Re: Developing a focused set of questions for IDists - Comments encouraged


"topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1145424594.506754.58680@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(I replied to this already, but for some reason the reply didn't take.
If the original shows up later, I apologize.)

Mark VandeWettering wrote:
On 2006-04-16, topmind <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Zachriel wrote:
<snip>



So yes, someone could look for patterns in the genome. And, in fact,
scientists have done just that. No discoveries of artificiality yet.
That
should end this portion of the discussion unless you propose a
methodology
that has not been tried before, or (gasp) actually look at the
evidence
yourself.

This came up before and nobody provided good evidence that a thorough
search had been done.


Sure they have.



You are the one proposing such a search, but are being very coy about how
to do it. Tell us, what would you consider to be a "thorough search"?
How
can we tell that we are done.

I gave plenty of examples already. Nobody has claimed it not possible.


Actually, there are virtually unlimited numbers of ways of encoding
information in a long sequence. Hence, it is not plausible to check every
possible combination. That's why encryption works. And that allows someone
like you to handwave for a virtual eternity. But then again, chicken
entrails may still provide us accurate predictions of the future. Prove me
wrong.

Meanwhile, in the real world, extensive analysis of DNA, statistical and
otherwise, reveals no sign of artifice in its makeup. In fact, there is
compelling evidence that DNA is the result of ad hoc modification through a
process known as biological evolution.

--
Zachriel
"Evolution is .... The Theory of Evolution explains ...."
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/evolution-defined.html



Until some do, I am under no obligation to prove such.


Sure you are. As there are virtually unlimited ways to sift data, it is up
to you to show that you understand why the currently available data strongly
indicates biological origins for the genomic sequences, to provide some
plausible way to detect design, and to try and avoid leaving the impression
that no amount of data will entice you to stop waving your hands.


Why bother to
prove a chair exists if nobody claims it doesn't? Curiousity is not
enough.


Why bother to prove that atoms exist if nobody claims they don't? Curiousity
*is* enough. That's what scientists do.




The vast majority of researchers are doing biological research, not
trying to do DNA SETI.

It's probably a good thing, given how unlikely the utility of such an
endeavor would prove to be.

That is one of the few things we agree on. However, how exploration
time/effort is spent is an economic question, not a scientific one.


Let's accept it as a scientific question. Extensive analysis of the genome
indicates it has a strictly biological origin (ad hoc evolutionary
modification over eons). There is no indication of artifice within naturally
occuring genomes, certainly not coded abstract information.

The data is easily available for your inspection. You can post right here
and now whatever test you wish. But understand, pointing to a painting in
the Louvre is not scientifically meaningful.




I challenged them to show how catalogs of tried algorithms that they
linked to would detect an image of Mona Lisa embedded in DNA. Nobody
answered (that I saw).


Sure they did.



What exactly is the appropriate answer for stupidity?


Why do you claim it "stupid"?


Well, I wouldn't say you were "stupid". I think that was meant as shorthand
your blind refusal to engage the evidence.


You are not making sense. Perhaps you
shouldn't try to reply when you are in a bad mood. You come across as a
Junior High kid when you are.

They implied their listed links of algorithms were good at finding
potential "intelligent" signals. Thus, I proposed a test (Mona Lisa),
and nobody seems to want back it.


Because pointing at a piece of 16th century artwork does not constitute a
meaningful scientific observation of the genome. However, if the Mona Lisa
was a bmp or windows media file encoded within the genome, it would have
been found by now. Maybe they should be looking for a Van Gogh jpg instead.


What else am I supposed to conclude?
They claim stuff about some tools,


"Stuff about some tools" refers to statistical analysis by some of the best
minds in computer science, mathematics and bioinformatics. That you are
incapable of understanding is irrelevant. Consider that Google searches
billions of webpages, identifies images and indexes them. Put the genome
into Google or Windows Media player and let us know what you come up with.


but back off of the claims when
given a specific test.


Pfft. The key word there is "specific". You did not provide a specific test.
That you appear unwilling to look at the data yourself is telling.



It appears they chickened out. If you have an alternative
interpretation for their (lack of) response, I am all ears (besides
"they got tired of debating an IDiot like you".)


Plus, microbes can cross-infect other organisms with DNA such that a
duck could get cow genes. Cross-infecting DNA is not outside of evo
and has been observed in simpler organisms, especially bacteria who
use it as an adaption technique on a large scale.

This would not explain rabbits in the pre-cambrian.

Under such circumstances, one could conclude that was the first mammal,
and genes from it later spread to other organisms through cross
contamination. Who knows; if rabbits were artificially introduced into
the precamb, that is exactly what might happen over time.


Except that's not what the evidence indicates. It indicates a phylogenetic
tree. Sure, metazoan life could have hybridized wildly. But it didn't. It
left evidence of a distinct nested hierarchy. That's the evidence. The rest
is just your fiction.




Thus, non-trees does not falsify evo because evo does not exclude
cross-species contamination of DNA.

In the case of living creatures, we can actually analyze DNA to determine
if that actually occurred.

That is a different topic. The question is what would falsify evo.


A substantial violation of the nested hierarchy would challenge current
understanding of the descent life on Earth.


Tree-jumping of genes is NOT a falsifier because of the potential of
cross-contamination of genes. (Sharing genes could also indicate a
creator barrowing "programming code" from another species.)

Nothing in evo rules out cross-species gene contamination,


Other than the evidence. Please grapple with the real world. There is a
faunal succession. If you refuse to look at the evidence, you will never
understand.

"From geology, the Principle of Superposition ... allows the relative
ordering by time of fossils found in the strata."
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/principle-of-superposition.html




and if it
gives critters an evolutionary edge, the critter's mechanisms might
evolve to welcome foreign visitors (which we know happens in simpler
organisms).

Again I ask, what observation would falsify evo?


Here's a new species, discovered in a predicted strata by scientists
who
spent years in an Arctic wasteland, Tiktaalik roseae.
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/060405_tiktaalikfrm.htm

Of course, it is hard to know exactly what you are asking to be
falsified. I
have provided a working definition several times, but will do so
again.

Evolution is the observed change in allele frequencies in populations
over
time. The Theory of Evolution explains the mechanisms of evolution,
including mutation, variation, natural selection, sexual selection,
genetic
drift, speciation, hybridization, contingency, common descent, etc.
The
primary areas of evidence are as follows:
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/evolution-defined.html

True-ifiable is off topic.

Since he didn't mention that, it is obvious that you are dragging the
subject
off topic.

No, YOU gave an example of true-ification. I did not prod you.


Every discovery in biology is a potential falsification. Every new fossil.
Every new species. Every new disease. Every new variation. Every new genome
decyphered. Every new observation. Everything.


--
Zachriel
"not just a mere similarity, but a family resemblance.?
http://www.zachriel.com/nested/





Regardless, let's seperate "negative" tests from "positive" test for
right now to keep things organized. That is, let's separate detractive
evidence from addative (boosting) evidence.

-T-




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Honest Creationists Argument wanted
    ... I would think that most scientists have no intention of being dishonest ... science. ... DNA strands. ... parts of the theory of evolution) that can be presented rather easily. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Honest Creationists Argument wanted
    ... "spark of life" which separates living from non-living things. ... It's only a blurred line to scientists who keep changing the ... alone supported your calculations in any way with evidence. ... how could the first DNA replication system come about if not by ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Just who is immoral in the evolution debate?
    ... > the evolution THEORY. ... aspects of reality and then tryto find evidence to support or refute ... The mechanism behind evolution is a theory with less support, ... for the most part scientists aren't like that. ...
    (soc.religion.christian)
  • Re: Question for Ray Martinez
    ... and had the evidence to back up his claims. ... scientist, or knowledgeable about science. ... This says as long as a person supports evolution they are doing good ... A belief held by scientists does not make that belief ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Real simple question on ID/aliens etc
    ... IDers have an honest opinion that life is too complex to have been ... Lack of evidence does not support the ID claim. ... for scientists where evidence is tangible, ... understand the distinction between evolution and abiogenesis. ...
    (talk.origins)