Aleatory Definition of Aleatory by Merriam-Webster
Aleatory Definition of Aleatory by Merriam-Webster
Epistemic vs. Aleatory uncertainty - apppm
aleatory - definition and meaning
ALEATORY Word Meaning ALEATORY Scrabble Score TWL ...
Aleatory definition and meaning Collins English Dictionary
aleatory Origin and meaning of aleatory by Online ...
Aleatory Definition. The meaning of Aleatory - Word Panda
Meaning Of ALEATORY - Uscramble ALEATORY For Scrabble ...
aleatory word meaning
aleatory word meaning - win
The Re-Egofication of "French Theory": "REEEEEEEEEEEEE" goes my Ego!
I'm reading two books right now in parallax. I'm halfway through both, so this story is incomplete as of yet. But it's worth sharing what I've found thus far. One is an ethnographic study of the post-Lacanian French psychoanalytic scene. It's the first book, published in '78, by the MIT professor who did the absolute best studies of children and microcomputers in the 80s, and the effects of computer simulation upon people and society in the 90s and 2000s. Now her latest work is on what screen-time and smartphones are doing to destroy kid's abilities to communicate. But her first book is clearly the hidden ground for all the rest, and tells a very important story. Psychoanalysis was taken up very quickly in America in the early 1900s because America was very frontier-ish and didn't have too much of a culture yet, so people were eager to soak up a theory of self rooted in dreams. And then, quickly, American Psychoanalysis transformed something suitable for the American culture: a means of coping and strengthening the ego. In short order, psychoanalysis became "monopolized" (let's say) as a field of medicine, and its original larger scope of art and literary theory, social studies etc. was stymied. In America, Freud became synonymous with psychology and therapy, and the goal was having a robust, healthy ego. France was a different story. Psychoanalysis didn't really take at the beginning because they already had culture and structure. The fourth French Republic was quite sturdy and self-secure already in it's pomp and pageantry, and had it's own home-grown psychology in the forms of Henri Bergson and Janet. Sure, some artists looked at psychoanalysis, however uncovering hidden motives, rooted in sex and incest, quite an anathema to a society built on strong family ties and rational thinking and rigid, clockwork social structure. Freud was some weird-ass subversive German. Okay, let's switch track to the second book for a second. This book is about how the Freudian idea of the unconscious was taken up, in the 40s and 50s, by the Cyberneticists at the Macy Conference, and the founders of modern communication and information theory.] It came out in 2010. The author tells the story of Basic English, which was literally George Orwell's Newspeak—it's a real thing, and it was created in part by one of Marshall McLuhan's professors. Claude Shannon developed his information theory by putting Basic English at one end of a spectrum, and James Joyce's Finnegans Wake (McLuhan's primary reference text for his communications theory) on the other end, and developed the idea of information entropy. To measure entropy, one see's how easily one can predict what comes next—and few words of course means higher degree of predictability and vice-versa. In doing this, Shannon turned the phonetic alphabet into an ideographic series of symbols, and measured them statistically in various books (lots of Us following Qs, plenty of Es, very few Xs, etc.). Information theory, of course, is absolutely essential to modern communications infrastructure, especially with signal/data compression, etc. For instance, highly "entropic" action films are harder to compress into digital video than talking head news-casts where little in the visual image changes. A single talking voice is better compressed in one audio codec than a high-fidelity, polyphonic orchestral piece better compressed with a different one. But in it's beginning, information theory dealt with ENGLISH. Not just language—English. But not the spoken language English, but the alphabetically typed english where the letters were divorced from their meaning. In probability, the odds of an occurrence are measured against every other possible outcome. And in structural linguistics, a chosen symbol occurs in relation to every other symbol which might have occured. The Americans developing this stuff, living in their psychoanalytic culture, began to relate the chosen word to the conscious, compared to the unchosen structure of words not picked to Freud's unconscious. i.e. what was repressed. You know who was studying the Macy Conferences and the cyberneticists intently? Jacques Lacan. Okay back to the first book. Psychoanalysis was relatively underground and ignored in France before 1968. "Psychoanlysis" meant, to the French, that awful American ego-centric kind—French psychoanalysts thought America had ruined Freud with their adaptation of his theories, steering him from the early dream stuff into the later superego-ego-id formalism. But that summer, between May and June, there was a giant emancipatory nation-wide Marxist strike where everything shut down, workers seized all the means of production, and people roamed the streets and gushed their repressions for a while. Hippy shit, French style. Shit calmed down in literally two months and it was back to business, superficially, but psychologically everything changed. And all the best explanations for what-the-fuck just happened came from psychoanalysis, which became super popular literally overnight. And psychoanalysis in France was Jacques Lacan. And Derrida and Foucault and Deleuze and Guittari and a bunch of other names had been studying Lacan's cybernetic Freud, wherein the self/ego didn't have primacy. The self was "decentered", and the person was in-fact living in the Symbolic realm of structures in computer RAM, as a Turing Machine read-head hopping from symbol to symbol, having come from their infantile Imaginary in a doomed attempt to reach the Real. Back to the second book: When so-called "French Theory" was translated back into English and imported into the United States, the mathematical basis for the theories were lost in translation. The word game, as in formal Game Theory (prisoner's dilemma, et. al) became conflated with play, as in a single move or just part or role or playing around, because the word jeux is used for both in French. And the term stochastic, as in the randomness of the Markoff chains used to analyze language by Shannon, became translated into aleatory, which has no formal mathematical meaning. The Americans who took up "post structural theory" had no clue that they were working in the same domain as the STEM department across the hall. Like.... LACAN, DERRIDA, DELEUZE, GUITTARI, FOUCAULT are CYBERNETICISTS. Post modernism is literally about the subjective experience of living inside the contents of a medium. Like, I've been trying to say as much for several years, but it's actually fucking true. So now, rather than continue with our books, let's make make some conjectures: American psychoanlysis was ego-heavy, therapeutic, and institutionalized as a branch of psychological medicine. The French took up psychoanalysis as a larger, more universal cultural theory wherein the subconscious as a structured semiotic system had primacy over the now "de-centered" subject, like a CPU jumping around in RAM. And then that theory was imported back into America to flood into all the places psychoanalysis couldn't go, since it's not illegal to practice Post-Modernism without being licensed by the APA. So where does Alone's narcissism come from? It's the return of the ego within the decentered structures of symbolic structures and media content as subconscious. The self grounded within, and existing within, external media—which was actually the whole theory the whole time, from its genesis, lost in translation. Americans need an ego—so they brought the ego back as narcissism after a decade of imported ego-less le robôFréud. Hmmm... why does nobody feel like they belong in their bodies any more? 🤷♀️
excerpt from Freddy deBoer's new book, Cult of Smart, and a critique
In this spirit, I argue for universal childcare during the day for those too young for kindergarten and in the afternoons after school for those of elementary school age. Every child should have a safe, warm, nurturing place to go during conventional working hours regardless of who is raising them and whether their guardian(s) work or not. These programs, like universal K-12 education would not be means tested; every child would have a right to attend these programs regardless of their socioeconomic background. The exact starting date of pre-K would have to be negotiated; in my ideal world, free daycare would be available from birth. The social benefits would be profound. For one, we’d have fewer young people on the street, fewer latchkey children forced to go home to empty apartments and houses, fewer children with nothing to do but stare at screens all day. Children who live in truly unhealthy home environments, whether because of abuse or neglect or addiction or simple poverty, would have more hours out of the day to spend in supervised safety. And the benefits to the parents would be just as large. Today, many parents are faced with an impossible choice: give up their career in order to raise young children, and lose that source of income and self-actualisation, or spend potentially huge amounts of money on childcare in order to work a job that might not even pay enough to cover that care. (The Economic Policy Institute estimates that pre-K childcare costs between $4,000 and $22,600 annually depending on the age of the child and location.) No one should be forced to make this choice. Universal childcare and afterschool care could save parents millions of dollars and help ease the incredible workload of raising a child.
The thesis of the rest of the book, I would like to politely debate. How influential is genetics on academic performance and intelligence? How do we learn? Through biology, or through experience and dialogue? Why doesn't he incorporate data from existing universal childcare centers in Europe into his analysis of universal childcare in the States? Cult of Smart is about how the American education system fails children while politicians and school admins perpetuate an ideology where “every child can succeed no matter what” without taking into account that intelligence and academic performance is, according to deBoer, predominantly genetically inherited, and thus aleatory and up to chance. Some children just aren’t cut out for academic success. Those children should not be foreclosed from other types of success and all social happiness, but oftentimes their failure in school at an early age translates to economic failure in life. Is it because their parents are also retarded? If so, what can we do? I wondered if that was the geist of deBoer’s carefully worded thesis while reading the first half of the book, but I honestly feel so stupid all the time that all science just flows over my smooth brain. So maybe someone who also read it can correct me. But it is clear that deBoer belives that “academic ability is significantly heritable, and that the influence of genetic parentage is much larger than the influence of the environment” (62). He even advocates for changing the age for legally dropping out to 12. But wait! deBoer also really, really wants the reader to know that “it’s perfectly consistent to believe the difference between individual students is largely genetic while the difference between racial groups is not” (111). Meaning, dumbness plays out genetically but some racial groups aren’t scoring lower on the intelligence tests than others (that deBoer points out to the reader, not me, mods!) not because of their race but because their parents just aren’t smart. Maybe I'm just not being charitable but I don't understand these paradoxes, perhaps because I'm trapped in my constructivist views on knowledge and believe the intelligence gaps have to do with environment (does mom work? how much screentime? what type of childcare?) not genetics unless you're inbred or have Downs Syndrome. I think there is a marxist reason to support universal childcare beyond deBoer's reasoning, which is admittedly humanitarian grounds (“we should make our focus universal childcare, and we should defend it on progressive and humanitarian grounds… ). Universal childcare levels the playing field because compensating reproductive labor drives up wages and requires a large progressive income tax to fund, and so the system as is largely does not ever benefit upper and upper-middle class children's economic prospects since they go on to contribute a good bulk of their earnings to fund it, bringing their expected lifetime earnings down, closer to what working class children can expect to grow up and earn as adults. This is because true universal childcare involves universal infant care (which requires centers being within walking distance of children's homes) and universal healthcare, which are both enormously expensive, and the process of funding this expense restructures the economy in favor of the working class, encourages play-centered pedagogy to develop (look at how post-War Italy started communal childcare centers and the Reggio Emilia method emerged), and contributes to the maternal labor supply. It also increases fertility, and the birth rate in these countries rises, and we need our population to at least replace itself to sustain social programs.
EDIT: I guess this might be the most controversial post on Reddit in 2020 and for the years to come. I've discovered this guy yesterday, I've heard some of his Klavierstücke, the helicopter quartet, Telemusik etc... My question is really simple: how can you call that stuff "art"? I see people saying that he's a genius, beautiful composition, avant-garde and all that stuff. Really? Are you kidding me? The aleatory thing might be "interesting", but I would call it an experiment, something made just for fun, but NEVER music. It looks like a big internet troll where everyone is just trolling each other or where some people want to look smart or something by saying that they can appreciate this kind of music. Get outta here, come on. His compositions are like making a dish with 100 ingredients all mixed up, where they just don't fit with each other and maybe sometimes there's one that is good with another one, but just because of chance. It's like writing a poem with all the letters from the alphabet, without even making a word. It's like dressing with every existing color. I mean, if he felt like that those notes were the right ones to express something he was feeling, ok good for him, but it just didn't work. If you like his music, good for you, but rock, pop, classical music, jazz, blues, electronic, country etc... still exist, but I don't see his experimentations still alive. Same thing goes for Arnold Schönberg btw. It's like esperanto, it just failed. You can't create a language that is the result of an evolution in history and culture out of thin air. Same thing goes for music. He just threw away all the stuff that we learned, all the concepts of nature that determine what the human hear finds pleasant and he replaced it with math and randomness. And let's be clear here, I'm not saying that experimentation is bad. Of course not. Try new stuff, break the rules, make some dissonances, have fun and find a new amazing sound. Do it, really. I think that this is necessary if we want to express ourselves at our fullest and if we want to create something new, but Karlheinz Stockhausen just failed. And let's be honest, if tomorrow I make music like he did, everyone would just laugh at me. Is it because people are ignorant and can't appreciate this kind of "art"? No, it's because this is a huge joke where no-one is laughing. I bet that even Karlheinz Stockhausen didn't like his own compositions. It looks like he did what he did to make people talk about him and just to be noticed. I guess he was the "kool kid" back there. Well, Karlheinz, if this was your purpose, you did it. Nice. I don't know guys, it just hurts me and makes me laugh when I see people applauding after an orchestra performs one of his compositions.I think they just applaud so they don't think about the 80€ they spent for the performance. Ok, now let's be serious for a minute. Am I missing something about his great work? Do I need to become God to understand this kind of expression? For real, tell me your opinions about this topic, I really want to understand. Thanks. EDIT: Ok, a lot of people think that I'm the type of guy that only likes music made in the "traditional" way and that music made in new ways shouldn't be considered music. This is not what I think. I respect taste in everything, even in music. I also respect all types of music, even Stockhausen. Yeah, I don't like that type music, but I respect it. I think that the point that I'm trying to make is the following: Stockhausen did nothing wrong. He just composed music. You like it? Great. You don't like it? Great. I don't care.BUT! Technically he composed music and technically if I play the C Major chord for 2 seconds I made music.BUT! Can we all agree that if I bring a dish with poop to Masterchef the chefs are gonna tell me that it just sucks and they don't want to eat my poop? Yeah, technically they just don't like it and have a different taste. I might love eating my poop, it's a taste, and I respect it! But reality is different. Technically they can't say that poop sucks because they should say that they don't like it. But is it really like this? Let's be honest guys. I think that Stockhausen did nothing wrong. I think he made some bad music and by saying this I'm saying a wrong thing. I should just say that I don't like or even understand Stockhausen. I'm trying to say that something is bad because 99% of people don't like it. Technically 99% of people have a different taste so I shouldn't say that something is bad because most of the people say it's bad, but reality is different. So, technically this post shouldn't exist because I just don't like Stockhausen and tastes are tastes. I just don't like it and I shouldn't say that he's a bad composer. Idk... I hope I explained myself. TL;DR Reality is different. EDIT 2: Woooooow, the downvotes tho. Imagine if I started insulting everyone's family, I would have -99999999 karma.
A computational theory of emanation (spellcasting) - TERENARIAN SYNTHESIS
This computational theory should answer the following questions: What is the goal of the computation, why is it appropriate, and what is the logic of the strategy by which it can be carried out? As in Marr’s model for vision, this one is a highly interdisciplinary one. To comprehend emanation, we can look at brain-damaged patients carried out by clinical neuropsychologists. Patients with damage to the left temporal lobe and left frontal lobe – areas of the brain that when damaged tend to produce what is known as Wernicke’s aphasia and Broca’s aphasia respectively – are known to have problems not only in language-processing, but also in emanation (spellcasting). Broca’s aphasia’s most salient feature is decreased fluency of spontaneous speech (fluency, prosody, grammar and meaning, paraphasias, articulation). This language disorder, usually caused by infarct in the territory of the left middle cerebral artery (MCA) superior division, affects emanation, making it highly unpredictable and aleatory. A fire emanator may cast a fireball, but this fireball would end up striking any random target whether the caster wanted it to strike it or not. Wernicke’s aphasia is usually caused by a lesion of Wernicke’s area and adjacent structures in the dominant temporoparietal lobes. The most common etiology is infarct in the left MCA inferior division territory. Clinically, patients with Wernicke’s aphasia have markedly impaired comprehension (commands, simple to complex; yes/no questions and multiple choice; point to objects; syntax-dependent meaning). Spontaneous speech in Wernicke’s aphasia has normal fluency, prosody, and grammatical structure. However, impaired lexical functions result in speech that is empty, meaningless, and full of nonsensical paraphasic errors, which can be either inappropriate substitution of a word for one of similar meaning, or of a part of a word for one with a similar sound. Patients with Wernicke’s aphasia, thus, do not show impaired focus on emanation, but instead cannot emanate at all. All emanations from a patient with Wernicke’s aphasia aren’t even able to materialize the most basic manaic expression (spell). A conclusion about how the emanation system works from these neurological observations is that information about an emanation must be processed first in Wernicke’s and Broca’s area to be materialized in a manaic expression. Language processing is, therefore, crucial to emanation. Ideas, before being materialized, must be processed in rigorous sentences with proper words to become what they are. Since patients with Broca’s aphasia can’t properly focus a spell, this means that the syntax of ideas at the phenomenological level is relevant to determine whether a spell must work in a specified coordinate in space-time and not in any other. And, since patients with Wernicke’s aphasia can’t emanate what they want, this means that the way ideas are interpreted in words are of utter importance to emanation. Without words describing proper ideas, emanation can’t occur as it should. In an experiment where emanators with Broca’s aphasia were told to cast a ranic ward to defend themselves from an expansive force of rania, they ended up creating a ward that protected the rania force itself. In other cases, the ranic ward was cast towards the floor or towards the caster materializing the expansive force. So, at the computational level, the basic task of the emanation system is to derive a representation of the ideas encoded in language within the brain in a form that will allow this idea to be materialized. Since emanation is correlated with the ability to speak, it is concluded that ideas aren’t simply given from a metaphysical plane to natural reality and, instead, ideas are simply information processed in the language areas of the brain that are later materialized through the flow of mana within the body to its outside. Further information shows that patients suffering whether primary or secondary psychosis can’t properly emanate either, having the same difficulties as patients with Broca’s aphasia.
THAT Sgt Pepper review by the critic who hated it in 1967
Thought it would be fun to post this review, written in 1967 by a critic who hated Sgt Pepper. John even referred to him once, for a laugh, in an interview. The critic realized years later that the stereo he was listening to the album on had only one channel. That means he only heard the right speaker. And for Beatles songs in stereo, especially Sgt Pepper, that means you are missing half of the song. :) Still didnt change his opinion when he gave it a fresh listen. Also, he's a rocker, Long Tall Sally type fan who didnt like that the Beatles sound / style was changing. A splendid time is guaranteed for all! ------ "We Still Need the Beatles, but …” The Beatles spent an unprecedented four months and $100,000 on their new album, “Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Heart’s Club Band” (Capitol SMAS 2653, mono and stereo). Like fathers-to-be, they kept a close watch on each stage of its gestation. For they are no longer merely superstars. Hailed as progenitors of a Pop avant garde, they have been idolized as the most creative members of their generation. The pressure to create an album that is complex, profound and innovative must have been staggering. So they retired to the electric sanctity of their recording studio, dispensing with their adoring audience, and the shrieking inspiration it can provide. The finished product reached the record racks last week; the Beatles had supervised even the album cover — a mind-blowing collage of famous and obscure people, plants and artifacts. The 12 new compositions in the album are as elaborately conceived as the cover. The sound is a pastiche of dissonance and lushness. The mood is mellow, even nostalgic. But, like the cover, the over-all effect is busy, hip and cluttered. Like an over-attended child “Sergeant Pepper” is spoiled. It reeks of horns and harps, harmonica quartets, assorted animal noises and a 91-piece orchestra. On at least one cut, the Beatles are not heard at all instrumentally. Sometimes this elaborate musical propwork succeeds in projecting mood. The “Sergeant Pepper” theme is brassy and vaudevillian. “She’s Leaving Home,” a melodramatic domestic saga, flows on a cloud of heavenly strings. And, in what is becoming a Beatle tradition, George Harrison unveils his latest excursion into curry and karma, to the saucy accompaniment of three tambouras, a dilruba, a tabla, a sitar, a table harp, three cellos and eight violins. Harrison’s song, “Within You and Without You,” is a good place to begin dissecting “Sergeant Pepper.” Though it is among the strongest cuts, its flaws are distressingly typical of the album as a whole. Compared with “Love You To” (Harrison’s contribution to “Revolver”), this melody shows an expanded consciousness of Indian ragas. Harrison’s voice, hovering midway between song and prayer chant, oozes over the melody like melted cheese. On sitar and tamboura, he achieves a remarkable Pop synthesis. Because his raga motifs are not mere embellishments but are imbedded into the very structure of the song, “Within You and Without You” appears seamless. It stretches, but fits. What a pity, then, that Harrison’s lyrics are dismal and dull. “Love You To” exploded with a passionate sutra quality, but “Within You and Without You” resurrects the very cliches the Beatles helped bury: “With our love/We could save the world/If they only knew.” All the minor scales in the Orient wouldn’t make “Within You and Without You” profound. The obsession with production, coupled with a surprising shoddiness in composition, permeates the entire album. There is nothing beautiful on “Sergeant Pepper.” Nothing is real and there is nothing to get hung about. The Lennon raunchiness has become mere caprice in “Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite.” Paul McCartney’s soaring Pop magnificats have become merely politely profound. “She’s Leaving Home” preserves all the orchestrated grandeur of “Eleanor Rigby,” but its framework is emaciated. This tale of a provincial lass who walks out on a repressed home life, leaving parents sobbing in her wake, is simply no match for those stately, swirling strings. Where “Eleanor Rigby” compressed tragedy into poignant detail, “She’s Leaving Home” is uninspired narrative, and nothing more. By the third depressing hearing, it begins to sound like an immense put-on. There certainly are elements of burlesque in a composition like “When I’m 64,” which poses the crucial question: “Will you still need me/Will you still feed me/when I’m 64?” But the dominant tone is not mockery; this is a fantasy retirement, overflowing with grandchildren, gardening and a modest cottage on the Isle of Wight. The Beatles sing, “We shall scrimp and save” with utter reverence. It is a strange fairy tale, oddly sad because it is so far from the composers’ reality. But even here, an honest vision is ruined by the background which seeks to enhance it. “Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds” is an engaging curio, but nothing more. It is drenched in reverb, echo and other studio distortions. Tone overtakes meaning and we are lost in electronic meandering. The best Beatle melodies are simple if original progressions braced with pungent lyrics. Even their most radical compositions retain a sense of unity. But for the first time, the Beatles have given us an album of special effects, dazzling but ultimately fraudulent. And for the first time, it is not exploration which we sense, but consolidation. There is a touch of the Jefferson Airplane, a dab of Beach Boys vibrations, and a generous pat of gymnastics from The Who. The one evident touch of originality appears in the structure of the album itself. The Beatles have shortened the “banding” between cuts so that one song seems to run into the next. This produces the possibility of a Pop symphony or oratorio, with distinct but related movements. Unfortunately, there is no apparent thematic development in the placing of cuts, except for the effective juxtapositions of opposing musical styles. At best, the songs are only vaguely related. With one important exception, “Sergeant Pepper” is precious but devoid of gems. “A Day in the Life” is such a radical departure from the spirit of the album that it almost deserves its peninsular position (following the reprise of the “Sergeant Pepper” theme, it comes almost as an afterthought). It has nothing to do with posturing or put-on. It is a deadly earnest excursion in emotive music with a chilling lyric. Its orchestration is dissonant but sparse, and its mood is not whimsical nostalgia but irony. With it, the Beatles have produced a glimpse of modern city life that is terrifying. It stands as one of the most important Lennon-McCartney compositions, and it is a historic Pop event. “A Day in the Life” starts in a description of suicide. With the same conciseness displayed in “Eleanor Rigby,” the protagonist begins: “I read the news today, oh boy.” This mild interjection is the first hint of his disillusionment; compared with what is to follow, it is supremely ironic. “I saw the photograph,” he continues, in the voice of a melancholy choir boy:
He blew his mind out in a car He didn’t notice that the lights had changed A crowd of people stood aud stared They’d seen his face before Nobody was reallysure if he was from the House of Lords.
“A Day in the Life” could never make the Top 40, although it may influence a great many songs which do. Its lyric is sure to bring a sudden surge of Pop tragedy. The aimless, T. S. Eliot-like crowd, forever confronting pain and turning away, may well become a common symbol. And its narrator, subdued by the totality of his despair, may reappear in countless compositions as the silent, withdrawn hero. Musically, there are already indications that the intense atonality of “A Day in the Life” is a key to the sound of 1967. Electronic-rock, with its aim of staggering an audience, has arrived in half-a-dozen important new releases. None of these songs has the controlled intensity of “A Day in thg Life,” but the willingness of many restrained musicians to “let go” means that serious aleatory-pop may be on the way. Ultimately, however, it is the uproar over the alleged influence of drugs on the Beatles which may prevent “A Day in the Life” from reaching the mass audience. The song’s refrain, “I’d like to turn you on,” has rankled disk jockeys supersensitive to “hidden subversion” in rock ’n’ roll. In fact, a case can be made within the very structure of “A Day in the Life” for the belief that the Beatles — like so many Pop composers — are aware of the highs and lows of consciousness. The song is built on a series of tense, melancholic passages, followed by soaring releases. In the opening stanza, for instance, John’s voice comes near to cracking with despair. But after the invitation, “I’d like to turn you on,” the Beatles have inserted an extraordinary atonal thrust which is shocking, even painful, to the ears. But it brilliantly encases the song and, if the refrain preceding it suggests turning on, the crescendo parallels a druginduced “rush.” The bridge begins in a staccato crossfire. We feel the narrator rising, dressing and commuting by rote. The music is nervous with the dissonance of cabaret jazz. A percussive drum melts into a panting railroad chug. Then
Found my way upstairs and had a smoke Somebody spoke and I went into a dream.
The words fade into a chant of free, spacious chords, like the initial marijuana “buzz.” But the tone becomes mysterious and then ominous. Deep strings take us on a Wagnerian descent and we are back to the original blues theme, and the original declaration, “I read the news today, oh boy.” Actually, it is difficult to see why the BBC banned “A Day in the Life,” because its message is, quite clearly, the flight from banality. It describes a profound reality, but it certainly does not glorify it. And its conclusion, though magnificent, seems to represent a negation of self. The song ends on one low, resonant note that is sustained for 40 seconds. Having achieved the absolute peace of nullification, the narrator is beyond melancholy. But there is something brooding and irrevocable about his calm. It sounds like destruction. What a shame that “A Day in the Life” is only a coda to an otherwise undistinguished collection of work. We need the Beatles, not as cloistered composers, but as companions. And they need us. In substituting the studio conservatory for an audience, they have ceased being folk artists, and the change is what makes their new album a monologue.
Cows offer the clearest picture of crowned anarchy, also called “nomadic distribution” (DR, 41; TP, 158). When set out to pasture, they practice auto-nomy by following a self-regulated nomos, the customary distribution in open space (“in general an unlimited space; it can be a forest, meadows beside rivers, a mountain slope,” says philologist Emmanuel Laroche on page 116 of his etymological study) that “crowns” whatever is unique to each landscape, as in livestock feeding on a particular patch of grass and leaving excrement to fertilize the soil anew. Nomos is part of a larger constellation of nem- words examined by Laroche, including nomads and distribution (nomos), customary law (nomos), melody (nomos), pasture or sphere of command (nomos), roaming (nomas, the basis for nomad), pasture (nemo), inhabitant (naetees), territory (nemeesis), governor (nomarchees), and law (nomoi). Most controversial about Laroche’s argument is his claim that Greek is the only of the Indo-European languages to be pastoral, which casts the Solonic sense of nomos as statist distribution as a betrayal of its nomadic roots. Over the generations, nomos loses its nomadic heritage to become the administrative appropriation, distribution, and use of land (22–29, 115–24, 178–205). During this time, nomos is combined with the household (oikos) to name economics; first mentioned by Phocylides in a poem where he compares women to animals: to dogs, bees, free-range pigs, and long-maned horses (Edmonds, Elegy and Iambus, 173–74). (Phocylides suggests that his friend marry the bee because she is a good housekeeper—oikonomos agathe; 174.) But Marx shows in chapter 7 of Capital that he knows that “what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality.” Certainly there is a residual speciesism in Marx’s remark, as animals’ experience of the world (Umwelt) is sophisticated enough to produce many things (“art does not wait for human beings to begin”) (TP, 320). Yet there is a considerable difference in how humans and cows crown the space that they occupy. As such, we should be concerned more by how each constructs the world than by the excrement with which they consecrate it. Marx’s son-in-law Paul Lafargue demonstrates in his Social and Philosophical Studies how nomos was turned against the barbarians. Land first “distributed by lot, with the aid of pebbles,” is set under the watch of Nemesis, the goddess of just distribution (125; Laroche, Histoire, 89–106). Nomos continues to affirm its groundlessness when it is played like a game of chance at the table of the gods, with the dice affirming aleatory points that fracture the sky and fall back to a broken earth (DR, 284). Lafargue posits that the great betrayal appears when justice, born out of equality, sanctions the inequalities of land distributed by right and not luck (Social and Philosophical Studies, 133–34, 129–30). No longer the protector of nomads, Nemesis inflicts the death penalty “against those who menace property” for the purpose of “teaching the barbarians to trample under foot their noble sentiments of equality and brotherhood” (130–31). Lafargue thus demands a communist revolution that suppresses private property to banish “the most frightful nightmare which ever tortured sad civilized humanity,” the idea of nomic justice (134). There are two outsides to the state: one a worldwide union, the other a fragmented resistance (TP, 381). To Deleuze and Guattari, this exteriority demonstrates the irreducibility of the nomos to the law. If there is anything to this notion, it is not found in a form of exteriority but in the fact of the outside—that there will always be nondenumerable groups (469–73), that there are flows that even the best axiomatic can never master (468–69), and that power now produces more than it can repress (F, 28–29). This is the true meaning of “deterritorialization” and “the infinite speed of thought”—each concept confirms the extraordinary powers of the outside (AO, 105; WP, 21, 35–38, 42). The difficulty is that “one cannot write sufficiently in the name of an outside” because it “has no image, no signification, no subjectivity” (TP, 23). How then to link with the outside? The simplest way is to fashion a war machine as a relation to the outside (TP, 376–77). Another path to “a new relation to the outside” may be found in a fissured planet that spews fires that consume the world (DI, 156, 158–59). Such deterritorializations unleash movements that “cease to be terrestrial” when “the religious Nome blooms and dissolves” and “the singing of the birds is replaced by combinations of water, wind, clouds, and fog” (TP, 327). The outside appears like Frankenstein’s monster, with a crack of lightning late into the dreary night while the atomist’s rain patters away from the outside. Its darkness does not come from void worship or an existentialist reckoning with nothingness. Flashing brilliantly as a shock to thought, it appears as the “bearer of a problem” that paints the world black with dread (DR, 140). This movement grounds thought as “the relationship with the outside” (DI, 255). Exteriority here is not some transcendent light or yawning void. Rather, the outside opens out to a new milieu, like cracking the window in a house. The outside is seldom as pleasant as a breeze, however, as it invades in all its alien force. Thought here has a choice, to represent or intensify; the latter follows Paul Klee’s famous formula: “not to render the visible, but to render visible” (FB, 144). It amplifies the impinging power of the outside to cause a horrible discord that splits apart the harmonies of reason sung in the halls of state thought (DI, 259–60). Such philosophy does not sing, it screams in the analogical language of “expressive movements, paralinguistic signs, breaths” (FB, 93). The outside howls with an “open mouth as a shadowy abyss” (51).
Politics: Cataclysmic, Not Molecular
“The revolutionary was molecular, and so was the counter-revolution,” Tiqqun prophetically declares (Introduction to Civil War, 200). Yet the “molecular revolution” actually begins with Proust, who writes in Sodom and Gomorrah of three levels of sexuality: straights, gays, and queers. The first two types connect “molar” lines between fixed objects, each category simply being an inversion of the other (AO, 68–71). The third draws a “transversal” molecular line between the unspecified, partial, and flux of flows “unaware of persons, aggregates, and laws, and of images, structures, and symbols” (70–71, 311). For a long time, the love that dare not speak its name hid with other queer things made up of “very different mechanisms, thresholds, sites, and observers” (WP, 78). But counterculture exposed the secret, which is to say, disclosed a molecular line of previously clandestine passions while blossoming into the flower power of the Summer of Love publicly consecrated at Woodstock’s Three Days of Peace, Music, and Love. This new world bore what Paolo Virno calls in Grammar of the Multitude the liberatory “anti-socialist demands” of “radical criticism of labor,” “an accentuated taste for differences” and “the aptitude (at times violent, certainly) for defending oneself from the State, for dissolving the bondage to the State as such” (111). But the life of this molecular line was short. It was put back to work by disco, flexible production, and the Reagan revolution in an odd “communism of capital” (111). The cataclysm is not an end but a new beginning, the cataclysm of a temporary hell, “itself the effect of an elementary injustice” that sweeps in and out, rather than being an abysmal lake of sulfur where souls burn forever (ECC, 46). It is the apocalypse before its decadent transformation into the system of Judgment (39). Only a revival of this cataclysmic event can end the apocalypse of an “already industrialized organization” that appeared “a Metropolis” by way of “the great military, police, and civil security of a new State” with a “programmed self-glorification” complemented by a “demented installation of an ultimate judiciary and moral power” (44, 46). We know from Nietzsche’s Gay Science that the impending cataclysm of “breakdown, destruction, ruin” may appear gloomy (279). And it will certainly cover the earth in a blackness darker than the world has ever seen (279). Yet we should greet it with cheer. For the cataclysm brings with it a new dawn worthy of our highest expectations. Though the daybreak may not be bright, we will have escaped the judgment of God, Man, and the World. “At long last our ships may venture out again, venture out to face any danger,” because “the sea, our sea, lie open again” . . . “perhaps there has never yet been such an ‘open sea’” (280).
Cinema: The Powers of the False, Not the Forces of Bodies
Bodies are a well-composed image of power. The body of God (the Sacrament of Jesus). The body of a saint (the pierced corpse of the martyr). The body of the sovereign (the King’s two bodies). The body of the tyrant (Big Brother’s face). The social body (the body politic). A body of evidence (the state’s case). The idea of society or the world functioning as an organism is well sedimented. In its stupidest form, it posits a resemblance between the human body and society. Just as various organisms interact to form an organism as a functional whole, it states, society is the cooperation of various social organs. The body provides an image for the much-talked-about “body without organs,” the great inspiration for Deleuze, who says that if we are to believe in the world, “give me a body then” (C2, 189). The body is not really the enemy, the organism is. Some would have bodies appear through their opposites, locked in eternal combat—as the sinner and their Eternal Savior, the regicide and the King, the criminal and the Law (TP, 108). But as an organism, the body is put to use for extracting “useful labor,” either as a product of work (where organs are connected to the technical machines of the capitalism) or self-reproduction (where organs are connected to the social machines of the species) (AO, 54). The image of the body as an organism might appear as a step forward, as it invokes a form of ecological thinking of interconnected systems. But we are only interested in the body as a frustrating set of resistances, “obstinate and stubborn,” as it “forces us to think, and forces us to think what is concealed from thought, life” (C2, 189). This is why it is said that “we do not even know what a body can do.” But with the relative ease in which the body has been confused for an organism, perhaps it is time to abandon the image of the body completely. Stop thinking like lawyers, who try cases only after a body has been found. There is a simple reason: the point is not to construct a body without organs (organization, organism, . . .) but organs without a body. We only get outside the productivist logic of accumulation when “at last the disappearance of the visible body is achieved” (C2, 190). Against the state’s body of evidence: “The ‘true world’ does not exist,” and even if it did, “it would be inaccessible, impossible to describe, and, if it could be described, would be useless, superfluous” (C2, 137). The conspiracy against this world begins with time, which “puts truth in crisis” (130). This is the fundamental problem of the “body of the law” described by Derrida whereby the law must continually rule against what it previously established as the truth (and thus its own authority) (“Force of Law”). It is these moments that reveal an in-effectivity of the truth—denouncing states, nations, or races as fictions does little to dislodge their power, however untrue the historical or scientific justifications for them might be (Seshadri, Desiring Whiteness). The state is nothing but these “not-necessarily true pasts,” the founding mythologies that fictionalize the origin of states and nations of people (C2, 131). This is the power generated only between the true and the false: what Deleuze calls “the real.” The importance of the real is central, as trying to use truth to dispute the false does not work: those who denounce the illegal violence used to found legal orders are quickly dismissed or jailed, and the many climate scientists who harangue the public about the truth of global warming fail to spur policy change. Cinema “takes up the problem of truth and attempts to resolve it through purely cinematic means” (Lambert, Non-philosophy, 93). There are films that go beyond metaphor and analogy, operating instead through a realism of the false. This is not the epic cinema of Brecht or Lang, whose dissimulation and relativism ultimately return the morality of judgment through the viewer. It is a realism of what escapes the body, presenting something it cannot perceive on its own—not different worlds but realities that exist in the present (though not currently lived) that confirm reality by weakening it. Deleuze finds that the elusive truth of postwar cinema does not prevent the existence of a “truthful man” but the “forger” as the character of new cinema (C2, 132). The forger refuses the moral origins of truth and frustrates the return to judgment (C2, 138–39). The realism of the false shows us love through the eyes of a serial killer (Grandrieux’s Sombre), gives us the real thrill of self-destruction (Gavras’s Our Day Will Come), unleashes the cruelty of nature against the cool logic of liberal patriarchy (von Trier’s Anti-Christ), and solicits us in the horrifying conspiracies of a new flesh (Cronenberg’s Videodrome).
The Sensible: Indiscernibility, Not Experience
The senses think when the boundary between the imaginary and the real collapses. This is what happens whenever the suspension of disbelief continues outside the frame (C2, 169). But the suspension carries on only as long as it is not whittled down to a narrow proposition through “infinite specification” (DR, 306). It expands by establishing a “distinct yet indiscernible” proximity (TP, 279–80, 286). In this strange zone of indiscernibility, figuration recedes—it is right before our eyes, but we lose our ability to clarify the difference between a human body, a beast, and meat (FB, 22–27). There is no mystical outside, just the unrelenting intrusion of “the fact that we are not yet thinking” (C2, 167). This is because experience is itself not thought but merely the provocation to think—a reminder of the insufferable, the impossibility of continuing the same, and the necessity of change.“ Knowledge is not made for understanding; it is made for cutting,” says Foucault (“Nietzsche, Genealogy, History,” 88). Neither is sense. The best sense is a sensation, a provocation, that introduces insufficiency (L, 50–58). So instead of adequate conceptions, we spread insufficient sensations. This insufficiency does not carry the weight of inevitability. It may begin with a petulant indecisiveness, such as Bartleby’s “I would prefer not to,” but it must not end there. The greatest danger is that indecision consumes us and we become satisfied for one reason or another, withering like Bartleby in jail cells of our own making. Our communism demands that we actively conspire under the cover of the secret; for there is nothing more active than the Death of the World. Our hatred propels us. Just as “an adventure that erupts in sedentary groups” through “the call of the outside,” our sense that the world is intolerable is what compels us to build our own barbarian siege engines to attack the new Metropolis that stands in Judgment like a Heaven on Earth (DI, 259).
29 points: Merkaartor's comment in Language etiquette while traveling in Barcelona with a Spanish-speaking friend
29 points: anitgos's comment in Canten l'himne feixista de La Legión a la boda (a l'Empordà) de Claudia Creuheras (fill del president del Grup Planeta i Atresmedia) i Álvaro Gandarias (fill del directiu de Caixabank).
27 points: tbri001's comment in Una turba de militants de Ciutadans persegueix un càmera i l'agredeixen al cap al crit de "Fuera TV3, fuera TV3", a les portes del parc de la Ciutadella. Per major perplexitat és un càmera de Telemadrid
24 points: Erratic85's comment in RESULTATS | El Partit Popular de Catalunya es converteix en l'únic partit català amb un 100% de representació femenina
23 points: Basque_Pirate's comment in The French connection: How Catalonia got its ballot papers
23 points: Merkaartor's comment in Un minut de silenci per tots els vots del Front Republicà
35 points: Merkaartor's comment in Language etiquette while traveling in Barcelona with a Spanish-speaking friend
30 points: anitgos's comment in Canten l'himne feixista de La Legión a la boda (a l'Empordà) de Claudia Creuheras (fill del president del Grup Planeta i Atresmedia) i Álvaro Gandarias (fill del directiu de Caixabank).
29 points: tbri001's comment in Una turba de militants de Ciutadans persegueix un càmera i l'agredeixen al cap al crit de "Fuera TV3, fuera TV3", a les portes del parc de la Ciutadella. Per major perplexitat és un càmera de Telemadrid
24 points: Basque_Pirate's comment in The French connection: How Catalonia got its ballot papers
23 points: Erratic85's comment in RESULTATS | El Partit Popular de Catalunya es converteix en l'únic partit català amb un 100% de representació femenina
22 points: Merkaartor's comment in Un minut de silenci per tots els vots del Front Republicà
Some days ago I had a really strange dream. I dreamt I bought an old farm house in the middle of nowhere, and the house was empty, with no furniture. In some moment of this dream, I had some type of astral projection that made me see the words "Aryt altanyk" (or something very close) written in the floor of the living room, and it was written like it was some type of white smoke giving shape to the letters. When I read this, I've got a little bit emotional and cried a bit. Also, when I was "awake" in the dream, I couldn't see anything of this. So when I woke up I search these words on google and got some polsky, slovak and cesky websites of any type of thing, and various aleatory old american newspaper on google images. So, basically any type of shit. And the most strange shit: everytime I read or think in these words, It makes me shiver and makes me drop a tear. EVERYTIME. Im not an emotional guy, so its even more strange, and I dont have any clue that what these words mean. Anybody knows what anything of this craziness means?
Verbum Diei, die lunae, A D IV ID MAR, anni AUC MMDCCLXXI: alea
Verbum diei hodie est: ālĕa, ālĕae: a game of dice, a game of chance, a game of dice, anything uncertain, a gamble 1st declension feminine multos ex iis, quos capite damnauerat, postero statim die et in consilium et adaleae lusumadmoneri iussit et, quasi morarentur, ut somniculosos per nuntium increpuit. Many of those whom he had condemned to death, he ordered the day after to be invited to his table, and to play agame of dicewith him, and sent to reprimand them as sluggish fellows for not making greater haste. Suetonius, Divus Claudius, 39 There's a word from the 1700s, aleatory, meaning of uncertain outcome, that's derived from alea. Nonne habetis verba cara? Verba invisa? Verba jocosa? Date mihi verba vestra, et fortasse videatis hic!
(This essay was inspired by Thomas Ligotti's "Notes on the Writing of Horror". Anyone hoping to get better at writing horror should also check that story out, as it does a way better job than mine at explaining the true essence of this craft.) Hello reader! In the following musings I’m going to share some of my thoughts on writing horror but before I begin, I would like to clear up that I’m aware of the fact that I’m NOT preaching gospel here. I firmly believe that it is always up to the author to decide what is best for his story (even if you have to break a few bones rules to tell it). I’m breaking one right now, since the use of contractions is normally considered “informal”. Still, I like to use it as a disarming tool for lowering the audience’s guard. Apparently, it makes me come of as friendlier, since it makes my authorial voice seem more interested in you, the beautiful and intelligent reader, as a unique individual with his/her own dreams. This is a tangent, but the reason a first-person narrator is so common in horror literature is because of this very reason; it’s an easy trick to instantly get more sympathy for your main character. Another rule I'm going to break is calling attention to the fact that this is actually just a story, like any other. Due to the disturbing nature of horror, I’d really like to avoid misleading anyone faint of heart without them really knowing it at first. I find it impossible to discuss this subject without a demonstration though, so I apologize in advance for the examples. Furthermore, I’d like to emphasize that it's knowing when to break these rules what begets good storytelling, not doing gimmicks just to feel special or unique. At the end of the day, we writers can only hope the audience will keep reading till the last paragraph because they trusts us enough as storytellers to guide them through a cohesive narrative. Along with an appreciation for the rules of storytelling, I'm going to rip off Stephen King's On Writing here, and recommend that you view these three concepts as different tools for the toolbox that is your mind. You can apply them skillfully to work on a variety situations, but you'll never fix the underlying problem if you're using a wrench when you need a screwdriver. More than anything else, I'd also like to use this essay to express what, to me, writing horror is really about. Like everything else we humans do, I find it's an ultimately futile endeavor to understand the nature of our universe and the meaning of our existence, trying to apply meaning to an aleatory reality that doesn't have one. Now that we have that out of the way, let's get started! The first of these tools we’re going to talk about is word choice, an important foundation for the experience you are trying to create. A very helpful analogy is to think of each individual word as images that you are placing into your reader's mind. In a way, writing becomes similar to painting a picture for your audience, in that you are creating an image that provokes some emotion inside of them. In the case of writing horror this means we authors have a duty to inspire fear, dread, and angst in all of our readers (hopefully long after they finished reading!). Using the right words, we're supposed to force the reader to unwillingly imagine gut-wrenching thoughts in gruesome scenes that, if it weren't for us horror writers, no sane person would ever think of themselves. The hard part of writing, though, comes up when you decide how to actually go about doing this. For example, there's nothing inherently wrong with a sentence like: "The zombie sodomized a helpless victim until his penis fell off, still stuck inside the man after he stumbled back." When you sit down and think about it, it's actually quite amusing, if you have a twisted sense of humor. Another side-tangent here, but during anything related to sexual violence, remember to make the victim male, since for some reason it’ll make it less abrasive for those following the narrative. I’d question the logic of anyone sensitive to descriptive gore for reading horror in the first place, but we writers can't really control who reads our stories. I always say that it is the duty of writers to go against social taboos, but that's just me. Anyway, back to the example! The shocking scene this sentence is trying to display can be executed much more effectively displaying action (instead of just saying what happens) and using sensory language like: "The zombie's uncircumcised penis, violet from decay, melted into the paralyzed victim's anus and squished into his excremental cavity like a rotten banana full of maggots. Feeling the worms wiggle on the walls of his rectum, the screaming man pleaded for mercy, unheard, as the monster's thrusting accelerated into a rhythmic pace with a pleasurable grunt. The victim then instinctively clenched his buttocks tightly and unintentionally severed the corpse's cyst riddled sexual organ with his cheeks, popping it like a ballon full of puss that left a large chunk of yellow cartilage and putrid flesh painfully nested inside of him.” Of course, if you abuse this technique too much, you'll end up exhausting the audience's emotions far too early in the story. After all, shock and awe can only get you so far. This is where the second tool in our inventory, structure, comes in. We've all heard the same old guidelines since elementary school but it begs repeating. Structuring your ideas into a workable mold will make them more understandable to a broader audience. Much more than this though, it provides the writer a good way to keep track of tension and when to deliver on his story's rising sense of dread. A lot of this comes down to personal preference, but what I've found works for me is to: 1- Establish an idea 2- Build suspense with it 3- Write a traumatic, yet inevitable, climax. After subconsciously accustoming the reader to my pacing, I like to keep them on their toes by doing what I like to call a cycle of tension, repeating steps 1 & 2 to build suspense, until I finish the story with a nerve wrecking pay off. Much like the zombie in our former example, we're supposed to place our horrifying ideas (a mutilated sexual organ in this simile), forcefully and without care unto the minds the unwitting readers, while maintaining a steady pace that climaxes horrendously, right up until the audience is left feeling painfully nested with a portion of the author inside of them after they finish reading, only not in their bodies and minds, but in their spirit as well. The third tool I'd like to recommend is to develop an intimate understanding of human behavior and the nature of suffering. I've always had a bit of an autistic personality, so in my case, I’ve worked especially hard to develop this part of my craft. I like to go out for walks around the city and sit on park benches to people-watch, though you should probably figure out yourself what location works best for inspiring a creative mood inside of you. After a while of learning your environment, you'll start to notice the many people that frequent the spot you chose. It won't be immediate but eventually, like with true love, you will see a person that stands out above the crowd and you'll know that you finally found a main character for your story. Knowing your character is the most important facet of creating a compelling protagonist. You'll want someone innocent, maybe a single mother working two jobs (like in the book I'm currently in the process of publishing), that the audience can sympathize with easily. What I did for Diane, the main character of my latest book, is stalk her habitually in an effort to learn her daily routines. After seeing her flex her firm body during yoga, every Saturday for a whole month, I followed her from the park to her home and memorized what she did every day. When I collected enough information to plan her kidnaping without getting caught, I chloroformed her in an alley while she was out at night and dragged her beautiful, sleeping, flesh back to my moldy basement. I then chained her to my boiler and spent the next few days recording her reactions to the various forms of torture I put her through. I know, it sounds like a lot of hard work just to find a protagonist, but if you want to write a truly great story, you need to be willing to put in the effort to bring out its full potential. I would like to encourage experimenting with different types of horror while torturing your character. Try to delve deep into what makes you afraid the most and use it as inspiration for your art! It's a bit embarrassing to admit, but the zombie example I wrote earlier was inspired by a recent fear I had. While I was repeatedly hammering Diane's pussy with my herpes-infected penis, I had a great epiphany for a horrible thing to write. I thought: "Wouldn't it be scary if my dick just melted off right now?", so after I left Diane glazed all over her body with my cum, I went to my trash and got a rotten banana I'd thrown out a few days prior. Curious about how she'd react to it in my story, I shoved the maggot infested fruit into her pleasure hole and wiggled it around like a soggy dildo tickling her vagina. That night, Diane’s screams were unlike anything I'd heard before, almost glass-shattering when she first felt the worms! If your characters ever ask you "Why?" in between their screams, my advice would be to reply with: "There is no why!" in a loud tone of voice. Existential horror is one branch I‘ve found most effective during my younger years, and I’m of the opinion one can never express true anguish until you've seen a person give up on life. Diane actually asked me that question, again and again, when I smashed her baby's soft head into the concrete floor. Honestly, I'd never seen a human look so progressively defeated after I gave her my answer to the question, again and again. The fact that I'm telling the truth doesn't make it any less impactful. It's only recently that I’ve accepted it, too. Human existence is so arbitrary and random, that in the grand scheme of things, there really is no good reason to act accordingly to the expectations of society (or anyone for that matter). Anyway, I hope this essay was useful to any aspiring authors hoping to get better at their craft. Word choice, structure, and a nihilistic attitude towards life are some of the most effective tools a horror writer can have at their disposal. Remember, by unleashing unspeakable suffering upon other humans, you can get first hand experience on how real people react to these situations. This isn't exactly a cakewalk, and it can morph your world view into a sanity-shattering nightmare, but it will help you write scarier stories! It won't help you write better fiction though, but why would you want it to? A human can't really come up with anything scarier than reality itself. Still, ever since I finished studying Diane, I've been enamored by an idea for my next book. It's simple really, I just want my next few string of reluctant protagonists to be people reading through past things I've submitted on Reddit. I'm hypothesizing that readers of terror will give the best reactions when faced with the absurdity of the universe; me watching them quietly and them thinking they're completely safe. I'm actually staring at one right now, silently, waiting for my new character to slowly lower their gaze down the page, until stumbling upon this very sentence. They'll probably look up immediately after they finish reading, just to make sure I won't really do anything to them, though by that point... Heh, well, it'll be too late for them. This isn't the easiest method for producing a quality story, but no one ever said writing good horror was easy. Time to work on another book!
DNA replication, and its mind boggling nano technology that defies naturalistic explanations
DNA replication, and its mind boggling nano technology that defies naturalistic explanations http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1849-dna-replication-of-prokaryotes DNA replication is the most crucial step in cellular division, a process necessary for life, and errors can cause cancer and many other diseases. Genome duplication presents a formidable enzymatic challenge, requiring the high fidelity replication of millions of bases of DNA. It is a incredible system involving a city of proteins, enzymes, and other components that are breathtaking in their complexity and efficiency. How do you get a living cell capable of self-reproduction from a “protein compound … ready to undergo still more complex changes”? Dawkins has to admit: “Darwin, in his ‘warm little pond’ paragraph, speculated that the key event in the origin of life might have been the spontaneous arising of a protein, but this turns out to be less promising than most of Darwin’s ideas. … But there is something that proteins are outstandingly bad at, and this Darwin overlooked. They are completely hopeless at replication. They can’t make copies of themselves. This means that the key step in the origin of life cannot have been the spontaneous arising of a protein.” (pp. 419–20) The process of DNA replication depends on many separate protein catalysts to unwind, stabilize, copy, edit, and rewind the original DNA message. In prokaryotic cells, DNA replication involves more than thirty specialized proteins to perform tasks necessary for building and accurately copying the genetic molecule. These specialized proteins include DNA polymerases, primases, helicases, topoisomerases, DNA-binding proteins, DNA ligases, and editing enzymes. DNA needs these proteins to copy the genetic information contained in DNA. But the proteins that copy the genetic information in DNA are themselves built from that information. This again poses what is, at the very least, a curiosity: the production of proteins requires DNA, but the production of DNA requires proteins. Proponents of Darwinism are at a loss to tell us how this marvelous system began. Charles Darwin's main contribution, natural selection, does not apply until a system can reproduce all its parts. Getting a reproducible cell in a primordial soup is a giant leap, for which today's evolutionary biologists have no answer, no evidence, and no hope. It amounts to blind faith to believe that undirected, purposeless accidents somehow built the smallest, most complex, most efficient system known to man. Several decades of experimental work have convinced us that DNA synthesis and replication actually require a plethora of proteins. Replication of the genetic material is the single central property of living systems. Dawkins provocatively claimed that organisms are but vehicles for replicating and evolving genes, and I believe that this simple concept captures a key aspect of biological evolution. All phenotypic features of organisms—indeed, cells and organisms themselves as complex physical entities—emerge and evolve only inasmuch as they are conducive to genome replication. That is, they enhance the rate of this process, or, at least, do not impede it. DNA replication is an enormously complex process with many different components that interact to ensure the faithful passing down of genetic components that interact to ensure the faithful passing down of genetic information to the next generation. A large number of parts have to work together to that end. In the absence of one or more of a number of the components, DNA replication is either halted completely or significantly compromised, and the cell either dies or becomes quite sick. Many of the components of the replication machinery form conceptually discrete sub-assemblies with conceptually discrete functions. Wiki mentions that a key feature of the DNA replication mechanism is that it is designed to replicate relatively large genomes rapidly and with high fidelity. Part of the cellular machinery devoted to DNA replication and DNA-repair. The regulation of DNA replication is a vital cellular process. It is controlled by a series of mechanisms. One point of control is by modulating the accessibility of replication machinery components ( called the replisome ) to the single origin (oriC) region on the DNA. DNA replication should take place only when a cell is about to divide. If DNA replication occurs too frequently, too many copies of the bacterial chromosome will be found in each cell. Alternatively, if DNA replication does not occur frequently enough, a daughter cell will be left without a chromosome. Therefore, cell division in bacterial cells must be coordinated with DNA replication. In prokaryotes, the DNA is circular. Replication starts at a single origin (ori C) and is bi-directional. The region of replicating DNA associated with the single origin is called a replication bubble and consists of two replication forks moving in opposite direction around the DNA circle. During DNA replication, the two parental strands separate and each acts as a template to direct the enzyme catalysed synthesis of a new complementary daughter strand following the normal base pairing rule. At least 10 different enzymes or proteins participate in the initiation phase of replication. Three basic steps involved in DNA replication are Initiation, elongation and termination, subdivided in eight discrete steps. http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1849-dna-replication-of-prokaryotes#4365 Initiation phase: Step 1: Initiation begins, when DNA binds around an initiator protein complex DnaA with the goal to pull the two DNA strands apart. That creates a number of problems. First of all, the two strands like to be together - they stick to each other just as if they had tiny magnets up and down their length. In order to pull apart the DNA you have to put energy into the system. In modern cells, a protein called DnaA binds to a specific spot along the DNA, called single origin ( oriC ) and the protein proceeds to open up the double strand. The protein is a monomer, has motifs to bind to unique monomer sites, also they have motifs for protein-protein interaction, thus they can form clusters. They have hydrophobic regions for helical coiling and protein–protein interactions. Binding of the monomers to DnaA-A boxes, in ATP dependent manner (proteins have ATPase activity), leads to cooperative binding of more proteins. This clustering of proteins on DNA makes the DNA to wrap around the proteins, which induces torsional twist and it is this left handed twist that makes DNA to melt at 13-mer region and AT rich region; perhaps the negative super helical topology in this region may further facilitate the melting of the DNA. Opening or unwinding of dsDNA ( double strand DNA ) into single stranded region is an important event in initiation. Single-strand binding protein (SSB) http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1849p15-dna-replication-of-prokaryotes#4377 The Hexameric DnaB Helicase http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1849p15-dna-replication-of-prokaryotes#4367 DnaC, and strategies for helicase recruitment and loading in bacteria http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1849p15-dna-replication-of-prokaryotes#4371 Unwinding the DNA Double Helix Requires DNA Helicases,Topoisomerases, and Single- Stranded DNA Binding Proteins http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1849p15-dna-replication-of-prokaryotes#4374 Step 2: During DNA replication, the two strands of the double helix must unwind at each replication fork to expose the single strands to the enzymes responsible for copying them. Three classes of proteins with distinct functions facilitate this unwinding process: DNA helicases, topoisomerases, and single-stranded DNA binding proteins ( SSB's). Helicase ( DnaB ) now comes along. The helicase exposes a region of single-stranded DNA that must be kept open for copying to proceed. Helicase is like a snowplow; it is a molecular machine that plows down the middle of the double helix, pushing apart the two strands. this allows the polymerase and associated proteins to travel along behind it in ease and comfort. DnaB helicase alone has no affinity for ssDNA ( single stranded DNA ) bound by SSB (single- stranded binding protein). Thus, entry of the DnaB helicase complex into the unwound oriC depends on DnaC, a additional protein factor. DnaC helps or facilitates the helicase to be loaded onto ssDNA at the replication fork in ATP dependent manner. The DnaB-DnaC complex forms a topologically open, three-tiered toroid. DnaC remodels DnaB to produce a cleft in the helicase ring suitable for DNA passage. DnaC’s fold is dispensable for DnaB loading and activation. DnaB possesses autoregulatory elements that control helicase loading and unwinding. Using energy derived from ATP hydrolysis, these proteins unwind the DNA double helix in advance of the replication fork, breaking the hydrogen bonds as they go. Helicase recruitment and loading in bacteria is a remarkable process. Following video shows how that works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzNuLsqMqyE There is a problem, though, with this setup. If you push apart two DNA strands they generally do not float around separately. If they are close to one another they will rapidly snap back and form a double strand again almost as soon as the helicase passes. Even if the strands are not near each other, a single strand will usually fold up and form hydrogen bonds with itself - in other words, a tangled mess. So it is not enough to push apart the two strands of DNA; there must be a way to keep the strands apart once they have been separated. In modern cells this job is done by single-strand binding proteins, or SBB's. As the helicase separates the strands of DNA, SSB's bind to the single stranded DNA and coats them. . SSB's prevent DNA from reannealing. SSB's associate to form tetramers around which the DNA is wrapped in a manner that significantly compacts the single-stranded DNA. There is another difficulty in being a double helix. The unwinding associated with DNA replication would create an intolerable amount of supercoiling and possibly tangling in the rest of the DNA. It can be illustrated with a simple example. Take two interwined shoe laces and ask a friend to hold them together at each end. Now take a pencil, insert it between the strands near one end, and start pushing it down toward the other end. As you can see, shoestrings behind the pencil become melted, in the jargon of biochemistry. The shoestrings ahead of the pencil become more and more tangled. It becomes harder and harder to push the pencil forward. Helicase and polymerase encounter the same problem with DNA. It does not matter wheter you are talking about interwined strings or interwined DNA strands. The problem of tangling is the result of the topological interconnectness of the two strands. If this problem persisted for very long in a cell, DNA replication would grind to a halt. However, the cell contains several enzymes, called topoisomerases, to take care of the difficulty. The way in which they do so can be illustrated with a enzyme called gyrase. Gyrase binds to DNA, pulls them apart and allows a separate portion of the DNA to pass through the cut. It then reseals the cut and lets go of the DNA. This action decreases the number of twists in DNA. The parental DNA is unwound by DNA helicases and SSB (travels in 5’-3’ direction), the resulting positive super-coiling (torsional stress) is relieved by topoisomerse I and II (DNA gyrase) by inducing transient single stranded breaks.Topoisomerases are amazing enzymes. In this topic, a video shows how they function : Topoisomerase II enzymes, amazing evidence of design http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2111-topoisomerase-ii-enzymes-amazing-evidence-of-design?highlight=topoisomerase In modern organisms, helicase, SSB, and gyrase all are required at the replication fork. Mutants in which any of them are missing are not viable - they die. Question : Had not all three parts , the SSB binding proteins, the topoisomerase, and the helicase and the DnaC loading proteins not have to be there all at once, otherwise, nothing goes ? They might exercise their function but their own, but then they would not replicate DNA or have function in a bigger picture. Its evident that they had to come together to provide a functional whole. What we see here are highly coordinated , goal oriented tasks with specific movements designed to provide a specific outcome. Auto-regulation and control that seems required beside constant energy supply through ATP enhances the difficulty to make the whole mechanism work in the right manner. All this is awe inspiring and evidences the wise guidance and intelligence required to make all this happening in the right way. Step 3: The enzyme DNA primase (primase, an RNA polymerase) attaches to the DNA and synthesizes a short RNA primer to initiate synthesis of the leading strand of the first replication fork. Elongation phase : Step 4: In the elongation fase, DNA polymerase III extends the RNA primer made by primase. DNA Polymerase http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1849p15-dna-replication-of-prokaryotes#4375 DNA polymerase possesses separate catalytic sites for polymerization and degradation of nucleic acid strands. All DNA polymerases make DNA in 5’-3’ direction . A ring-shaped sliding clamp protein encircles the DNA double helix and binds to DNA polymerase, thereby allowing the DNA polymerase to slide along the DNA while remaining firmly attached to it. Most enzymes work by colliding with their substrate, catalyzing a reaction and dissociating from the product. If that were the case with DNA polymerase, then it would bind to DNA, add a nucleotide to the new chain that was being made, and then fall off of the chain. Then ,put the next nucleotide onto the growing end, bind it and catalyze the addition. This same cycle would have to repeat itself a very large number of times to complete a new DNA chain. Polymerases however catalyze the addition of a nucleotide but do not fall off the DNA. Rather, they stay bound to it, until the next nucleotide comes in, and then they catalyze its addition to the chain. and they again stay bound. If it were not so, the replication process would be very slow. In the cell, polymerases stay on the DNA until their job is completed, which might be only after millions of nucleotides have been joined. This velocity is only possible because of clamp proteins. These have a ring shape. The ring can be opened up. These clamp proteins are joined to the DNA polymerase in a intricate way, through a clamp loader protein, which has a remarkable shape similar to a human hand. It takes the clamp, like a hand with five fingers would grab it, opens it up becoming like a doughnut shape,where the whole hole in the middle is big enough to accommodate the DNA, and then, when it is on the DNA, it positions it in a precise manner on the DNA polymerase, where it stays bound until it reaches the end of its polymerizing job. Through this ingenious process, the clamp stabilizes the DNA, making it possible to increase the speed of polymerization dramatically. They can be seen here: The sliding clamp and clamp loader http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1849p15-dna-replication-of-prokaryotes#4376 Question : How would and could natural , unguided processes have figured out 1. the requirement of high-speed of polymerization ? How could they have figured out the right configuration and process to do so ? how could natural processes have emerged with the right proteins incrementally, with the hand-shaped clamp loader, and the precisely fitting clamp , enabling the fast process ?? Even the most intelligent scientists are still not able to imagine how this process is engineered ? Furthermore, the process requires molecular energy in the form of ATP, and everything must fit together, and be functional. Without the clamp loader protein, the clamp could not be positioned to the polymerase enzyme, and processivity would not rise to the required speed. The whole process must also be regulated and controlled. How could that regulation have been programmed ? Trial and error ? Several Proteins Are Required for DNA Replication at the Replication Fork http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1849p15-dna-replication-of-prokaryotes#4398 The various proteins involved in DNA replication are all closely associated in one large complex, called a replisome. Leading strand synthesis: On the template strand with 3’-5’ orientation, new DNA is made continuously in 5’-3’ direction towards the replication fork. The new strand that is continuously synthesized in 5’-3’ direction is the leading strand. Lagging strand synthesis: In the lagging strand, the synthesis of DNA also elongates in a 5ʹ to 3ʹ manner, but it does so in the direction away from the replication fork. In the lagging strand, RNA primers must repeatedly initiate the synthesis of short segments of DNA; thus, the synthesis has to be discontinuous. The Primase (DnaG) enzyme, and the primosome complex http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1849p15-dna-replication-of-prokaryotes#4379 The length of these fragments in bacteria is typically 1000 to 2000 nucleotides. In eukaryotes, the fragments are shorter—100 to 200 nucleotides. Each fragment contains a short RNA primer at the 5ʹ end, which is made by primase. The remainder of the fragment is a strand of DNA made by DNA polymerase III. The DNA fragments made in this manner are known as Okazaki fragments. To complete the synthesis of Okazaki fragments within the lagging strand, three additional events must occur: removal of the RNA primers, synthesis of DNA in the area where the primers have been removed, and the covalent attachment of adjacent fragments of DNA. In E. coli, the RNA primers are removed by the action of DNA polymerase I. This enzyme has a 5ʹ to 3ʹ exonuclease activity, which means that DNA polymerase I digests away the RNA primers in a 5ʹ to 3ʹ direction, leaving a vacant area. DNA polymerase I then synthesizes DNA to fill in this region. It uses the 3ʹ end of an adjacent Okazaki fragment as a primer. , DNA polymerase I would remove the RNA primer from the first Okazaki fragment and then synthesize DNA in the vacant region by attaching nucleotides to the 3ʹ end of the second Okazaki fragment. After the gap has been completely filled in, a covalent bond is still missing between the last nucleotide added by DNA polymerase I and the adjacent DNA strand that had been previously made by DNA polymerase III. To the left of the origin, the top strand is made continuously, whereas to the right of the origin it is made in Okazaki fragments. By comparison, the synthesis of the bottom strand is just the opposite. To the left of the origin it is made in Okazaki fragments and to the right of the origin the synthesis is continuous. Finally the two ends of the fragment have to be joined together; this is the job of an enzyme called DNA ligase. After the completion of one Okazaki fragment , the equipment has to be released, the clamp has to let go, and a new clamp has to be loaded at the beginning of the next fragment. Clearly the formation and control of the replication fork is an enormously complex process. Step 5: After DNA synthesis by DNA pol III, DNA polymerase I uses its 5’-3’ exonuclease activity to remove the RNA primer and fills the gaps with new DNA. In the next step, finally DNA ligase joins the ends of the DNA fragments together. As the replisome moves along the DNA in the direction of the replication fork, it must accommodate the fact that DNA is being synthesized in opposite directions along the template on the two stands. Picture above provides a schematic model illustrating how this might be accomplished by folding the lagging strand template into a loop.Creating such a loop allows the DNA polymerase molecules on both the leading and lagging strands to move in the same physical direction, even though the two template strands are oriented with opposite polarity. The replisome faces special challenges as it makes new DNA at rates that can approach 1,000 nucleotides per second. Unlike the machines that make proteins and RNA, which work relatively sluggishly and in a linear fashion, the replisome must simultaneously copy two strands of DNA that are aligned in opposite directions (5ʹ to 3ʹ and 3ʹ to 5ʹ). Replisome chemistry obeys two rules. Questions: How did they arise with that cabability to " obey two rules " ? Suppose a primitive polymerase were duplicated and somehow started to replicate the second strand in the opposite direction while remaining attached to the first strand - how could that change have been directed , and why should that feat have happened randomly ? The DNA polymerase holoenzyme alone would not be able to duplicate the long DNA faithfully. Tests have shown that Polymerase III alone gets stuck. Furthermore, Polymerase III is not a simple enzyme. Its rather three enzymes in one. Beside replicating DNA, it can also degrade DNA in two different ways. It does so by three different, discrete regions of the molecule. The exonuclease activity plays a critical role in replication. It allows the enzyme to proofread the new DNA and cut out any mistakes it has made. Although the polymerase reads the sequence of the old DNA to produce a new DNA, it turns out that simple base bairing allows about one mistake per thousand base pairs copied. Proofreading reduces errors to about one mistake in a million base pairs. The question is if wheter a proofreading exonuclease and other DNA repair mechanisms had to be present in the very first cell. Eigen’s theory revealed the existence of the fundamental limit on the fidelity of replication (the Eigen threshold): If the product of the error (mutation) rate and the information capacity (genome size) is below the Eigen threshold, there will be stable inheritance and hence evolution; however, if it is above the threshold, the mutational meltdown and extinction become inevitable (Eigen, 1971). The Eigen threshold lies somewhere between 1 and 10 mutations per round of replication (Tejero, et al., 2011) regardless of the exact value, staying above the threshold fidelity is required for sustainable replication and so is a prerequisite for the start of biological evolution. Indeed, the very origin of the first organisms presents at least an appearance of a paradox because a certain minimum level of complexity is required to make self-replication possible at all; high-fidelity replication requires additional functionalities that need even more information to be encoded (Penny, 2005). The crucial question in the study of the origin of life is how the Darwin-Eigen cycle started—how was the minimum complexity that is required to achieve the minimally acceptable replication fidelity attained? In even the simplest modern systems, such as RNA viruses with the replication fidelity of only about 103 and viroids that replicate with the lowest fidelity among the known replicons (about 102; Gago, et al., 2009), replication is catalyzed by complex protein polymerases. The replicase itself is produced by translation of the respective mRNA(s), which is mediated by the immensely complex ribosomal apparatus. Hence, the dramatic paradox of the origin of life is that, to attain the minimum complexity required for a biological system to start on the Darwin-Eigen spiral, a system of a far greater complexity appears to be required. How such a system could evolve is a puzzle that defeats conventional evolutionary thinking, all of which is about biological systems moving along the spiral; the solution is bound to be unusual. DNA damage and repair http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2043-dna-repair?highlight=dna+repairhttp://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1849p30-dna-replication-of-prokaryotes#4401 Replication forks may stall frequently and require some form of repair to allow completion of chromosomal duplication. Failure to solve these replicative problems comes at a high price, with the consequences being genome instability, cell death and, in higher organisms, cancer. Replication fork repair and hence reloading of DnaB may be needed away from oriC at any point within the chromosome and at any stage during chromosomal duplication. The potentially catastrophic effects of uncontrolled initiation of chromosomal duplication on genome stability suggests that replication restart must be regulated as tightly as DnaA-directed replication initiation at oriC. This implies reloading of DnaB must occur only on ssDNA at repaired forks or D-loops rather than onto other regions of ssDNA, such as those created by blocks to lagging strand synthesis.Thus an alternative replication initiator protein, PriA helicase, is utilized during replication restart to reload DnaB back onto the chromosome Question: Could the first cell, with its required complement of genes coded for by DNA, have successfully reproduced for a significant number of generations without a proofreading function ? A further question is how the function of synthesis of the lagging strand could have arisen, and the machinery to do so. That is, the Primosome, and the function of Polymerase I to remove the short peaces of RNA that the cell uses to prime replication, allowing the polymerase III function to fill the gap. These functions all require precise regulation, and coordinated functional machine-like steps. These are all complex, advanced functions and had to be present right from the beginning. How could this complex machinery have emerged in a gradual manner ? the Primosome had to be fully functional, otherwise polymerisation could not have started, since a prime sequence is required. Step 6: Finally DNA ligase joins the ends of the DNA fragments together. Termination phase: Termination of DNA replication http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1849p15-dna-replication-of-prokaryotes#4399 Step 7: The two replication forks meet ~ 180 degree opposite to ori C, as DNA is circular in prokaryotes. Around this region there are several terminator sites which arrest the movement of forks by binding to the tus gene product, an inhibitor of helicase (Dna B). Step 8: Once replication is complete, the two double stranded circular DNA molecules (daughter strands) remain interlinked. Topoisomerase II makes double stranded cuts to unlink these molecules. According to mainstream scientific papers, the following twenty protein and protein complexes are essential for prokaryotic DNA replication. Each one mentioned below. They cannot be reduced. If one is missing, DNA replication cannot occur: Pre-replication complex Formation of the pre-RC is required for DNA replication to occur DnaA The crucial component in the initiation process is the DnaA protein DiaA this novel protein plays an important role in regulating the initiation of chromosomal replication via direct interactions with the DnaA initiator. DAM methylase It’s gene expression requires full methylation of GATC at its promoter region. DnaB helicase Helicases are essential enzymes for DNA replication, a fundamental process in all living organisms. DnaC Loading of the DnaB helicase is the key step in replication initiation. DnaC is essential for replication in vitro and in vivo. HU-proteins HU protein is required for proper synchrony of replication initiation SSB Single-stranded binding proteins Single-stranded DNA binding proteins are essential for the sequestration and processing of single-stranded DNA. 6 SSBs from the OB domain family play an essential role in the maintenance of genome stability, functioning in DNA replication, the repair of damaged DNA, the activation of cell cycle checkpoints, and in telomere maintenance. SSB proteins play an essential role in DNA metabolism by protecting single-stranded DNA and by mediating several important protein–protein interactions. 7 Hexameric DNA helicases DNA helicases are essential during DNA replication because they separate double-stranded DNA into single strands allowing each strand to be copied. DNA polymerase I and III DNA polymerase 3 is essential for the replication of the leading and the lagging strands whereas DNA polymerase 1 is essential for removing of the RNA primers from the fragments and replacing it with the required nucleotides. DnaG Primases They are essential for the initiation of such phenomena because DNA polymerases are incapable of de novo synthesis and can only elongate existing strands Topoisomerases are essential in the separation of entangled daughter strands during replication. This function is believed to be performed by topoisomerase II in eukaryotes and by topoisomerase IV in prokaryotes. Failure to separate these strands leads to cell death. Sliding clamp and clamp loader the clamp loader is a crucial aspect of the DNA replication machinery. Sliding clamps are DNA-tracking platforms that are essential for processive DNA replication in all living organisms Primase (DnaG) Primases are essential RNA polymerases required for the initiation of DNA replication, lagging strand synthesis and replication restart. They are essential for the initiation of such phenomena because DNA polymerases are incapable of de novo synthesis and can only elongate existing strands. RTP-Ter complex Ter sequences would not seem to be essential, but they may prevent overreplication by one fork in the event that the other is delayed or halted by an encounter with DNA damage or some other obstacle Ribonuclease H RNase H1 plays essential roles in generating and clearing RNAs that act as primers of DNA replication. Replication restart primosome Replication restart primosome is a complex dynamic system that is essential for bacterial survival. DNA repair: RecQ helicase In prokaryotes RecQ is necessary for plasmid recombination and DNA repair from UV-light, free radicals, and alkylating agents. RecJ nuclease the repair machinery must be designed to act on a variety of heterogeneous DNA break sites. I do not know of any scientific paper that explains in a detailed manner how DNA replication de novo or any of its parts might have emerged in a naturalistic manner, without involving intelligence. The systems responsible for DNA replication are well beyond the explanatory power of unguided natural processes without guiding intelligence involved. Indeed, machinery of the complexity and sophistication of that described above is, is in my view best explained through a intelligent designer. Precisely BECAUSE WE KNOW that each of the described and mentioned parts is indispensable, it had to arise all at once. We know of intelligence being able to project, plan and make such a motor-like system based on lots of information , and it could not have emerged through evolution ( even less so because evolution depends on dna replication being in place ) we can infer rationally design as the best explanation. Chance is no reasonable option to explain the origin of DNA replication since the individual parts would have no function by their own, and there is no reason why matter aleatory-like would group itself in such highly organized and complex machine-like system.
♫ Buy "100 Classical Pieces" on the Official Halidon Music Store: http://bit.ly/2SVYgMM🎧 Listen to "The Best of Classical Music" on Spotify: http://spoti.fi... SUBSCRIBE to our Google Earth flights channel - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6Uu... An aleatory contract is a contract in which the performance of one or both parties is contingent upon the... In some situations, you will be required to Inverse the data range like the transpose function which does the switching of columns and rows, there is no dire... Ambiguity - watch the video to know the pronunciation & definition / meaning of the word Click Here to SUBSCRIBE -- https://goo.gl/b4fiOA Troll / Like / Foll... A 3-minute tutorial that demonstrates how to generate a random sampling of records using Excel. Red Mist is one of the most popular lost cartoon episodes. In one of the newest Spongebob storylines, it became a REALITY!Welcome to Vailskibum94!Cartoon New... Philip Glass - Glassworks (complete) Website - https://thenewboston.com/GitHub - https://github.com/thenewboston-developersReddit - https://www.reddit.com/r/thenewboston/Twitter - https://twitte... Monday morning blues is spontaneously transformed into glorious public sing-a-long! Best i've ever seen. Full story behind this morning can be found here ht... Emma Saying aims to be the "talking dictionary" of YouTube. Here you will learn how to properly pronounce words in the English language. Each word you will hear in a video in this channel has been ...
