Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable


"topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1150090300.576392.167440@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For what purpose would he want to demonstrate that?

He can work his arse off to prove that frogs are green, but if nobody
cares, he has wasted time.


For months, you have claimed that the analytical methods genomic
researchers
use would not have detected an anomaly associated with a bitmap of the
Mona
Lisa embedded in a genome. The use of these analytical tools was
patiently
explained to you (notably by a computational biologist), but you
ignorantly
waved your hands.

You have not shown by quoting sources that back your world view. I
won't trust your flapping mouth by itself, I want to see researcher's
words, not yours. You have been rude to me, so why the hell should I
trust your word?


I have reminded you of them repeatedly. Here's one specialist who took a
great deal of time to try and educate you last year.

Lilith (Deanne Taylor): "Now, that said, just about EVERY sophisticated
pattern-searching algorithm out there has ALREADY been used against genomic
data ... -- everything, thus far, says 'evolution' in big flaming letters
with no room for any kind of special design. We
find no funky 'uber design' to the genome, just a mish-mash of elements that
are clearly jumbled together out of necessity."
http://tinyurl.com/l27ze




I have endeavored to give you the benefit of the doubt. That you really
believe you have a valid point, and are willing to exchange knowledge and
ideas. So, in an attempt to bring some specificity to your vague
assertions,
I stated this:


April 29, 2006
Zachriel: If there was a bit-map of the Mona Lisa within the human
genome, there is a very high probability it would have been
noticed
because it would stick out like a statistical sore thumb.

topmind: I am skeptical of that. Can you provide a demonstration?


Which I did. Now you ask why I did so.

Again, I am skeptical of your tests, but even IF you are right about
images being blunt obvious, you have not showed that researchers would
have bothered to see if such was an image.


We know that there are no such image in the genome examined. There is no
anomaly to 'bother' with.



And even IF they did and the past research has been thorough enough,
that does not pop the hypothesis anymore than SETI not having found
anything has popped SETI's testability.


Without a valid scientific hypothesis, there is no way to devise a valid
scientific research program.

Just as importantly, the genome has been examined in detail. Patterns have
been found, and been determined to be biological in origin. The movement of
planets have been examined in detail. Patterns have been found, and been
determined to be physical in origin. Your DNA-ID is as much a vanity as
astrology.




If you claim that past research is "thorough enough", then you are
admitting that it is TESTABLE. How can past research be "good enough"
if there is nothing to be good enough on?


You can claim there is a unicorn in the garage, and that no one has
conducted a thorough enough search, even though people have been in and out
of the garage all day, even though I made a special search at your own
request. Continuing your insistence doesn't lend your claims any additional
value.



So, even IF I did hand your small battle, you have not won the war. If
everything hinged on your mona experiments, I might bother to check
them myself. But, they don't.


In other words, as any objective reader can see. You aren't actually
interested in the evidence, don't care for understanding statistics, or the
mathematical nature of patterns.



If this conclusion is not logical, then shoot me now because otherwise
I am just plain delusional. It seems perfectly kosher to me.


We don't generally shoot the delusional. We just point them out. Try to
render aid when we can.




You, sir, are a troll.

You sir get too cought up in small things. You seem pissed that all
your effort didn't get you as far as you feel it should after all that
work.


I am disappointed that you would deny the purpose of the experiment when you
had requested it yourself. This shows a lack of honesty (or a complete
inability to connect thoughts together over time).


In art world, this is sometimes called, "falling in love with
your own work".


Hardly. As mentioned before, you had claimed that current genomic research
wouldn't have found a bitmap of the Mona Lisa. This conveyed an ignorance of
statistics, the mathematics of pattern, the scientific method, and the
nature of image. It only took a few minutes to devise the algorithm.

So, this is the situation we find ourselves in. Either scientists have used
statistical techniques at least as powerful as Finding Mona, or Zachriel has
one heck of a paper to submit to the Journal of Bioinformatics or the
Journal Nature. My guess is that, with a bit of luck, such a paper might
engender a few chuckles from the reviewers, rather than the scorn that a
claim of scientific originality would deserve. I mean, how many scientific
papers quote Dylan? "But Mona Lisa must have had the highway blues. You can
tell by the way she smiles."

So the best I hope for is chuckles not scorn. That's hardly "falling in love
with your own work".


I am sorry it happened, but you should have thought it
through before jumping into Mona Land.


I thoroughly enjoyed the Mona experience, especially the poetry. (That
doesn't excuse your trolling.)


--
Zachriel

I should like to creep
Through the long brown grasses
That are your lashes.

I should like to poise
On the very brink
Of the leaf-brown pools
That are your shadowed eyes.
http://www.zachriel.com/monalisa/








-T-





.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
    ... Mona Lisa in the genome examined. ... You were wrong about the statistical methods used by scientists. ... interested in the evidence, don't care for understanding statistics, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Finding Mona
    ... of the Mona Lisa is somewhere in a genome. ... And you claimed that modern scientific analysis of the genome would not have ... scientists using the crudest of tools. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Primes in DNA (was: Definition Challenge)
    ... so all life would be descendents of these spores ... using a computer to categorize the various patterns. ... Scientists have poured over the genomes with very ... it is only necessary to examine one genome. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Finding Mona
    ... of the Mona Lisa is somewhere in a genome. ... And you claimed that modern scientific analysis of the genome would not have ... scientists using the crudest of tools. ... Zachriel's Mona test is flawed, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Primes in DNA (was: Definition Challenge)
    ... Zachriel wrote: ... something, somewhere, somehow that modfied some genome in some undefined ... We can also "assume" that aliens put primes or logos in DNA, ... They don't have databases of Mona images that they use. ...
    (talk.origins)