5H6N2O2,C5H5N5O1,C4H5N3O1,C14H16N10O4,Cysteine, C3H7N1O2S1
ATT: C5H5N5,C5H6N2O2,C5H6N2O2,C15H17N9O4,Isoleucine, C6H13N1O2
ATC: C5H5N5,C5H6N2O2,C4H5N3O1,C14H16N10O3,Isoleucine, C6H13N1O2
TAG: C5H6N2O2,C5H5N5,C5H5N5O1,C15H16N12O3,Stop-codon, none
ATA: C5H5N5,C5H6N2O2,C5H5N5,C15H16N12O2,Isoleucine, C6H13N1O2
GTA: C5H5N5O1,C5H6N2O2,C5H5N5,C15H16N12O3,Valine, C5H11N1O2
GGC: C5H5N5O1,C5H5N5O1,C4H5N3O1,C14H15N13O3,Glycine, C2H5N1O2
TCT: C5H6N2O2,C4H5N3O1,C5H6N2O2,C14H17N7O5,Serine, C3H7N1O3
GAG: C5H5N5O1,C5H5N5,C5H5N5O1,C15H15N15O2,Glutamic acid, C5H9N1O4
AAT: C5H5N5,C5H5N5,C5H6N2O2,C15H16N12O2,Asparagine, C4H8N2O3
AUG: C5H5N5,C4H4N2O2,C5H5N5O1,C14H14N12O3,Methionine, C5H11N1O2S1
CAU: C4H5N3O1,C5H5N5,C4H4N2O2,C13H14N10O3,Histidine, C6H9N3O2
UAU: C4H4N2O2,C5H5N5,C4H4N2O2,C13H13N9O4,Tyrosine, C9H11N1O3
CUA: C4H5N3O1,C4H4N2O2,C5H5N5,C13H14N10O3,Leucine, C6H13N1O2
GAU: C5H5N5O1,C5H5N5,C4H4N2O2,C14H14N12O3,Aspartic acid, C4H7N1O4
AGU: C5H5N5,C5H5N5O1,C4H4N2O2,C14H14N12O3,Serine, C3H7N1O3
AGG: C5H5N5,C5H5N5O1,C5H5N5O1,C15H15N15O2,Arginine, C6H14N4O2
CUC: C4H5N3O1,C4H4N2O2,C4H5N3O1,C12H14N8O4,Leucine, C6H13N1O2